No. 1
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, January 25, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, January, 25, 1966
Speech from the Throne, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 3
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 9
Extending sympathy on the death of Mr. Leo Troy, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Thompson,
Mr. MacDonald 10
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 10
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, January 25, 1966, being the first day of the Fourth Session of the Twenty-
Seventh Parliament of the Province of Ontario for the despatch of business pursuant to a
proclamation of the Honourable W. Earl Rowe, Lieutenant-Governor of the province.
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor,
having entered the House and, being seated
upon the Throne, was pleased to open the
session with the following gracious speech.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Lieutenant-Governor):
Mr. Speaker and members of the legislative
assembly of Ontario.
On the opening of the Fourth Session of
the 27th Parliament of Ontario, to each of
you I express warm greetings and extend a
sincere welcome.
Your duties are manifold. To your con-
stituents you have obligations, and to all of
the people of Ontario you have responsibili-
ties, as you give earnest consideration to the
legislative programme, to the policies of re-
form in keeping with today's changing tempo
and to the financial and other implications of
the Rudget and the estimates of each depart-
ment, which will be presented during the
current session by my government.
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Legislation will be introduced to further
the federation of the municipalities in the
Toronto metropolitan area by bringing their
structure and functions into line with modern
practices and current needs.
Agriculture
Crop Insurance: There will be presented to
hou. members a comprehensive crop insur-
ance programme to meet the needs of Ontario
farmers and Ontario production conditions.
It will be predicated on an arrangement be-
ing effected with the government of Canada
for the amendment of federal crop insurance
legislation.
Northern Ontario: All agricultural pro-
grammes in the north will be co-ordinated.
For this purpose a senior bilingual adminis-
trator will be appointed with headquarters
at Sudbury.
Tuesday, January 25, 1966
Activities in northern Ontario will be ex-
panded. The necessary action will be taken
to ensure adequate veterinary services for
livestock and poultry owners. The New
Liskeard agricultural farm will provide addi-
tional programmes for the training of young
people and adults in the most recently de-
veloped techniques in agriculture suited to
northern climatic conditions.
Farm Labour: My government is deeply con-
cerned that Ontario farmers are faced with
a continued shortage of qualified agricultural
labour. The pilot programme initiated last
summer to deal with this problem will be
expanded.
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development
Act: Regional development officers will be
appointed to work with county agricultural
representatives and other local county ARDA
committees. The ARDA directorate staff will
be strengthened by the appointment of senior
officers experienced in rural economics and
living conditions.
The consolidation of abandoned or un-
economic farm units will be continued in
northern Ontario. The programme, where
applicable, will be extended to eastern
Ontario.
Changes in Agriculture: The farmer has
become involved in both the service and
marketing field, as a very substantial per-
centage of Ontario's agricultural products is
now disposed of through marketing boards.
In consequence of that trend, farmers are
taking an increasing interest in the broad
aspects of production and handling of food
products through to the eventual consumer.
The Department of Agriculture has fostered,
and will continue to promote, closer co-
operation between all such groups. In recog-
nition of the increasing importance of the
broad-based agricultural industry and food
production, legislation will be introduced to
provide that The Department of Agriculture
be continued under the name "Department of
Food and Agriculture".
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Administration of Justice, Law and Order
Legal Aid: A comprehensive plan for legal aid
in Ontario arising out of recommendations by
the joint committee of the Attorney General
and tlit- Law Society of Upper Canada, will
be brought before this House.
Corporate and Securities Legislation: Many
of the recommendations of the committee on
securities legislation will be placed before you
through amendments to The Securities Act
and The Corporations Act. These amend-
ments provide for fuller disclosure of the
financial and trading affairs of companies
seeking funds from the public, including the
control of insider trading, and takeover bids.
Such legislation will also reflect the con-
sideration which has been given to the report
of the commissioner appointed to investigate
trailing in the shares of Windfall Mines and
Oils Limited and other related matters.
The provisions of The Loan and Trust
Corporations Act also have been reviewed.
Legislative proposals will be placed before
you to provide more effective supervision in
this area of our jurisdiction and economy.
In every possible way and to the extent of
its jurisdictional powers, my government will
co-operate with the federal authorities in any
consultations which may be initiated for the
improvement of corporate and securities legis-
lation.
Consumer Credit: The report of the com-
mittee on consumer credit has provided the
basis for a programme which will be placed
before you for consideration.
Personal Property Security: The needs of the
business community will be recognized in a
proposed bill dealing with personal property
security which has been under consideration
for many months by legal and commercial
authorities. The importance of this detailed
new approach to securing credit transactions
will be a major step forward in facilitating
the progress of our commercial ventures.
Kstablisliment of New Ministry: The pro-
gramme's introduced by the government in
recent years have been prominent in the
administration of justice and law enforcement.
These developing services, however, have
placed an ever-increasing burden upon the
chief law officer of the Crown. In order that
still greater consideration may be given by
the government to these responsibilities, you
will be asked to consider recommendations
for the establishment of a new ministry to
assume responsibility for certain areas out-
side of the administration of justice relating
to the protection of the individual in financial
and commercial affairs.
Productivity and Growth of the Economy
Regional Development and Growth: My gov-
ernment will put forward proposals and in-
troduce legislation which will substantially
expand the techniques and processes of deal-
ing with present regional needs and planning
for future regional growth.
Economic Development: To assist in the full
economic development of all parts of the
province of Ontario, the Ontario development
corporation will be established by legislation.
The objectives of this corporation will be to
extend financial aid presently available under
The Economic Development Loans Guarantee
Act to provide capital financing to small
businesses in those areas of the province
where mortgage or other capital funds are not
readily available on reasonable terms and
conditions.
Immigration Programme: To meet the need
for industrial workers and other labour
required by employers, an accelerated immi-
gration programme will be promoted to
attract new citizens with skills.
Housing Programme: Through the Ontario
housing corporation, my government has
established a long-term programme to provide
decent accommodation for the citizens of
Ontario who cannot obtain the same within
their means on the private market. Great
strides have been made since the inception
of this scheme and it will continue to be
vigorously pursued.
Education
Educational requirements continue to have
first priority upon the resources of the prov-
ince.
In the elementary and secondary schools
of Ontario, after some 20 years of phenomenal
expansion of the school system, approximately
1.75 million pupils are now enrolled. During
that time the general population of the prov-
ince increased by about 61 per cent, the
elementary school enrolment by 137 per cent,
the secondary by 218 per cent. The con-
struction of new classrooms has kept pace
with the increase, and the necessary supply
of elementary and secondary school teachers
continues to be recruited.
Revision of School Programmes: At the
present time, attention is being given to re-
vision of school programmes. Under the
distinguished chairmanship of Justice Emmett
Hall, a largely lay committee was appointed
last April to report upon the aims and objec-
tives in the schools of Ontario, both in general
and with specific reference to the revision of
courses from kindergarten to grade 6. In this
JANUARY 25, 1966
new approach to meeting curricular problems
the committee is moving with energy and
competence.
Special Language Classes: Ontario continues
to receive the largest portion of the immi-
grants to Canada, and they are making a great
contribution to the economic and social devel-
opment of our province. To assist in the
removal of any language barrier that the
children of recent arrivals entering the schools
might have, and to ensure that their talents
are utilized to the maximum, certain financial
assistance will be provided to school boards
establishing special language classes.
Opportunities for Indian Children: Improved
educational opportunities for Indian children
and youth have become a joint concern of
both the federal and provincial governments.
At Moosonee the construction of an education
and community centre to be used co-oper-
atively by pupils of the public and separate
schools, and by adults of the community, will
effect a new partnership involving the Indian
people and the federal and provincial govern-
ments. The centre will provide educational
services for the Indian and non-Indian popu-
lation of the area. It will also include facili-
ties for occupational training, pre-school
classes, adult programmes, and recreation.
Larger Units to Promote Needs of Commu-
nity: Plans for the decentralization of educa-
tion into areas throughout the province will
proceed. Five areas were established last year,
covering half of the province, and plans are
under way for the completion of the project.
County consultative committees have been at
work during the past year and the results of
their work may be seen in the establishment
of larger units of administration. The move-
ment to larger units able to plan for the edu-
cational needs of the whole community will
be encouraged in order that the goal of equal
educational opportunity for all may be more
nearly realized.
Post- Secondary Programmes: The plan to
provide new programmes in post-secondary
education through the establishment of col-
leges of applied arts and technology has
stirred wide interest across the province. The
preparatory work has been done, the Council
of Regents has been appointed. Substantial
sums of money will be required to be voted
in this House to implement this programme.
Important Studies: Under the direction of the
Ontario library association, in co-operation
with The Department of Education, a survey
of library services in Ontario is nearing com-
pletion. Another important study now being
made is that of a committee dealing with
short-term and long-term planning with re-
spect to the education of elementary school
teachers. On the receipt of the reports on
both studies, the necessary action will be
taken.
University Affairs
Expansion of university facilities has con-
tinued at a rapid rate. It is noteworthy that
all students who met the minimum admission
requirements were enrolled in September,
1965. My government will continue its sub-
stantial support to our universities to enable
them to provide for the increase of approxi-
mately 10,000 students each year through to
1970-71 when the total enrolment is expected
to reach 100,000. In this connection my gov-
ernment welcomes the interim measure on the
part of the federal government to increase
support to higher education, and reaffirms its
desire and willingness to discuss with federal
authorities financial support for higher educa-
tion.
Energy and Resources Management
Ontario Energy Board: To clarify and
strengthen the authority of the board in re-
spect of the fixing of rates to be charged for
natural gas, hon. members will be asked to
approve an amendment to The Ontario
Energy Board Act to require the board's
approval of any sale or merger of gas utility
systems.
Inventory of Northern Waters: The inventory
of northern Ontario waters that drain into
Hudson Bay, initiated during 1965, will be
actively undertaken this summer. The five
river basins currently included in this pro-
gramme are the Winisk, the Attawapiskat, the
Albany, the Severn and the Moose. The aim
of the project is to gather water resources
data of value in assessing the current water
needs in the area and the future water needs
of Ontario. This long-term programme of
investigation is being carried on in co-opera-
tion with The Department of Northern Affairs
and National Resources of the government
of Canada.
Expansion of Water Pollution Control
Studies: The Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission, in co-operation with the international
joint commission, is conducting extensive
pollution monitoring studies in the Great
Lakes system. A preliminary start was made
on this programme during the latter part of
1965 in the western end of Lake Erie. The
importance of this work has justified its ex-
tension to cover the whole of Lake Erie, Lake
Ontario, the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers,
sections of Lake Huron and the connecting
channels.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Industrial Waste Pollution Control: The
commission will expand its activities in 1966
in the field of industrial waste pollution
control.
Provincial Projects: Amendments to The
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act
will be proposed to provide that the approval
of the commission be required prior to the
establishment of sanitary landfill and refuse
disposal sites. Other revisions will encompass
the new financing polity for the construction
of water and sewage facilities authorizing the
commission to provide the necessary works
for municipalities. The cost of services so
provided is to be recovered from water and
sewage rates.
Energy Legislation: There will be a revision
of The Gasoline Handling Act.
Health
The increasing involvement of the govern-
ment in the varied field of health services has
resulted in a complete reorganization of The
Department of Health. Entering into this
planning is the development of administrative
patterns which are concerned with co-ordina-
tion, co-operation, long-range planning, and
priorities and phasing.
Ontario Council of Health: It is proposed
to establish a senior advisory body on health
matters. It will be known as the Ontario
Council of Health and will undertake con-
tinuing studies, research and planning.
Air Pollution Control: The programme of
air pollution control will be expanded by
bringing under regulation existing sources of
pollution.
Nursing Homes Legislation: Legislation will
provide for government approval, licensing,
and control of all nursing homes in Ontario
to achieve uniformity in standards and safety.
Radiation Protection: You will be asked to
approve legislation to establish radiation pro-
tection services to be administered by The
Department of Health.
The Healing Arts: If is t|u< purpose of my
government to establish a committee to in-
quire into all matters pertaining to the prep-
aration, education, training, licensing, control,
and disciplining of all those involved in the
practice of the healing arts.
Medical Services Insurance Act: The Medical
Services Insurance Act will be expanded.
Boards of Review: My government will pro-
pose the establishment of boards of review,
empowered to consider and rule on applica-
tions for release made by, or on behalf of,
patients in mental hospitals.
Highways
Ontario's Road Requirements: The pro-
gramme of The Department of Highways in
1966 will be geared to anticipate and to meet
rapidly-developing changes in the road re-
quirements of the province. The depart-
ment's scheduling of work will continue to
ensure the maximum improvement in the
level of service rendered by Ontario's road
network, in which the King's Highway mile-
age and municipal roads and streets comple-
ment each other.
The Counties: With the co-operation of
the counties, the road needs studies of these
jurisdictions are now completed. This will
enable the department to achieve a more
equitable distribution of direct aid through
a broadened development road programme,
and to provide for more effective integration
of all road systems of the province.
St. Glair Parkway: An important piece of
legislation arises out of the work of a com-
mittee, established over a year ago, com-
posed of officials of Lambton county, the city
of Sarnia, the town of Wallaceburg and
others interested in preserving the scenic
beauty and developing the recreational re-
sources bordering the St. Clair river. You
will be asked to approve an Act to establish
the St. Clair parkway commission.
Labour
In the past three years virtually all legis-
lation administered by The Department of
Labour in the areas of training, safety, labour
standards and labour relations has been
thoroughly reviewed to bring it into line
with present-day requirements.
Legislation: There will be laid before hon.
members, however, several important new
enactments.
Proposals will be made concerning certain
provisions of The Hours of Work and Vaca-
tions with Pay Act to bring them into line
with modern community standards.
The Older Worker: The House will be
asked to approve a special programme, to be
administered by the Ontario Human Rights
Commission, designed to remove barriers
and enlarge opportunities for persons in the
older-worker category.
On-the-job Training Programme: Hon. mem-
bers, you will be asked to approve the
JANUARY 25, 1966
expansion of the on-the-job training pro-
gramme launched by The Department of
Labour in co-operation with industry, labour,
and agencies of government. Acceptance of
the programme has been outstanding and it
has demonstrated the highest degree of
effectiveness, with several thousand persons
being trained in trades or occupations on the
job.
Lands and Forests
Forest Regeneration: Under The Crown Tim-
ber Act, the Minister of Lands and Forests
may enter into an agreement with a licensee
for the protection and maintenance of the
productivity of the licensed area. Redoubled
efforts have been made to reach agreement
with all the major licence-holders in the prov-
ince whereby forest regeneration will take
place at such a rate as to assure continuous
yields. As a consequence of discussions and
meetings recently held with the larger licence-
holders, formal agreements with them are in
process of being executed.
Tree planting on a major scale will this
year be supplemented in several districts by
tubed seedling programmes. This should
result in a very substantial increase in the
number of trees planted. By other recognized
methods of regeneration, including aerial
seeding, still greater progress in forest regen-
eration will occur in 1966.
A new Act will be introduced respecting
private forestry. It will provide for govern-
ment assistance in regeneration and stand
improvement of private lands through agree-
ment with the owners of the lands.
Northern Indians in the Forest Protection
Service: The policy of The Department of
Lands and Forests for training our northern
Indian citizens in forest protection and man-
agement is expanding rapidly, and in 1966
will be continued particularly in the further
development of standby fire crews. A force
of 300 Indians was maintained during the
1965 season. In the past three years 890
Indians have completed a 10-day training pro-
gramme to qualify as "certified fire-fighters".
Approximately 1,000 Indians were employed
in tree-planting last year.
Junior Rangers — Bilingual Experiment: Last
summer, at a camp at Racine . Lake in the
Chapleau district, the department designated
as junior rangers 12 English-speaking youths
from Ontario with some knowledge of French,
and 12 French-speaking youths from several
points in Quebec province with similar knowl-
edge of English. This first bilingual experi-
ment in the ranger programme was so
successful that it will be extended.
Legislation: Amendments will be proposed to
The Public Lands Act, The Crown Timber
Act, The Game and Fish Act, The Provincial
Land Tax Act, and The Provincial Parks Act.
Proposals will be laid before the House to
amend The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay
Railway Company Act.
Progress in Mining
The value of Ontario's mineral production
in 1965 exceeded that of any previous year
as new mines came into production. The
interest in prospecting and exploration activity
continued at a high level, stimulated by the
programme of geological surveys and geo-
logical reports through which information was
provided, by The Department of Mines, on
the geological structure and mineral-bearing
potential of the province.
An area of some 20,000 square miles in
northeastern Ontario, containing few rock
exposures and difficult of access, appears to
have considerable merit because of proximity
to an important mining area. This will be
one of the many areas to be examined geo-
logically this year.
Municipal Affairs
Legislation affecting municipal administra-
tion will be introduced to amend The Muni-
cipal Act, The Assessment Act, and certain
other Acts, having regard to the important
recommendations of The Select Committee on
The Municipal Act and Other Related Acts.
You will also be asked to approve a bill
introducing a new concept in municipal gov-
ernment. This legislation will establish a
development board as a municipal corporation
to provide services in Moosonee and other
northern areas so that the needs of these com-
munities may be met.
Citizenship Programme
The citizenship division of The Department
of the Provincial Secretary and Citizenship
will continue its programme for the successful
integration of immigrants into the life of On-
tario. Field staff will be provided for the
area outside of Metropolitan Toronto. You
will be asked to approve the extension of the
highly successful and expanding summer
school programme, embracing language and
citizenship training for adult newcomers, and
the training of persons to teach a second
language.
Public Welfare
Bed Construction Grants for Charitable In-
stitutions: The Charitable Institutions Act will
be amended to authorize The Department of
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Public Welfare to share capital costs on the
basis of $5,000 per bed, in place (if the pres-
ent grant of $2,500 per bed.
Broader Welfare Services: You will lie asked
to approve the enactment of a comprehensive
Welfare Act. This legislation will consolidate
and extend the present benefits of old age
assistance, disabled persons', and blind per-
sons' allowances, on which main' of the
present restrictions will be eliminated.
Financial Support for Rest Home Construc-
tion: An amendment to The Homes for the
Aged Act will be submitted giving authority
to the municipalities of Ontario to construct
rest homes and to receive financial support
from the provincial government. The rest
homes will serve adult persons of any age
who require long-term care and a measure of
nursing services.
Programme Concerning Older Citizens: You
will be asked to approve the establishment
of a new branch of The Department of Public
Welfare, to be known as the Office on Aging.
This branch will concern itself with the
general social conditions, and treatment, of
our older citizens.
Reform Institutions
Progressive Measures: The Department of
Reform Institutions will continue its progress
in the reorganization of correctional services,
and hon. members of the Legislature will be
asked to support the establishment, develop-
ment and maintenance of a number of varied
programmes and institutions.
Further emphasis will be placed upon the
continuance of the policy of reducing the
size of larger institutions, and of diversifying
programmes in all localities of the province
Training centres will be established in associ-
ation with all reform institutions. Forestry
camp activities will be enlarged.
A trades and industries advisory committee
will be established to evaluate the existing
vocational training, and industrial and farm
production in reform institutions. The prin-
cipal purpose- is to up-date these areas of the
rehabilitation programmes to brinq them in
line with present-day methods and needs in
industry and the labour market.
A new 60-hed dormitory for the treatment
of offenders with alcoholism and drug addic-
tion problems will be constructed. An exten-
sion and consolidation will be- made of the in-
patient forensic- clinic for the treatment of
sex deviates, which was opened in 1005.
A new staff school will be constructed for
the more effective, use of available profes-
sional and clinical personnel in the training
and orientation of the staffs of The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions and the new
regional detention centres.
To keep pace with the changing pattern of
institutions and to enable men with indeter-
minate sentences to take advantage of train-
ing programmes in institutions in their own
locality, the parole and rehabilitation service
will be extended. Hon. members will be asked
to approve amendments to The Parole Act.
Additional agreements will be signed to
establish regional detention centres to replace
local jails in many areas of the province.
Construction of the new rehabilitation
centre for women will commence this year.
Tourism
There will be an expanded programme to
increase and encourage tourism in our prov-
ince. Your approval of such programme, and
the appropriation therefor of additional ex-
penditures, will be sought.
The consolidation of The Tourist Establish-
ment Act and The Tourism and Information
Act will be proposed. Such legislation will
include provision for the licensing of
privately-operated information centres and a
system of rate filing for tourist establish-
ments.
Centennial Centre of Science and Tech-
nology: Work will continue on the construc-
tion of The Ontario Centennial Centre of
Science and Technology. Present plans are
to have the first two of five phases completed
in 1967 for Centennial Year celebrations.
It is anticipated that, by 1970, over 1.5
million people will visit the centre each year.
Particular attention is being paid to the
educational aspects of the centre. It is ex-
pected that approximately 3,000 school
children per clay will visit the centre by
1975.
Transportation In Ontario
Need for Improved Driving Habits: The
motor xchicle population explosion in Ontario
in the last 20 years has quadrupled the
number of automobiles, in use on the high-
ways, to a total of 2.5 million. During the
same period the number of licensed drivers
has increased to almost three million who
drove more than 22 billion miles in 1965.
As a consequence of this explosive growth
in road transportation, there has been a
corresponding increase in traffic accidents.
The Department of Transport has developed
a vigorous programme aimed at persuading
the motorist to improve his driving habits
and attitudes.
JANUARY 25, 1966
Important new measures in the interest of
safety will be introduced in the coming year.
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Inspection: Com-
pulsory motor vehicle inspection, introduced
last spring, will operate at 80 locations this
year, fully utilizing the department's enlarged
fleet of mobile safety check units.
High School Driver Instruction: The rapidly
growing interest in driver instruction in the
high schools is indicated with the course
being now provided in almost 150 schools.
The driver-training programme is endorsed
by the Departments of Education and Trans-
port.
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Trans-
portation Study: The report on the examina-
tion of the transportation problems of our
provincial capital and its environs, being
conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto and
region transportation study, is scheduled for
completion this year. The first concrete prod-
uct of the study was a recommendation that
a lakeshore rail service for commuters be
introduced on a trial basis. This was
approved and is now being implemented with
starting date planned for early in 1967.
Manpower Resources
In recent years there have developed in
Ontario many practical forms of educational
training to improve the skill of our workers.
Continuing study has been given to aspects
of the problems of training and retraining to
meet the demands for skilled manpower.
It is my government's intention to provide
a formal means of co-ordinating the develop-
ment of manpower resources in all depart-
ments of government, particularly the
Departments of Education, Labour, Eco-
nomics and Development, and Agriculture.
Through this co-ordinated effort, and in
collaboration with other government agen-
cies, active progress will be made during
the ensuing year to initiate new programmes
relating to manpower development.
Redistribution
Legislation respecting electoral boundaries
of the legislative assembly will be laid be-
fore hon. members following receipt of the
final report of the redistribution commission.
Cultural Exchanges
My government intends to join in dis-
cussions with the government of Quebec for
arrangements respecting cultural exchanges.
Visits of a cultural nature with personal con-
tact should lead to deeper mutual under-
standing.
The many streams of culture in our
country have lent a special character to our
national life. All Canadians have become
much more conscious than formerly of the
richness of this unique quality of our society.
It is desirable that a greater degree of
awareness be brought about amongst the
people of all provinces in the realm of their
cultural achievements and traditions, and
thus enhance a spirit of national unity and
goodwill.
Other Legislation
During the session, further legislative
measures and proposals will be placed before
you for your consideration and approval.
May Divine Providence guide you in your
deliberations.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was then pleased to retire from the chamber.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that to prevent mistakes, I have obtained a
copy of His Honour's speech, which I will
now read.
(Reading dispensed with)
THE CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF
PROPERTY ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Conveyancing and Law of
Property Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to correct
certain typographical errors which appear in
the bill that now is on the statute books.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), that the
speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor to this House be taken into con-
sideration tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there is
no further business for this day-
Mr. Speaker: Pardon me, Mr. Prime Min-
ister, at this time I beg to inform the House
of a vacancy that has occurred in the mem-
bership of the House by reason of the death
of Mr. Leo Troy, member for Nipissing.
10
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in regard
to your remark I would like to say that Mr.
Troy was a very great friend or all hon.
members of this House, on both sides, and
was well known to me personally for a good
many years. We would extend our sympathy
to his family and simply say how much we
will miss him.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader oi the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to
join with the hon. Prime Minister in speaking
of the late Leo Troy. I believe that the
Ontario Legislature and, indeed, the public
of Ontario have lost a devoted and valuable
publie servant. I think all of us, not only
on this side of the House but throughout
the House, had a very real respect for this
unusual man. He was a man with a warmth
towards humanity, with a tolerance towards
people and with a firm dedication to public
service. And I also would like to extend
heartfelt sympathy to his wife and to his
family at this time of deepest sorrow.
1'erhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could move to
mention a happier situation in that I am
sure it is apparent to everyone in the House
that there is a remarkable man here, the
Dean of this Legislature, and this year will
be his fortieth year in the Legislature. This
to me is remarkable because I was aged one
when he came into the Legislature. But in
ease anyone on the other side should think
that because of his venerable time in the
House he lias lost any of the insight and the
youthfulness that he first brought to the
House I can assure them that that is not
the case.
He sits on my left and he has an instinct
for any Machiavellian approach either by my
colleagues on the left here or by the govern-
ment. He is a very trusted and worthy
adviser with a deep wisdom, and 1 think
principally the hon. member for Crey South
(Mr. Oliver) is a man who has stood for the
aspirations and hopes of the- people of this
province and on all sides of the House I
know th.it we would wish to congratulate him
on his 10th anniversary.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition in
this House-, that on the opening day there
should be a spirit of warmth and cordiality.
For my part I would like to also bring to
the attention of the House that it is Robbie
Burns' birthday. I am glad that the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) has come
back again. I notice he was tending two
pages. I should say that Robbie Burns has
demonstrated in poetry the dignity, the soul
and the welfare of the common man and,
despite which party we belong to, I think
that in our legislation these are the objectives
that we have for the people of Ontario.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there is little more that I could add
in paying tribute to the late Leo Troy, than
the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. leader
of the Opposition have said. He was, in a
very true sense, a gentleman; a man, but a
gentle man, and I do not know that I have
ever met a person in whom the milk of human
kindness flowed in such generous proportions,
as in Leo Troy. We miss everyone who
departs from this House. None will be missed
more than he.
I would also like to join with the hon.
leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to
the Dean of the House. I hope it is not
indicative of the Opposition leader's problem
that he has to reach back that distance to
bolster his position today, but he has got Grey
South with him at the present time.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I noted with
satisfaction— with even a touch of Scottish
arrogance— that the Irish have joined us today
in paying tribute to Robbie Burns.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Certainly, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to associate myself in offering
congratulations to the hon. member for Grey
South. He has been a personal friend of
mine, as well as a doughty opponent across
this space for many years, and I hope he will
remain right in his present seat for many
years to come.
In that regard, it is pure coincidence, but
nonetheless interesting, to note that 61 years
ago today, on January 25, 1905, there was a
general election which brought to an end the
rule of Liberal government. Now some people
say we have been here too long, Mr. Speaker,
but that Liberal government was elected first
in 1872 and was defeated in 1905, so even to
beat that Liberal record, we have some time
to go.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3.55 o'clock, p.m.
No. 2
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, January 26, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 26, 1966
Introducing Mr. George Ben and Mr. Richard Stanley Smith, Mr. Robarts 13
Reading and receiving petitions 14
Motion for provision for printing reports, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 15
Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. White, agreed to 15
Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company Act, 1941, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts,
first reading 26
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 26
Railway Fire Charge Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 26
Provincial Land Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 26
Statement re agreement between Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd. and Algoma Steel Corpora-
tion, Mr. Wardrope 37
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 38
13
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, January 26, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that he
had received during the recess notification of
a vacancy which had occurred in the mem-
bership of the House by reason of the death
of Joseph M. Gould, member for the electoral
district of Bracondale.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
Clerk had received from the chief election
officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate
of a by-election held since the last session of
the House:
Electoral district of Bracondale: George
Ben.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that in view of a writ of elec-
tion dated the 5th day of August, 1965, issued by the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province
of Ontario and addressed to Mrs. E. L. Antler, re-
turning officer for the electoral district of Bracondale,
for the election of a member to represent the said
electoral district of Bracondale in the legislative
assembly of this province, in the room of Joseph M.
Gould, Esq., who since his election as representative
of the said electoral district of Bracondale, hath
departed this life, George Ben, Esq., has been re-
turned as duly elected as appears by the return of
the said writ of election, dated the 24th day of
September, 1965, which is now lodged of record in
my office.
(Signed)
Roderick Lewis
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, January 26, 1966.
George Ben, Esquire, member-elect for the
electoral district of Bracondale, having taken
the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his
seat.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the
Clerk had received from the chief election
officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate
of a by-election held since the last session of
the House:
Electoral district of Nipissing: Richard
Stanley Smith.
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
This is to certify that in view of a writ of elec-
tion dated the 5th day of August, 1965, issued by the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province
of Ontario and addressed to James I. Martin, Esq.,
returning officer for the electoral district of Nipissing,
for the election of a member to represent the said
electoral district of Nipissing in the legislative assem-
bly of this province, in the room of Leo Troy, Esq.,
who since his election as representative of the said
electoral district of Nipissing, hath departed this
life, Richard Stanley Smith, Esq., has been returned
as duly elected as appears by the return of the said
writ of election, dated the 24th day of September,
1965, which is now lodged of record in my office.
(Signed)
Roderick Lewis
Chief Election Officer
Toronto, January 26, 1966.
Richard Stanley Smith, Esquire, member-
elect for the electoral district of Nipissing,
having taken the oaths and subscribed the
roll, took his seat.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
of extending a very warm welcome to these
two new hon. members and to wish them
well in their life in this Legislature. We did
our level best to keep them out of this Legis-
lature, but not having succeeded, we wel-
come them with a warm, friendly welcome.
We will expect that they will take full part
in the affairs of this Legislature and I would
wish for them a fulfilling and a happy life,
as far as that is possible in a forum such as
this.
Welcome to our Legislature.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur
with the hon. Prime Minister's remarks. I
appreciate very much that he has expressed
these warm sentiments, despite the fact that
they are sitting on this side of the House. I
know that all hon. members here get a deep
satisfaction from the obligations and the
responsibility which they have to assume
and I am sure that these two hon. members
will fulfil that responsibility and obligation
as the rest of us do.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Well,
Mr. Speaker, my position is somewhat similar
to that of the hon. Prime Minister. We did
our level best to keep them out and we failed
too.
However, someone has once described a
parliament or a legislature as a sort of select
club. We are all members of that club who
meet as individuals and we have, I know,
warm relationships as individuals. I do not
think that should be altered, even though we
may engage rather quickly in the cut and
thrust of debate which is part of democracy.
14
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I join in the welcome to them and I hope
their stay in the House— I will not say that I
hope it is a long one, but while they are here
I hope they find it very enjoyable.
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the Kenora Rink Company praying that
an Act may pass dissolving the company and
transferring its assets to the corporation of the
town of Kenora.
Of the Toronto Aged Men's and Women's
Hoiiies praying that an Act may pass enabling
it to hold real property at 43-55 Belmont
Street and 102 Davenport Road in the city of
Toronto; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Toronto praying that an Act may pass to
enable it to issue and sell sinking fund deben-
tures and to make provision for the manage-
ment of the sinking fund.
Of the Tilbury Public School Board pray-
ing that an Act may pass enabling it to estab-
lish and vest certain property denied to it in
the "William J. Miller Trust".
Of the Strathroy Middlesex General Hos-
pital praying that an Act may pass to change
the name of the Strathroy General Hospital to
the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital.
Of the corporation of the city of Port
Arthur praying that an Act may pass dissolv-
ing the board of park management and
establishing a board to be known as the
Parks, Recreation and Community Centres
Board of the city of Port Arthur.
Of the board of trustees of the continua-
tion school of the township of Pelee praying
that an Act may pass permitting it to pay a
certain sum per day to the parent or guardian
of each pupil of grades 11, 12 and 13 attend-
ing a secondary school outside the township
of Pelee in lieu of providing daily transporta-
tion to and from such school.
Of the corporation of the city of Brantford
praying that an Act may pass to incorporate
the Brantford and district civic centre com-
mission.
Of Huntington University praying that an
Act may pass to permit the board of regents
to increase its membership.
Of the corporation of the township of
Michipicoten praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a fixed assessment for the Wawa
curling club.
Of the board of education for the city of
Guelph and the public school board of the
township school area of the township of
Guelph praying that an Act may pass to estab-
lish the Guelph district board of education.
Of the corporation of the township of
Pickering praying that an Act may pass to
enable it to establish an area for the supply
of power for the use of the inhabitants
thereof.
Of LTnstitut Canadien-Francais praying
that an Act may pass to increase its powers
to hold property and its honouring privileges.
Of the Canadian National Exhibition Asso-
ciation praying that an Act may pass enabling
it to change its membership; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of Char-
lotteville praying that an Act may pass con-
firming a by-law to issue debentures for school
renovation and equipment.
Of the corporation of the town of Waterloo
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it to
lease or license certain portions of untravelled
highways for parking purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass to authorize the
corporation to refund certain business and
property taxes; and for other purposes.
Of the board of education of the city of
London praying that an Act may pass vesting
certain lands in the board in fee simple; and
for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Thorold
praying that an Act may pass to relieve the
corporation from any further obligation im-
posed on it by the plan of refunding of the
corporation's debenture debt; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Gana-
noque and the corporation of the united coun-
ties of Leeds and Grenville praying that an
Act may pass to enlarge the Gananoque high
school district.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass to increase the
membership of the Hamilton transit com-
mission; and for other purposes.
Of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it to
apply to the Parliament of Canada for a spe-
cial Act continuing the company as if it had
been incorporated by special Act of the Par-
liament of Canada.
Of the corporation of the city of Kitchener
praying that an Act may pass permitting
certain by-laws compelling completion of pro-
posed apartment buildings; and for other
purposes.
JANUARY 26, 1966
15
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
to enter into certain agreements for the pur-
pose of maintaining and operating a com-
munity television system; and for other
purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves, seconded by hon.
J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer), that during
the present session of the legislative assembly
provision be made for the taking and printing
of reports of debates and speeches, and to
that end that Mr. Speaker be authorized to
employ an editor of debates and speeches and
the necessary stenographers at such rates of
compensation as may be agreed to by him.
Also that Mr. Speaker be authorized to
arrange for the printing of the reports in the
amount of 1,800 copies daily, copies of such
printed reports to be supplied to the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor, to Mr. Speaker,
to the Clerk of the legislative assembly, to
the legislative library, to each hon. member
of the assembly, to the reference libraries of
the province, to the press gallery, to the news-
papers of the province approved by Mr.
Speaker, and the balance to be distributed
by the Clerk of the assembly as directed by
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walker ville):
Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion to the
hon. Prime Minister that he have the size of
Hansard cut down one-quarter of an inch at
the top and bottom so that it would fit in a
normal envelope instead of using the larger
manila type of envelope? It would not detract
from Hansard; it would still leave the printing
as is, but it would be a convenience possibly
to your office and likewise to hon. members
on this side of the House when it comes to
sending out copies of Hansard.
May I also ask that he include at least
post-secondary schools in those that should
be receiving copies of Hansard, as well as
radio and television stations?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will take both points
into consideration.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Might I ask
the hon. Prime Minister if anything • can be
done in speeding up the process of delivery
of Hansard to the hon. members? Once the
session gets a month or so old, the Hansards
become quite old, too. We do not get them
for sometimes pretty nearly a week after the
debate has taken place. Is there a question
of money involved, or what is the problem
here? Why can it not be speeded up?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Daily editions get larger.
Mr. Oliver: It may get larger but in Ottawa
I think they get their copy of Hansard the
next day. And here, I remember last session,
it was almost a week behind. If anything can
be done to speed it up, I think it should be.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would be very happy
to go into it. We are all in the same position
of wanting Hansard as quickly as possible. I
was not really aware that it was a week
behind. We have installed tape recorders
and we have lots of people working on it. I
do not see any reason why there should be
that amount of delay, and I will check into
it and see if we cannot speed it up.
Mr. Oliver: They were at least a week
behind last year; I know that.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves,
seconded by Mr. R. J. Harris (Beaches), that
the standing committees of the House for the
present session be appointed for the following
purposes: 1. On agriculture; 2. On education,
and university affairs; 3. On government com-
missions; 4. On health and welfare; 5. On
highways and tourism; 6. On legal bills and
labour; 7. On municipal affairs; 8. On natural
resources, wildlife and mining; 9. On private
bills; 10. On privileges and elections; 11. On
public accounts; 12. On standing orders and
printing; which said committees shall severally
be empowered to examine and inquire into
all such matters and things as may be referred
to them by the House, and to report from
time to time their observations and opinions
thereon with the power to send for persons,
papers and records.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter
of setting up standing committees; last year I
spoke and I want to speak again at this time.
I can appreciate that the hon. member for
London South has been trying to bring an
order and an arrangement into the commit-
tees, but I still think that some of the
committees which should be considered to be
formed are not formed— I, in the last session,
had raised the question that I hoped that
someone from the University of Toronto, or
some other university, would have a look at
the whole rules of procedures and committee
work. And I was very grateful that a Professor
Fred Schindeler has done a study on that.
I could go into that at length, but I want to
talk particularly about the committees.
My own feeling is that there should be
18
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a scrutiny committee, and I have raised this
before. The hon. member for Woodbine (Mr.
Bryden), when it was raised last year, also
suggested that there is a need for a scrutiny
committee, and to look at what is done in
Manitoba.
I cannot help thinking as we look at the
background of regulations and orders-in-
council and the independence of boards, that
more and more we want to have the delegated
power returned to this Legislature. For that
reason, a scrutiny committee should be set
up, not perhaps as in Britain— I agree with
what the hon. member for Woodbine has
said— but certainly we should have a look at
the situation in Manitoba.
I am concerned that this Legislature is
really a facade of democratic rule and that we
arc handing over far too much to boards and
commissions. The only way we can assess
that, is if we have a scrutiny committee that
is examining the regulations and orders-in-
council. I say the only way— at least it is
one way to do it.
I am concerned, sir, that in the estimates
there should be a closer look at some depart-
ments and I think there should be considera-
tion of an estimates committee. Now I know
that the last time we discussed this, the hon.
Prime Minister pointed out that in the com-
mittee of supply, we had the opportunity
to discuss the estimates in great detail, and
he hoped that I was not suggesting that we
move away from having that examination on
the floor of the House in having a committee.
I agree with his point on this. I would hope
that we keep to our approach of committee
of supply, where we have, in my opinion,
very good scrutiny of estimates. On the other
hand, I have known that there are govern-
ment hon. members and hon. Cabinet mem-
bers, who sometimes complained about the
questions which we in the Opposition have
asked, and the length of time that we have
taken in scrutiny of their estimates. They
have said, you do not have enough knowl-
edee of this particular department.
I feel, sir, that if we were to take one
department in an estimate committee, and T
think, for example, of The Department of
Education, where we could be looking at
this in depth and then come back into the
House, that all of us who had been part of
that committee would be more informed and
would feel that there had been a thorough
scrutiny and examination of that department.
I am a little concerned, although we have
the examination in the committee of supply,
that sometimes there has not been a full
opportunity to analyze each item on the esti-
mate. There are two opposition parties. One
may be asking the questions, then the next
opposition party will get up and pursue an-
other subject and we lose track of getting into
depth in some particular area. And we have
the Chicago gang behind here, trying to push
us along and hurry us. For me, in an estimate
committee, apart from the committee of
supply, there would be a calmer, and more
objective discussion probably, than we have
when we are in the House here.
I think, sir, and I say this again, that there
should be a committee on rules and pro-
cedures. I am sure if any of the hon. members
had looked at this article of the facts found
by Professor Schindeler, they would be
deeply concerned about the abuse that is
taking place in this forum: The traditional
rights that are being ignored, or else being
twisted in some way. And it seems to me that
we have to bring the procedure of parliament
up to date and have a re-examination of it.
We have not really had one since 1939. I
again press that there could be a committee,
starting as a standing committee, on rules
and procedures, which then might go into a
select committee during the summer.
Another area which I am concerned about,
which was overlooked by the hon. member
for London South, is that of the reform of
justice. As I have looked at some areas, I
feel, and my party feels they are in need
of reform— I think of the bail system and
others— surely to keep constantly up to date
with this, we should have a standing commit-
tee on justice, where both individuals and
organizations, can come to members on a
committee of Parliament to inform them
about injustices or need for reform.
It is for these reasons, sir, that I would
have hoped, having spoken last year on this,
that the whip, through the hon. Prime Minis-
ter, might have considered a scrutiny com-
mittee, would have considered an estimates
committee, certainly a committee on rules
and procedures and a committee on justice.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a few comments with regard to this
perennial issue of committees and how we
can make them more effective. In my view,
the hon. leader of the Opposition has ranged
over quite a number of issues that clearly, at
some time or another, we might take a look
at; but, with respect, I think he has missed
the main point on which we should focus
attention this afternoon.
In ranging, for example, I would agree with
him that the time has come when we perhaps
should take a look at rules and procedures in
JANUARY 26, 1966
17
this House. Indeed, at some other time— it
does not appropriately, within the rules of
the House, come under a discussion of com-
mittees—there are some things with regard to
rules of the House that I think should be
raised early in this session. But that is another
matter. He has dealt at considerable length,
for example, with the committee on estimates.
It is true that in Great Britain they have a
committee on estimates, but they have a
committee on estimates precisely because of
the fact that their procedure and their time-
table, their heavy agenda, does not permit
the detailed kind of examination of estimates
that we are able to give here in this House.
Therefore, I personally am not persuaded that
a committee on estimates is one of our top
priority needs.
There was also, for example, the suggestion
that there is a tendency for the responsibilities
of the elected representatives of the people
to be taken away in boards and commissions.
This again is an issue that we are examining
all the time. We have a standing committee
on government commissions and I would
concede immediately it has not done an effec-
tive job, but it seems to me that within that
standing committee we should seek ways and
means of making it more effective in terms of
a careful scrutiny of the operations at the
policy level with regard to these boards and
commissions.
In short, it seems to me in the area of
estimates and in the area of boards and com-
missions, we have at least some sort of a
structure within our procedures in this House,
or within our standing committees, to be able
to deal with it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you there
is another area even more important than this;
the hon. leader of the Opposition alluded to
it, but he said nothing specific and I want to
focus the attention of the House on it. He
made reference, for example, to the number
of times that the hon. member for Woodbine
has raised this issue in the House, and the fact
that the hon. member for Woodbine has
pointed to the practice established in recent
years in the province of Manitoba whereby
every order-in-council— instead of remaining a
secret document; for practical purposes it is
secret because people perhaps never learn of
it, or learn of it only when suddenly it
impinges upon their lives— must be reviewed
by a standing committee of this Legislature.
Indeed, the committee is known as a com-
mittee on statutory instruments.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that here is
where you can zero in on the area in which
the rights of this Legislature are being
eroded away. We pass bills, many a time,
which are nothing but skeletons. The gov-
ernment sometimes argues that it cannot
at this stage spell out, and flesh out, the
whole of the bill, that they have to play it by
ear and use experience as a guide. Then
they come forth with regulations with regards
to the implementation of that bill. In fact,
these regulations are the law. In fact, they
are passed by the Cabinet. In fact, they
never come before the House unless we
choose at some time or another, in a
succeeding session, to raise them because of
the impact they may have had on the lives
of the people within this province.
I suggest that if we want to come to grips
with the problem of modern government,
namely, a concentration of power in the
executive so that parliament is reduced to a
rubber stamp, the government side as well
as the Opposition side, if we want to examine
how you can restore power to the place
where it rightly rests, with the elected repre-
sentatives of the people to review what in
fact is law, the effective law, the regulations
passed in accordance with a certain bill —
then this has to be reviewed constantly by
some body of this Legislature. And I think
the time has come when we should establish
a statutory committee on instruments — call it
what you will. Therefore, I would like to
move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort
William (Mr. Freeman), that the motion
should be amended by adding to the first
paragraph thereof the words:
13. On orders-in-council and regulations.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this committee
then begins on a regular basis during the
course of the session — and indeed it will have
to become a committee which meets 12
months of the year in reviewing the regula-
tions which are passed — then that commit-
tee will be in a position to report to the
House and will recall to the representatives
of the people some of the powers that have
gradually been taken away.
Not only do we have the precedent that
the hon. member for Woodbine has referred
to in reference to Manitoba but, as the hon.
leader of the Opposition said, you have it in
Great Britain. For example, Prime Minister
Wilson can rise in the British House of
Commons and say that an order-in-council
has been passed with regard to sanctions in
Rhodesia, as important an issue as that. The
fact of the matter is that order-in-council
must go before a standing committee; it
must be reviewed by that standing committee.
If it is not approved within one month the
order-in-council becomes null and void.
18
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If the committee sees fit to return this
order-in-council for debate in the House,
then it has the power to do that. In other
words, if it deems it important enough that
the elected representatives of the people
should have an opportunity to debate it, it
is so ordered and it comes back to the House.
And if it does not come back to the House
within a prescribed time, once again, it be-
comes null and void.
This, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is the
way in which you can halt this gradual
erosion of the powers of the elected re-
presentatives of the people and, I think,
incidentally give some protection to the gov-
ernment which often gets itself into difficulty
by orders-in-conncil which are passed, in
effect, secretly and applied on people with-
out any prior notice or without any prior
opportunity for debate by them or the people
whom they send to this Legislature.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, if I may comment-
Mr. Speaker: I will put the motion and
then the hon. member can speak to the
amendment as well as the main motion, if
he cares to.
Moved by Mr. MacDonald, seconded by
Mr. Freeman, that the motion be amended
by adding to the first paragraph thereof the
words:
13. On orders-in-council and regulations.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make some comments in regard to this
amendment. In the first place in dealing with
the remarks of the hon. leader of the
Opposition, I am of the opinion that our
present committees ean be utilized in various
ways of which, perhaps, little thought has
been given. I remember, for instance, some
years ago, when the committee on education
examined the complete function of The De-
partment of Education in a series of meetings
which took place over a period, I think, of
two years, and the committee brought various
departments before it — remember the cur-
riculum department and so on— it served two
purposes.
One, it provided for the members of that
committee who were interested, a complete
examination of the departmental functioning.
Second, it gave the committee itself some
constructive work to do.
I sec no reason why this principle could
not be applied in other committees as far as
that is concerned. To my mind it really is a
question of a committee organizing itself, and
the members of the committee from both
sides of the House taking enough interest to
arrange the meetings and attend them.
As far as the government and the depart-
ments are concerned, they are only too
pleased to submit themselves to this scrutiny.
In the last two or three years we have begun
to examine the finances, department by
department, in the public accounts committee.
This is functioning very well, and that com-
mittee is going into the financial affairs of
the various departments in some detail.
So, while we have this discussion every
year, there was some prior discussion this
year, I believe, between the whips, in order
that we could expand the number of commit-
tees. There are two or three more this year
than there were last year. This was done in
consultation, in order to make the committee
system more effective.
I do not agree, of course, with the proposi-
tion of an estimates committee for the same
reasons that my hon. friend put forward. I
think this is better accomplished in committee
of the whole House. Then there is the fact
that occasionally there might be a little heck-
ling or some signs of impatience, but I think-
that is brought on more by the length of the
sitting. I have never noticed that any indica-
tion of that kind from this side of the House
had any marked effect upon the ques-
tioning or the length of time taken by the
Opposition-
Mr. MacDonald: It did not frighten us.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I am quite certain
it did not. So I really do not think that is
much of a point.
I do think that the examination we give
the estimates here really is an examination,
not only of the estimates of money to be
spent, but it has turned into a complete ex-
amination of the entire function of govern-
ment. I would not want to see that disturbed;
nor would I want to see this passed over to
another committee.
I think we already have various bodies
sitting doing reform work. The law reform
committee, which submits a report periodi-
cally—these matters are debated here. If
the hon. member had some idea of something
which needed to be explored, perhaps these
standing committees could assume these
duties because they are all set out in fairly
broad functions.
My point really is this: It is a matter ^of
making our present arrangements work; I
think the committees are there and can be
made to function to achieve some of the
objectives to which my hon. friend is drawing
JANUARY 26, 1966
19
attention. We have tried to revise the com-
mittee system periodically, in order to make
it more effective. We have accepted ideas
from all sides of the House, and from all
parties. We have made changes in consulta-
tion and we are quite prepared to make
further changes.
In regard to the amendment, I want to
speak against the amendment as such but I
do not want to speak against the idea the
hon. member is attempting to highlight in
making this amendment. I do not think a
standing committee of this House is the place
to conduct the examination that could lead
to some action in this area.
I would be very pleased to agree to form-
ing a group from all parties to do the re-
search on this matter, but this is not a
function for a standing committee. Then we
could see— you have mentioned what is done
in several other jurisdictions— there would be
a good deal of research necessary to see if
we can find some means of meeting these
objections which you raise. In actual fact,
the regulations are all published in the
Ontario Gazette. The real problem is, of
course, they are long and are complicated
and very complex. I think this is one reason
that people do not read them, because when
the regulations come out in the Ontario
Gazette, quite often they are very frightening
to the average person.
The orders-in-council are posted. Perhaps
our procedures are not exactly what we would
want— and I would be quite happy to go into
this matter, and I would be quite happy to
do it on an all-party basis— but, first of all, we
have to examine what is done and we have
to examine the various courses of action that
would lie open to us. Then we could formal-
ize it, if this is the answer, by appointing a
committee such as you say; but as for
appointing a committee at this stage, in my
opinion I would not be prepared to turn that
over to a committee until we have done a
considerable amount of research, which I
think we can do.
Mr. MacDonald: They did the research in
Manitoba, they have got it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would want to have a
look at what was done in Manitoba, and I
would like to examine it myself, before I just
go ahead blindly and say that is what would
be proposed to be done. Because these pro-
cedures in other jurisdictions are not always
suitable to this jurisdiction, I certainly would
not accept it out of hand; and in voting
against this amendment I am quite prepared,
to assure the House that I will see we go into
this matter on an all-party basis, to see if we
cannot evolve some method.
We do not wish to hide what is in the
regulations. There is no desire on the part of
this government to conceal what we are
doing. It really is a question of devising a
means of getting at it. So, in opposing your
amendment, I am accepting, and I will tell
you that we will take steps to see what we
can do about making these things somewhat
more— well, they are available now— it really
is a question of some method of examining
them more closely.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, speaking on
the amendment, I am simply rather amused
at the hon. Prime Minister's remarks that he
now says that he would be prepared to have
some research, and get together and sort of
look at things. At least we have got a change
of heart there, because last year I proposed
a resolution to discuss this whole area and he
did not see fit to bring that resolution before
us. Another area I want to discuss, at some
point, is the way the Opposition is muzzled.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: Well, did we discuss it last
year? Why did you not bring the resolution
forward?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Thompson: We could not discuss it. It
was not brought forward.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the leader
of the Opposition to stick to the amendment
before the House, please.
Mr. Thompson: I would say, sir, there is
irony in that the hon. Prime Minister should
blandly tell us: Well, you know, you have
this procedure working now, and let us have
a look at it. Some of us are deeply concerned
with the way that this operation is perform-
ing, and have already looked at it, and I
would have hoped that the hon. Prime Min-
ister would have done the same.
Let me just take the Ontario Gazette. The
regulations, he says, are published. They are
published when these regulations actually
come in force, but there is no examination
before. May I say I would have thought this
government would have been particularly
sensitive to any regulation which might abuse
the rights of the people; and I do not need
to recall the police bill to hon. members, for
example, to make them feel a certain sense of
uneasiness, that perhaps they do step over the
rights of the people.
20
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
One of the safeguards we could have to
ensure that boards are not making regulations
which arc ultra vires of the intent of the
Legislature would be to set up a scrutiny
committee. I refer to a scrutiny committee,
which is what it is called in Great Britain. I
feel that the machinery is obvious. Hon.
members have a legal officer to help with
this detail, to help with the complication of
regulations, and to explain it to the commit-
tee. There have been set down certain
ground rules which a committee made up of
representatives of the Legislature, have to
watch for— such as the discretionary power of
Ministers, taxation being abused, use of
taxation, and so on. This has been explained
and has been examined in almost every demo-
cratic country throughout the world.
The growth of boards and commissions
was becoming an alarming thing to the pre-
vious Prime Minister, Mr. Frost. He got
together the Gordon Commission to have a
look at it and they came through with certain
recommendations. Now, after a period in
office, the present hon. Prime Minister tells
us: Well, I am prepared to have a look at this
thing on an all-party committee or something,
it is still vague to us. Not even until now
has he considered an all-party committee to
examine it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it seems to
me that we are talking about different things.
We have a committee of this House on gov-
ernment commissions. Once again, that
committee is free to call before it any com-
mission, any board, any emanation of this
government. If it does not do it, it is the
committee's fault. The committee is there,
and it has this function, and hon. members of
all parties sit on it. I do not really know what
closer scrutiny you can have of the boards
and commissions. But my point remains, that
the machinery is there and the members of
the committees have the power. This is why
they are set up.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say, sir, that the
machinery may be there, but if the hon. Prime
Minister should look at the scrutiny com-
mitter in Manitoba he will find that orders-in-
council, many of them, with this government,
are passed when parliament is no longer sit-
ting. He will find also that, in the scrutiny
committee in Manitoba, they have, in order
to help the committee, a legal representative
to explain orders-in-council. He will find a
number of areas such as this.
One of the real concerns that the people
of Ontario have, I think, is that many orders-
in-council and regulations are being passed
when parliament is not in session. We are
concerned whether this parliament is a
facade concerning rulings and decision-
making here; whether it is done by boards
and commissions. It is for this reason that
I would press, even though we have an ex-
isting committee, that it does not have much
of the apparatus to do the job properly.
If we look at the publication, for example,
of the Ontario Gazette and regulations dur-
ing this summer, look at The Canada Pension
Act, with the OMERS regulations which
came out under Mr. Cass, regulations
slipped through, published in the Gazette
when parliament was not sitting. It is our
concern that, with so many boards, over 100
boards and commissions, we need a scrutiny
committee with full responsibility and with
assistance from the civil service to help it.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, if I may make
some general comments on the organization
of committees, I assume you have invited
debate on both the motion and the amend-
ment?
Mr. Speaker: On the amendment.
Mr. White: You are restricting debate to
the amendment? I will make my remarks —
Mr. Speaker: Please include the amend-
ment in your remarks.
Mr. White: Oh, very good. The only
objective of the government in the organiza-
tion and scheduling of committees and com-
mittee work has been to make this aspect of
the work of the legislative branch of the
government more effective. To this end we
have made a number of changes once again
this year. The committees consist of a smaller
membership on the basis that smaller com-
mittees are more effective committees. We
have split off two new committees: namely,
the committee on education from the com-
mittee on education, health and welfare be-
cause of the heavy load of work that is
expected in these important areas of govern-
ment; and we have split off municipal affairs
from the committee on labour and legal bills
because of the heavy legislative load antici-
pated in this area.
Each hon. member is on a smaller number
of committees so that he can specialize and
make a more effective contribution to the
work of standing committees. A great deal
of thought was given to the scheduling of
committees and we on our side have en-
sured that a particular member will not
be on two committees which meet at the
same time. We assume that the whips on
the other side will follow that practice also.
JANUARY 26, 1966
21
We are getting off to a very fast start, and
there will be a notice sent later today con-
cerning the meeting of the striking committee
tomorrow.
Finally, I would like to say that we have
endeavoured to have continuity of member-
ship and continuity of chairmanship, unless
there is a good reason not to do so. Incident-
ally, this last suggestion came from the
speech which the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion made at this time last year.
The point I would like to stress to the
House, sir, is this: The suggestions made in
the speech of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion a year ago and the suggestions which
came from the meetings of their caucus were
given consideration and, I think without ex-
ception, adopted. The executive assistant to
the hon. leader of the Opposition attended
these meetings as did the hon. member for
York South.
I say with some sorrow, sir, that I think
these last-minute suggestions are offered in
this House at this time not to effect improve-
ment in the committee system but to give the
public a wholly unrealistic impression so far
as the government is concerned. If these
suggestions are being made in good faith,
why did they not come in to those meetings
where these changes were made, where every
suggestion offered, I think, was accepted,
where there was complete unanimity from
the representatives of each of the three
parties.
Now it may be that some of the sugges-
tions offered at this time can be incorporated
in the work of the committees this year or
next year so that they will be given careful
consideration. I would hope that in 11
months, or thereabouts, when we sit down
once again with representatives from the
other side to consider changes in the com-
mittee system they will have the integrity to
offer their suggestions at a time when they
can be implemented.
Mr. Thompson: I raised that last year.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for London South may
speak with any degree of sorrow that he
wishes, we do not intend in this party
to participate constantly in private meetings
with government about matters which are of
grave and serious concern in any responsible
democracy. I would like simply to highlight in
a very simple way, in support of the motion
made by my hon. leader (Mr. MacDonald),
what has in fact happened on this question of
delegation of legislation. This Legislature
passed, in 1962, an Act entitled The Ontario
Municipal Employees' Retirement System Act,
commonly known as OMERS. This particular
statute provided in the wording of the
statute-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid we are
getting a little far afield from the topic
before the House. We have an amendment
before the House at the present time and I
would like the hon. members to speak to the
amendment moved by Mr. MacDonald, add-
ing No. 13 to the list of number of commit-
tees, naming it "on orders-in-council and
regulations". I do not mind if you come back
to the original motion in your remarks, but I
would not like members discussing other
specific subjects regarding former legislation
at this time.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was just
leading up to direct relationship in the
remarks that I intend to make on the amend-
ment put by my hon. leader.
In that statute specific provision was made
that the government may make regulations
prescribing the composition of the board-
that is, the Ontario municipal employees'
retirement board — and the appointment of the
members of that board. Under that authority
the government saw fit to pass a regulation,
which was published— and I agree with the
hon. Prime Minister there was no wish on
his part, and indeed the statute of this Legis-
lature prohibits him from hiding what is
passed by wav of regulation. But, the regula-
tion specifically provided that the board shall
be composed of the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs for such period of time as
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council determines. It then proceeds by stat-
ing that after the period of time determined
by the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council the board shall be composed of
three officials of the province of Ontario, and
so on, to set up the board at some indefinite
time in the future.
Now I make this point, not for any simple
or gymnastic legal purpose, but to point out
how in fact, by means of this regulation, the
government has defeated the whole purpose
of that bill. The purpose of that bill was to
establish a board divorced to some extent
from the government for the administration
of that system.
This was, of course, in line with the recom-
mendations made some years ago by the
report of the committee on the organization
of government in Ontario, which specifically
stated in its recommendations that it was in-
advisable and unwise for a Minister to
be a member of any board. The reason given
in that report was that if a Minister was
22
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a member of any board and found him-
self outvoted by other members of the board
he would find difficulty in putting the recom-
mendations of such a board to the government
for implementation by regulation. In this case,
of course, the government solved that prob-
lem entirely by simply having one person, a
Minister, the member of the board. Even
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.
Spooner) may disagree with himself on occa-
sions, but in this case it would be difficult
for him to disagree when he was placing his
own views before the government to decide
whether or not regulations would be passed
to implement it.
Now I would simply suggest that the
purpose of that statute was in fact to provide
for a hoard. The regulations which were
authorized by that statute do not provide for
a board, it provides for the Minister being
the board. That is not, in my language,
what a board is supposed to be composed of.
It is not to be composed solely of the Min-
ister.
I will leave it for lawyers in this House
to tell me whether or not the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council, by passing such a regu-
lation, has in fact determined the period of
time during which the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs will continue as the board. In
my particular opinion I do not think the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council has deter-
mined the period during which the Minister
of Municipal Affairs will be that board,
and therefore in a very real sense there
is a serious question as to the validity of
any actions taken by the Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs purporting to act in the name
of the board under a regulation which I
believe was not passed within the framework
that was intended by the statute itself.
I would think, in speaking to the amend-
ment of my hon. leader, that at least in this
kind of instance such a committee as he pro-
poses would have an opportunity over a
period of time to direct attention to this
kind of misuse of the regulatory power con-
ferred by this assembly on the government in
enacting statutes of general application.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I think there is much more at
stake iu this debate than just what is
embodied in this amendment. l''or several
years now, since I have had the privilege of
being here and taking part in these debates,
this sort of discussion has taken place on the
second day of the sittings: it is almost tradi-
tional.
We always have the air of sweet reason-
ableness emanating from the hon. Prime
Minister's desk and he appears to cast him-
self in the role of being reasonable and fair
and honourable and so on. He is all of those
things, but nothing changes. The committee
system has remained substantially the same
to my knowledge; over the last six years it
has not changed and there is no real intention
of making a change.
The hon. member for London South, I
presume speaking on behalf of the govern-
ment, gives us his assurance — and I did not
know that he had the right; perhaps this is
the way it is worked over there; I did not
know that the hon. member had the right to
say, next year we will consider it.
Now the hon. member for London South,
undoubtedly, if he speaks with authority,
in this field, must speak with authority given
to him by the hon. Prime Minister. The hon.
member for London South is determining
the procedures of this House and I think he
should be given a Cabinet appointment that
befits his rank to make such decisions.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think there are a
number of very important issues at stake here.
The hon. Prime Minister states the commit-
tees can do what they want. This year we
separated legal and labour bills from muni-
cipal affairs. This is going to give ample
time to study these two fields. To listen to
the remarks from the Speech from the
Throne, it is obvious that our friend the
hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) has a
lengthy and complicated programme of legis-
lation. We are going to have bills dealing
with loan and trust matters, legal aid, cost of
credit, personal property, securities, the re-
assignment and redivision of this depart-
ment, and so on.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is
going to be a very full programme for any
committee just to examine the legislation and
talk about it. But surely the point my hon.
leader (Mr. Thompson) was making is that
we need, for the proper review of administra-
tion of justice in this province, a standing
committee on justice so that wc can have
come before that committee, the very civil
servants in The Department of the Attorney
General, to find out in a meaningful way what
they do.
What does the superintendent of insur-
ance do? What does the man in charge of
loan and trust companies do? We have the
law reform commission, someone mentioned
that. Some of us here have grave doubts
about whether or not the law reform com-
mission is functioning in the way it was in-
tended to function or it is desired that it
should function.
JANUARY 26, 1966
23
Surely if we had a standing committee on
justice this sort of thing could be inquired
into. I think it is of substantial importance,
Mr. Speaker, and I do not think I can over-
state this, I think it is of substantial impor-
tance that we, as private members of this
House, be given an opportunity to inquire
directly from civil servants who have to
come before these committees, what their
role is, what their duties are; and also bring
members of the public before the standing
committee on justice and find out what are
the complaints about the bail system, for
instance.
This is a very current and a very serious
problem. Do we have to sit back and wait,
Mr. Speaker, until the hon. Attorney General
in his own good time decides either he is
going to change it by legislation or he is not,
or do we attempt to get at it in the com-
paratively limited time we have when his
estimates come before this House? Surely
this sort of suggestion makes good common
sense and would mean something insofar as
the functions of private members are con-
cerned.
Sweet reasonableness again! How many
times have we suggested that the chairman
of the public accounts committee be a mem-
ber of the Opposition, and there is ample
precedent for this in Ottawa and the United
Kingdom and so on. I have not heard the
hon. member for London South give his
decision on this but I would be interested in
hearing somebody on that side of the House
say whether or not this is one of the reason-
able steps that is likely to be taken. Surely
it makes some sense, and it has been proven
in other jurisdictions, that having a member
of the Opposition as chairman of the com-
mittee on public accounts might have a
salutary effect in the examination of those
accounts.
We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker,
about staff for these committees, about the
appointment of chairmen. The appointment
as a chairman of these standing committees
is a plum that is passed around among the
back benchers on the government side. Now
I do not know if the invitation is directed by
reason of long service or good fellowship or
by knowledge of the particular person who
is put in charge of each particular committee.
It would seem to me that if we had a stand-
ing committee on justice that the chairman
of that committee could and should be the
best lawyer they have over there on those
back benches.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Oh, none of
them could make a living at that.
Mr. Singer: It would seem to me that if
we have a standing committee on education
which is going to conduct this sort of inquiry,
that the person in charge of that could be
someone who has had some experience — and
there are a number of them — in the teaching
profession. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker,
that this air of sweet reasonableness that we
get every second day of each succeeding
session really means nothing.
We are going to have the same committee
system; we are going to have the same sort
of meetings; the hon. Minister of Highways
( Mr. MacNaughton ) is going to come in and
show his films— and say "What a grand fellow
I am— I built another highway"— that's the film
that went on TV on the free time broadcast.
Somebody else is going to come in with an
organization chart saying, "Look, I have got
seven deputies and six assistants and four
personnel men and three publicity men, am
I not a grand fellow" and this is all that is
going to happen out of these committees.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time has come, if
the government wants to make these com-
mittees work, that they listen to some of
these suggestions made here year after year,
and do something about them.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I find that I can-
not reach your eye, sir, because of a super-
vening obstruction.
Surely, sir, it is a mistake for the hon.
member for York South to focus on one
aspect of this problem and denote it, in his
opinion, as being the most important. He
says that — if I understood him correctly —
the scrutiny of orders-in-council and regula-
tions was far and away above in importance
in demanding our time than any of the
matters that were mentioned by my hon.
leader. Sir, for my own part I would say to
you that everything that has been said today
has been said ably by the hon. members who
have spoken and is part and parcel of the
composite picture as to how this democratic
process within this House shall function.
It may just be that since there was a
substantial pay increase last year to all hon.
members that the public of this province
will expect that the democratic process in
this Legislature shall function more efficiently
and expeditiously in exercising its scrutiny,
promoting its criticisms, and doing all things
else that are part of the parliamentary process.
Sir, I would take the opportunity to focus
on one aspect myself, and I do not protest
that it is in any way more important than
those aspects that have been delineated by
the other hon. members.
24
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On the last day of the session, last year,
sir, I drew to the attention of the House how
there had come to be eroded from the pro-
cedures of this House the right of the Opposi-
tion to amend motions for supply. And I
pointed out to your Honour that some years
ago within this House it was the custom for
Ministers and usually the Treasurer himself
that he move that your Honour leave the
chair and the House resolve itself into com-
mittee of supply. I showed, sir, how that
practice had fallen into disuse in the House.
I say this in line with the urging of my
hon. leader that a standing committee of the
House be set up to study the rules and pro-
cedures of this House. The hon. Prime Minis-
ter rises and, as my hon. friend from Downs-
view very aptly put it, with an attitude of
sweet reasonableness, which I think is more
or less politely described as being a formula
for dealing with matters of this kind, he says
we will study these things.
Well, I would ask if that important matter
lias been studied over the summer vacation,
to preclude the necessity of a member
Retting up on a point of order as one will,
I can assure you the first time, the first time,
sir, the Clerk intones from his place "the
House in committee of supply." Are we in-
stead going to return to the practice that
existed in this House for many decades until
a year or two ago, where you left the chair,
on a motion that you leave the chair, and
the House resolved itself into committee of
supply; that you do not impel yourself out of
the chair, because the Clerk reads from the
order paper a number? That is how you have
been going into committee.
I have pointed out, and it is a matter of
serions import to me, that a Stuart king had
to come with the troops, to get your predeces-
sor out of the chair, to force him out. Now,
you leave the chair, vacate your business as
the Speaker of the House, because the Clerk,
in his very resonant and glowing tone, says,
"House in committee of supply." In other
words, we may want to amend that motion
some days.
In Ottawa, by agreement, they do it six-
times a year. The Opposition is able to bring
current problems, current griefs, contempor-
ary matters as recent as this morning's news-
paper, before the floor of the House, six times
a year, at Ottawa.
Just this morning, T wandered into the hon.
Attorney General's library, the only one open
around here now incidentally, and looked at
May and observed that in the Parliament of
the United Kingdom, it is done three times a
year, but they are more busy than we are.
We trace our rules to the Parliament at West-
minster; we are not able to do it at all. We
cannot amend a motion. Yes, we can do it
once. That is true. We can do it once, the
very first time that the Provincial Treas-
urer moves the motion. Otherwise, we are
stricken dumb, if one can imagine that, we
are stricken into silence-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, we are stricken silent, but
not dumb. I will adopt that correction, be-
cause the motion disappeared. Mr. Frost used
to move it, but when he departed, it was
moved only a couple of times by the present
incumbent of the office of first citizen, and
now it has fallen into disuse entirely.
Now, sir, finally, to avoid a row next week
or the week after about this, let us come to
an agreement in the meantime, that we are
going to be able to amend our motion for
supply, to submit to this House, grievances
that we may have or may occur to us or may
arise through the dexterity and the ingenuity
and the energy of the gentlemen in the press
gallery.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to address myself for
a few moments at this point to the specific
amendment which my hon. leader has moved.
I agree with the hon. Prime Minister of
this House that the statutory regulations as
published in the Ontario Gazette are complex
indeed and fascinating to the hon. members
and to the public. I for one feel perfectly free
to say in this Legislature that they contain
much more of substance and content than
much of the legislation which comes under
the scrutiny at these sittings. That, of course,
is completely without justification in the con-
text of the way this Legislature works.
My hon. colleague from Riverdale, Mr.
Speaker, cited one major example of a piece
of legislation totally defeated in intent by the
regulations which followed it. I want to re-
mind this House of a major debate which
took place in the session last year, when we
vested in the smiling, beneficent, expansive
"Papa Louis," as he was then called, the
parental rights for 14,000 children in the
province of Ontario. The entire gist of debate
under The Child Welfare Act related to ex-
tending that Act to protective services; we
were not dealing merely in the extremities of
care and neglect, but in protecting situations
of care and neglect from arising.
Throughout the debate in this House, and
in committee, and with back benchers of the
Conservative Party, we were assured that the
JANUARY 26, 1966
25
regulations would define protection, would
delineate what was meant, and would give
some substance to the Act.
The regulations came out at the end of
October, 1965. I would challenge the hon.
Minister (Mr. Cecile) in this House to show
where the protection services are guaranteed
by regulation. Again, because of the absence
of regulations, we have betrayal of the prin-
ciples of a very fundamental piece of legis-
lation.
Now incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that is also
true of The Children's Institutions Act, which
was not defined in regulations, particularly
that portion of it relating to the 75 per cent
per diem subsidy. We never saw in the
scrutiny in this House or in any committee,
the regulations that might relate to The
Training Schools Act.
In all major fields of health and welfare
and reform institutions legislation, the regula-
tions are fundamental.
They were never submitted to this Legisla-
ture, we are presented with a fait accompli.
In many instances they are more important
than the Act itself; in many instances they
vitiate the content and intent of the Act.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we in this party
cannot accept with equanimity the blandish-
ments of the hon. Prime Minister. We appre-
ciate that he will study the matter, but we
sense that there is a certain unnecessary delay
about it. We have offered a specific alterna-
tive which we deem will work and would
therefore wish a division of the House on the
matter.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the
amendment as proposed by Mr. Macdonald,
will please say "aye".
All those opposed, will please say "nay".
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
The vote is on the amendment moved by
Mr. MacDonald.
All those in favour of the amendment, will
please rise.
All those opposed, will please rise.
NAYS
AYES
NAYS
AYES
]
Ben
Allan
Braithwaite
Apps
Bukator
Auld
Davison
Bales
Farquhar
Beckett
Freeman
Brown
Gaunt
Brunelle
Gisborn
Carton
Lewis
Cecile
(Scarborough West) Cowling
MacDonald
Davis
Newman
Demers
Nixon
Downer
Oliver
Dunlop
Paterson
Dymond
Renwick
Edwards
Sargent
Evans
Singer
Ewen
Smith
Gomme
Sopha
Grossman »
Thompson
Guindon
Trotter
Hamilton
Whicher-22.
Harris
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Scarborough East)
Hodgson (Victoria)
Johnston (Carleton)
Kerr
Knox
Lawrence (Russell)
Lawrence (St. George)
Letherby
Lewis (Humber)
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Noden
Olde
Peck
Pittock
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Reilly
Reuter
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Rowe
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Villeneuve
Walker
Wardrope
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko-67.
26
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 22, the "nays" 67.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
All those in favour of the main motion
moved by Mr. White, will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay." In
1 1 1 > opinion the "ayes" have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. White moves, seconded by Mr. Harris,
that a seleet committee of 15 members be
appointed to despatch lists of the members
to compose standing committees ordered by
the House, such committee to be composed
as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie, Chairman; Messrs. Carton,
Cowling, Ewen, Farquhar, Gisborn, Johnston
(Parry Sound), Knox, Letherby, McNeil,
Oliver, Renter. Root, Sandercock, Thrasher.
The quorum of the said committee to consist
of four members.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON
BAY RAILWAY COMPANY ACT, 1941
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Algoma Central and
Hudson Ray Railway Company Act, 1941.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend
the Act of 1941. The effect of the bill is to
remove exemptions from assessment and taxa-
tion under The Provincial Land Tax Act of
lands owned by the company on March 18,
1910, an exemption which the company has
enjoyed since that time-, and to permit fire
charges under The Railway Fire Charge Act
to bo assessed and levied upon the company
in the 1 inds granted as railway subsidy lands
ret. lined by the company from which the
companv his been exempt since January 1,
1910.
I may say that the company's officials were
told by me si veral months ago, as far back
as August 5 last, of my intention to recom-
mend this action at the coming sitting of the
Legislature.
I will he pleased to give the House a full
explanation of the purposes of the Act and
the history of various transactions in relation
to the subject matter on second reading of
the bill.
THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill
to amend The Public Lands Act will permit
the granting of a title in cases of sale or free
grants of agricultural land where there has
been substantial compliance with the condi-
tions of the sale or free grant, and also pro-
vides for the continuance of easements in
certain cases where forfeitures occur and for
voiding a reservation in a letters patent dated
February 22, 1866, granting land situate in
the town of Niagara, this latter amendment
being at the request of the local authorities.
THE RAILWAY FIRE CHARGE ACT
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Railway
Fire Charge Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this amend-
ment proposes to prohibit a patentee or
related company of subsidy land from setting
up a licensee system including charging of
fees for the use of such railway lands for the
purpose of hunting or fishing, except in
accordance with a system established or
approx-ed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council, and will permit the department to
establish a system for the use of such lands
for hunting or fishing.
THE PROVINCIAL LAND TAX ACT,
1961-1962
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Provincial
Land Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to: first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this bill to
amend The Provincial Land Tax Act, 1961-
1962, provides for a prescribed form for com-
plaints in relation to assessments and, instead
of compounding the interest monthly on the
penally on the outstanding liability for taxes,
provides for compounding the interest on a
yearly basis.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, I have a question, notice of
which lias been given to the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond ) . Would the hon.
JANUARY 26, 1966
27
Minister inform this House what per capita
subsidy from the federal government would
be required by the government of Ontario
for the implementation of a universal, com-
prehensive, government-operated medical care
plan?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the hon. mem-
ber's question at this time. I can only advise
the hon. leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Speaker, that this is one facet of this broad
and complex problem that is under extensive
study and is to be brought forward for further
discussion with the federal authorities.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a
supplementary question? Would another facet
under study be the qualifications which the
federal government are asking, the four basic
qualifications? Do they cause the hon. Min-
ister difficulty; or if he had financial negotia-
tions that are satisfactory would he go along
with the other qualifications ?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would only say, Mr.
Speaker, that the whole matter is under
discussion with the federal authorities.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Provincial Treasurer,
notice of which has been given.
Can the hon. Provincial Treasurer give a
breakdown on rates he received for the civil
service medical insurance and fringe benefit
package recently awarded to a syndicate
headed by London Life?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, you will realize these tenders
were very complicated. I do not have this
information at the present time. It would
require a great deal of study, so therefore I
will take the question as notice.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask: Will the hon.
Provincial Treasurer table these at some
point?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I will be glad to look into
the whole matter.
Mr. Thompson: Could I be told how -many
there were?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry,
I did not get this question until—
Mr. Thompson: Could the hon. Provincial
Treasurer tell me how many tenders have
been submitted?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I could not say.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, notice of which has been given. Can
he report on the negotiations, if any, he is
having with unions who want to stack rather
than integrate their pension plans with the
Canada pension plan?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I received notice of
this question very late in the day and I have
not yet had a chance to read it. I will give
the hon. leader of the Opposition an answer
within the next few days.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister could
tell us if he has had any negotiation with
unions about the question of stacking —
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I will examine my files
and report the complete negotiations I have
had with the people who represent unions.
Mr. Sopha: Just a travesty of parliament.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day —
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Minister
would speak after the questions? I thought
perhaps we should complete the questions
and then the Minister could make his state-
ment, if that is satisfactory.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question to the hon. Prime
Minister. I might say first, sir, with your
indulgence, that the question was originally
submitted by my hon. colleague from Wood-
bine but he was called out of the House
because of a previous unavoidable commit-
ment, and I would submit the question on
his behalf.
Has Mr. Charles Daley, chairman of the
Niagara parks commission, declared that the
commission will not discuss salaries and
working conditions with representatives of
the civil service association or allow grievance
arbitration, as alleged recently by the civil
service association of Ontario? If so, what
is the position of the government on this
matter?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have not
been able to. There is only one man who
could answer the question as it is phrased
and that is Mr. Daley himself, and I have not
been able to get in touch with him to find
out whether he did or did not make such a
declaration as is contained herein.
I might say that the employees of the
Niagara parks commission are not public
servants, and I would think there, as in other
28
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
boards and commissions, it is a question of
relationship between the board itself and
the employees. Grievance procedures have
been worked out to apply to employees of
other boards, and of course there are always
negotiations taking place concerning salaries,
and no doubt there are the necessary arrange-
ments for these people to deal with the
commission itself, which is their employer.
Hut I just simply cannot answer the ques-
tion as to whether Mr. Daley did in fact
make this declaration; but I will find out, I
am checking it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
have four questions, dealing with Indian
affairs, that I would like to put to the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare since he made the
original announcement concerning this matter.
1. Will the implementation of the plan
transfer the responsibility for Ontario Indians
from the federal government to the govern-
ment of this province?
2. Is the government working towards the
elimination of the reserve system as stated
previously by the hon. Minister?
3. What Indian groups were consulted by
the province before his announcement?
4. Are any steps being taken to improve
the quality of the advice available from the
government departments to the Cabinet com-
mittee on Indian affairs?
An hon. member: That is a good question.
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, I really received two
questions: First of all, number three here is
answered in the first question, so I will deal
with number three while answering the first
question.
The proposal not only provides for con-
sultation and consent by individual bands
for the extension of provincial services, it
includes consultation between the two gov-
ernments through a joint federal-provincial
co-ordinating committee, four members from
the Canadian government and four from the
provincial government, the chairman being
an Ontario representative, with the province
taking responsibility for the administration of
the programme.
2. The proposal implied acceptance of the
reserve Indian communities. The objectives
are to bring reserves to social and economic
parity with neighbouring non-Indian com-
munities.
I will answer 4. now and will come to the
third one later. The Cabinet committee has
benefited from advice given to it by
specialists with a background in Indian life,
the Indian-Eskimo association, the chairman
of the national Indian council, various Indian
associations, and designated officials in the
four departments of government having major
responsibility for Indians.
As far as 3. is concerned, I have answered
this here in a previous question. Individual
Indian leaders and the Ontario Indian
advisory committee, under the chairmanship
of Mr. Elliott Moses of the Six Nations
Reserve, have been kept informed of all
contemplated action by the province which
might have a bearing on Indians. With re-
spect to the federal-provincial programme
recently announced, I am sure the following
excerpts from a letter written by the former
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
under date of November 25, 1965, will ex-
plain the approach, and I quote:
Preliminary discussions have been held
with a number of Indian advisory councils
to obtain their views on the possibility of
provincial involvement in welfare and com-
munity development programmes in Indian
communities. The general response so far
has been favourable, and indications are
that most Indian people will be interested
in the establishment in this way of a more
meaningful relationship with the provincial
administration. In the abdication of these
agreements, however, it will be necessary
to obtain the consent of each Indian band
to whom the programmes are extended.
It should be noted that official action by the
province to consult with individual bands has
to be withheld until final assent to the pro-
posals is given by the federal government.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Minister for his statement in this connection.
I would like to ask him, supplementary to
this, where the advice came from that
prompted him to announce on a television
network that the plan in fact envisaged the
elimination of the reserve system.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Speaker, that was
misunderstood; it certainly was not the impli-
cation that was meant. I might have stated
that it might resolve into this, according to
the Indians themselves, but as far as we were
concerned, we had no views of eliminating
anything because it is not within our jurisdic-
tion to do so in the first place.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): The hon.
Minister is confused.
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Oh, no, I am not con-
fused. My hon. friend there should go back to
school and learn how to read.
JANUARY 26, 1966
29
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two
questions— the first one for the hon. Minister
of Health, a copy of which he has received.
Would the hon. Minister report to the
House on the difficulties faced by certain
foreign-born doctors to secure a licence to
practise medicine in Ontario for the college
of physicians and surgeons; and, secondly,
does the government intend to bring in legis-
lation at this session to clarify the powers
granted to professional organizations when
those powers appear to be in conflict with the
rights of individuals established under the
human rights code?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, under The
Medical Act of Ontario, the college of physi-
cians and surgeons of Ontario is required to
satisfy itself beyond any reasonable doubt
that the applicant, wherever he or she may
have come from, has had a basic medical
education of a standard equal to that of a
Canadian medical school. There are many
universities throughout the world which grant
degrees that are fully acceptable to the col-
lege, but in some countries there are certain
colleges which have not been accepted by the
college of physicians and surgeons of Ontario.
It is this last factor which presented the prob-
lem referred to in the hon. member's question.
However, it is significant to note that of some
6,000 men and women who were granted
licence for practice in Ontario over the past
15 years, about 2,000 had received their
medical education outside the province.
In answer to the second part of the ques-
tion from the hon. member, sir, I state it is
not our intention to bring in any legislation
at this session but, as announced in the
Speech from the Throne yesterday, it is the
purpose of government to establish a com-
mittee to inquire into the education and
regulations relevant to the practice of the
healing arts. This committee will be empow-
ered to take under study all matters relating
to entrance requirements, education, instruc-
tion, and training for the practice of any or
all of the healing arts in the province of
Ontario. It will also be empowered to con-
sider the duties and regulations of any educa-
tional licensing or disciplinary body and any
disciplinary body having any relation to the
healing arts and the exercise of such powers,
duties and regulations.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my second
question is addressed to the hon. Attorney
General and it is in two parts.
Does The Pension Benefits Act (1962-1963)
apply to employees of the CNR and CPR in
Ontario; and, secondly, if there is any doubt
on this issue, will the government take the
matter as a test case to the courts in order
to resolve the situation?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of
the question is as follows: It is the opinion
of the law officers of the Crown that The
Pension Benefits Act, 1962-1963, applied to
employees of the CNR and CPR in Ontario
to the extent that the Act does not conflict
with legislation enacted by the Parliament of
Canada in relation to pension schemes for the
employees and subject to determining the
portion of the undertaking of the company
involved in this question.
I would like to enlarge, Mr. Speaker, upon
that. That is really an answer to the question
as framed. I propose to enlarge upon it, but
perhaps I should answer question two before
doing so.
The answer to the second part of the ques-
tion, or question two, is that the government
does not at this time contemplate instituting
any litigation on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, I should add to that answer
the information that a very full opinion was
asked of our department in July, 1965, by the
then chairman of the pension commission of
Ontario, Mr. Coward. We furnished an
opinion which I have before me, a four-page
document. I do not propose to read it all,
but it is a very thorough analysis of the situa-
tion with respect to a possible conflict, or a
sharing really of jurisdiction in this area,
between the government of Canada and that
of the province.
I think I might like to put on record the
last paragraph of the opinion, which is a
summary. I might preface that by saying that,
under the Constitution, railways, railway lines,
shipping lines, banks, and banking, are within
the field allotted to the government of
Canada. There are, however, in such under-
takings as the Canadian Pacific Railway, cer-
tain parts of the operation, such as hotels,
which are not regarded as being railway
operations. They are local, they are provin-
cial, and they come within provincial juris-
diction.
There is another feature in the legislation
here, that where any province has legislated
in a field which is allotted to the federal
government, then if the federal government
comes into that field with legislation, such
legislation becomes paramount, it takes pre-
cedence, and the provincial legislation be-
comes invalid or ineffective. I think some of
that is said in the summary to this opinion and
it was all set out at length in the full opinion
30
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which we furnished to the pension com-
mission.
I should like further to say that this whole
matter has been the subject of negotiation
over a period of months and I understand
from the officials of the pension commission
that it is still the subject of continuing nego-
tiations. I think it is a subject in which
negotiation and agreement is more desirable
than litigation.
Now may 1 read the summary paragraph
which is:
If the Parliament of Canada legislates
upon the subject of pensions for employees
of chartered banks, railways, and works
for the general advantage of Canada, such
legislation would be a valid exercise of
the powers of Parliament; and if in fact the
legislation covered the same area as the
provincial statutes, the last mentioned
statute would not apply —
that is, the last mentioned— the provincial
statute:
— to employees engaged in those under-
takings.
This does not mean that Parliament
could affect by its legislation all employees
of an undertaking as diverse as, for
example, the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Such a diverse undertaking, which trans-
cends railways, airlines, ship lines, etc., is
divisible and those particular operations
which may be characterized as local, for
example hotel operations, as contrasted with
international shipping operations, would be
subject to provincial legislation governing
employee-employer relations with reference
to pensions.
In case of such undertakings it may be
difficult to determine whether or not they
are part of the company's railway under-
taking and the question will depend on the
terms of the legislation authorizing such
undertaking and the facts of each particular
case. A court would have to be satisfied
that a portion of the undertaking is: first,
divisible; and second, local; and if so satis-
fied it would necessarily be bound to hold
that the employees engaged therein would
be subject to the provincial legislation. It
is in this area that an agreement may bo
necessary with the federal authority in
order to introduce an effective and com-
prehensive pension scheme.
As I have noted, this whole matter has been
the subject of discussion and negotiation. I
think I should mention, and I am not doing
this except to correct the record a bit, the
question refers to The Pension Benefits Act
1962-1963, and I answered it in those terms.
But I believe such Act no longer exists. The
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, which I have in
my hand, is now in force having, as I under-
stand, been promulgated on July 1, last year,
1965, and it repealed, by section 27, the
previous Pension Benefits Act. Section 27
says:
The Pension Benefits Act, 1962-1963,
and The Pension Benefits Act, 1964, are
repealed.
So that we should, for the record, refer to
our Act now as The Pension Benefits Act,
1965.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. Attorney General for bringing
me up to date. I did not realize that the
1962 Act had actually been repealed.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the
hon. Attorney General if he would table the
full statement, rather than just the last para-
graph? I think I grasped what he said, but
it is rather a complicated thing. By way of
clarification, I wonder if I might ask him
this supplementary question?
In the absence of the federal government
passing any legislation to establish, for
example, portability of private pensions for
railway employees living in Ontario, do I
correctly interpret the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral's statement to mean that the provincial
legislation applies?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, it is our
opinion, as we furnished it, and I think I am
at liberty to table the full opinion— although
it was given to the pensions commission, they
will not object— it was our opinion that the
provincial legislation applied, and we are
still of that opinion.
I think I must say this: There is a differ-
ence of opinion on behalf of certain of the
organizations such as railways and banks
which are mentioned in the question and I
understand they have eminent legal opinion
contra to ours. That was without taking into
account, I think, at that time any federal
pension legislation.
Now it is quite clear that if the government
of Canada moves into the pension field, that
legislation would supersede and make invalid
any provincial legislation bearing on the
same area.
But as I pointed out, railway operations
are divisible, and banks, too.
I shall table the opinion. Since we have
now pension legislation of the government of
Canada there is a field here for agreement and
negotiation and I would hope certainly that
JANUARY 26, 1966
31
agreement would be achieved, and before
long.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I raise
a point of order?
I apologize to the hon. member. This is
rather irregular, but I could not catch your
eye before.
I wonder if the Speaker would allow me
to revert to the hon. Minister of Health for a
short supplementary question on this?
Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid not. The
member for Grey North has the floor.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to direct a couple
of questions to the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development (Mr. Randall), in
the absence of the hon. member for Timis-
kaming (Mr. Taylor), who has submitted
them.
The atomic energy commission has given
the green light to the production of heavy
water somewhere in Canada. What steps has
the hon. Minister's department made in get-
ting that production in Ontario?
Hon. S. J. Randall: (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, that is not
the question that was submitted to me. The
question as submitted to me is: Has The
Department of Economics and Development
made any studies with respect to the produc-
tion of heavy water in Ontario; and the
answer is no. At the moment none are con-
templated.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, Owen Sound
would be a good place for the plant.
I have another question submitted by the
hon. member for Timiskaming.
Could the hon. Minister indicate how many
persons the immigration branch of The De-
partment of Economics and Development was
able to bring to this province in the past year
in order to relieve the shortage of skilled
workers?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, before
answering the second question I would just
like to make a comment to the hon. member
for Grey North that if he gets an energy
plant up there he had better have a place
where he can set it on top of a coal mine
or a gas or oil well, because it is a very
sophisticated plant requiring a great deal of
btu, and it is a very costly operation. If he
can find those three things we will do our
best to get him a plant.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second ques-
tion of the hon. member, the answer is:
From January 1, 1965 to December 10, 1965
the immigration branch provided information
to 11,890 potential immigrants. Of this num-
ber 4,460 attended for personal interview for
specific job vacancies in Ontario. Of this
number 1,775 skilled workers were selected
for placement with 142 companies.
Of the remaining immigrants who inquired
many made their own arrangements to mi-
grate to Ontario, so we are not too sure where
they went.
During the period to December 10 the
branch worked closely with 171 industries for
the recruitment of skilled workers. Of this
number 94 companies spent $95,000 of their
own money on advertising in the United
Kingdom. In checking with our federal im-
migration authorities before I came to the
House, for the first nine months of 1965
108,400 immigrants arrived in Canada from
all sources and 58,477 came to Ontario, ap-
proximately 54 per cent.
Mr. Sargent: Was it only from the U.K.
that the hon. Minister had these skilled
workers?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I was answering the
question on the skilled workers from the
U.K., yes. This is where we have our offices,
in Ontario House in London and our immigra-
tion office in Glasgow. There were skilled
workers, of course, from other offices through
the Canadian immigration branch, but we
would not have a record of those.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the hon. Minister of
Health, of which he has already had notice.
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
what steps are being taken by his department
to facilitate a speed-up of the construction of
active treatment hospitals in Metropolitan
Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the steps
taken by the department date back to 1964
when the government provided low-cost loans
to help speed up the production of hospital
beds in Metropolitan Toronto. As reported to
the House at that time, several projects under
contemplation in Metro Toronto then and
in the very early planning stage were pushed
forward vigorously. As reported to the House
at the last session of the Legislature, several
of these projects were brought into active
construction and a detailed report of each
hospital involved was placed on the public
record.
32
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The building and planning to provide beds
to catch up the backlog and provide for need
arc on schedule as of now. During the
year just ended, 323 beds were added; 788
new beds will be opened in 1966. Four new
projects are under construction presently and
will provide 1,481 beds scheduled to come
into operation in 1967.
A complete report, bringing up to date all
projects, will be placed before the House
during this session, again noting every hos-
pital involved.
In addition to the beds already mentioned,
the new psychiatric institute in Toronto will
be opened this spring and will provide 240
beds.
We are assured by contractors that every-
thing possible is being done to push forward
the construction of these projects, but as
every hon. member must realize unavoidable
delays do take place. Some of those have
already taken place affecting in some measure
some of the projects under construction, but
actually they have been able to bring them
up to schedule at the present time.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would answer a supplementary
question. How many of these new beds can
be credited to the low-cost loans?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot answer the
question at the present time, but I believe
just about every project under construction
in Metro Toronto has taken advantage of the
low-cost plan. I will undertake to get the
definite information for the hon. member. I
am finite certain that every project has taken
advantage of the low-cost loan.
Mr. Trotter: I have one more question for
the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management (Mr. Simonett), of which he
lias already had notice.
Can the hon. Minister say whether his de-
partment's air pollution control requirements
for natural gas furnaces are more or less
effective than those required by Metropolitan
Toronto's air pollution inspectors?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
technically the department is not directly
concerned with air pollution. This is of
direct concern to the air pollution control
section, industrial hygiene branch, of The
Department of Health.
However, our regulations indirectly de-
crease pollution by gas-fired furnaces insofar
as carbon monoxide content of the com-
bustion gases is concerned. No gas furnace
can be installed or used if it is not approved
by the Minister. One condition of approval
limits the maximum content of carbon monox-
ide in the combustion gases to 0.04 per cent
in an air-free sample of combustion gases.
This may sound technical but it means
the practical elimination of emission of
carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. This
automatically precludes the emission of
smoke. It is reasonable to say that the emis-
sion to the atmosphere from the gas furnace
consists of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen
and water vapour.
Mr. Sopha: I would like to ask the hon.
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) when
may the legislative library be expected to re-
open?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, the legislative library in fact has
never been closed. From the time renova-
tions began on June 25, 1965, the library
and staff have been carrying on from room
153, in the main part of the main building.
The work on the library assumed priority
over any other uncompleted work in the
north wing.
In the meantime the staff in fact has been
able to provide most of the regular services
to the hon. members of the House and to
government departments, with the exception
of the law library and the public reading
room. We were compelled to completely dis-
mantle these two sections, located outside the
main stack area, to allow for structural
changes. At that time the contents of the
law library were put in storage.
I may say in an aside to the hon. member
that my contact with the law library com-
menced some 30 years ago when as a law
student, of a precursor of the course from
which he graduated, I sat in the west side.
It was then the side of the Opposition. In
the lunch hour I used to retire to the law
library to do my studies. That is not per-
missible now, but I am delighted that in the
meantime, in accordance with a recommenda-
tion of one of the select committees, the
library has been transferred from the Minister
of Education to the Provincial Secretary.
The law volumes are now being re-
assembled as a temporary measure in the
"members' reading room to be" and they
will be ready for the early part of next
week. Servicing of this and the rest of the
main library will be done from temporary
facilities set up on the third floor, located
approximately where this work was done
previously. Current newspapers and periodi-
cals—I repeat, current newspapers and
JANUARY 26, 1966
33
periodicals — will be available in room 153 of
the main building opposite the offices of the
bank.
With the help of the interior design
centre of The Department of Public Works,
there has been evolved outstanding plans for
the renovation of the library which will pro-
vide: First, proper storage conditions for our
valuable collection; second, adequate and
comfortable reading rooms; third, efficient
office space.
The cataloguing, government documents,
circulation and reference sections will be
grouped together with maximum efficiency
around the central inquiry desk. From there
four professional librarians will be within call
for reference queries coming into the desk or
by telephone. New and specialized equipment
is being planned for this area. The hon.
members' reading room will occupy the most
pleasant and most spacious room and be
equipped with work tables and comfortable
chairs for study.
Adjoining the reading room will be the law
room where the present shelving is to be
replaced in order to increase book capacity by
50 per cent. Six study tables will also be
provided here. These two areas will be kept
in an atmosphere conducive to study, away
from the telephones and the bustle of the
inquiry area.
On the north side will be the office for the
librarian.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Does the hon. member for Sud-
bury give up? He must have planted that
question.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: A microfilm reading
room, and a room for dictating and typing
from volumes will also be provided. The east
side of the library will house the newspaper
and periodicals section; here, new display and
storage shelving will allow us for the first
time to have our 300 periodicals available to
all. A new arrangement for 230 Ontario
weeklies and dailies will permit the major
part of the floor area to be used for reading
tables and chairs. This is a much-used collec-
tion, and this is the only library in the city
which has an adequate collection of news-
papers on file.
In formulating these plans— plans which are
being executed— the library staff and the
interior designers have visited about 15
libraries, have read a great deal of library
literature and have consulted many librarians
and office equipment specialists. It is hoped
that April will see the fruition of our efforts.
The foregoing, with new lighting, flooring,
ventilation, communications and redecoration,
should make the legislative library of Ontario
one of the finest in the country, in keeping
with the government policy of providing all
the hon. members of this House with all the
facilities necessary to assist them in discharg-
ing their responsibilities to their constituents
and the people of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Min-
ister be permitted to speak again on the
Throne Debate?
Mr. MacDonald: That is his speech for the
dedication of the new library.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Rruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have two questions for the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), notice of which
has been given. Is the hon. Minister prepared
to make his recently announced crop insur-
ance plan retroactive to cover losses in the
past season? Second, when is the government
going to initiate $4 per 100 for manufactured
milk?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first
question, I believe that the hon. member,
being quite a reasonable and astute man,
would realize that to make any clause retro-
active in any insurance programme would
offend against the principles of insurance
itself. So I am sure that he would accept the
philosophy that there would be no retroactive
clause in the contemplated crop insurance
programme.
In reply to his second question— when will
a $4 price for milk be implemented by the
government— I can only assume that he is re-
ferring to the promise of the federal govern-
ment, made in the last November election
campaign, of providing a $4 price for manu-
factured milk. I can assure the hon. member
that I am looking forward to that announce-
ment by the federal government with as keen
an anticipation as is he.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I be per-
mitted a supplementary question? I under-
stood that the $4 per 100 milk was to be
instituted in co-operation with the provinces.
That was my understanding. May I ask, then:
Has the federal hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Green) consulted with you as to how
this might be done or when it might be done?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question of the hon. member, Mr. Green
has not only consulted with me, I have con-
sulted with him, asking when it is going to
be done, and I would be more than pleased
34
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to know when this will be done. I can say
that the milk commission, and the milk pro-
ducers' marketing board in the province, we
hope — and I think this is just common sense
and good logic — would be used by the
national dairy commission which I believe
the federal Minister proposes to establish, as
was revealed in the federal Speech from the
Throne, as the agents of the national com-
mission, to implement whatever type of pro-
gramme they develop relative to the dairy
industry.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Highways, a
copy of which has been submitted to him.
What is the department doing to avert the
possibility of a strike by Department of High-
ways employees in the Kent— Essex and
Lambton county areas?
Mr. Speaker: Will the member go ahead
with the second —
Mr. Newman: Well, the hon. Minister can
answer this question.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Speaker, I must ask the in-
dulgence of the hon. member to allow me to
take his question as notice. Again I might
say that, having become accustomed to
taking a little bite every day at lunch, I did
not receive his question until I returned and
there simply was not time to pursue it. So if
he would allow me to take it as notice, I will
comment on it as soon as I have the infor-
mation.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister.
The reason I asked, and I thought it was so
urgent, is that the employees are having a
meeting tonight and there may be a strike
tomorrow.
An hon. member: While he is having a
bite.
Mr. Newman: While he is having a bite.
The second question, Mr. Speaker, for the
hon. Minister is: Can the hon. Minister ex-
plain why it was necessary to pay large
bonuses to some engineers working on the
Highway 401 Toronto by-pass this summer?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
the answer to the question of the hon. mem-
ber is that the department was and is experi-
encing a very large turnover in highly
specialized trained staff necessary for the
supervision of the complicated work involved
on the expressways in the Toronto area, par-
ticularly the Toronto by-pass section of 401.
This turnover was brought about by the
tremendously heavy construction activities in
the metropolitan area outside of government;
our personnel was very attractive to industry,
consulting engineers, and construction com-
panies. The only pool to which we could
turn, to meet our requirements for these
highly trained people, was in districts outside
the metropolitan area; the moving of this
staff meant much dislocation of a large pro-
portion of our engineering personnel who
otherwise could expect to stay in the districts
where they were domiciled.
When personnel is living away from desig-
nated headquarters, regulations provide for
the payment of living expenses. However,
the modest premium paid, which was applied
and to which the hon. member has reference,
would approximate the living expenses the
staff would normally be entitled to. The
people receiving these bonuses were not
eligible for living expenses. This also gave
latitude in seeking accommodation, much of
which would be on a short-time basis. I
would also point out that paying this small
bonus resulted in a marked reduction in
administrative costs, and I am pleased to
report that the staff turnover since we imple-
mented this payment in the metropolitan area
has been markedly reduced.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment. Did the Ontario water resources com-
mission consult with the Metro Toronto,
Ontario, planning board before announcing
its sewage scheme for Peel county?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to the question of the hon. member
is: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask a question of the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs. Can the hon. Minister say when
he plans to appoint a board for the Ontario
municipal employees' retirement system of
the character envisaged in the legislation it-
self?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Is that the question?
Mr. Oliver: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I will be glad to
answer. Mr. Speaker, The Ontario Municipal
Employees' Retirement System Act was en-
acted in the spring of 1962, and the regula-
tions thereunder were approved in the
summer of that year. Since it was impossible
JANUARY 26, 1966
35
to accept participation in the system until
January 1, 1963, it was not practicable for
the government to appoint a board at that
time among the employers and members of
the system. The Minister of Municipal
Affairs was responsible for the OMERS Act
and therefore the government entrusted to
him the responsibility for the establishment
of the system and the policy problems asso-
ciated with that.
Prior to the establishment of the Ontario
municipal employees' retirement system, as
the hon. members of the House are well
aware, The Department of Municipal Affairs
was responsible for the administration of the
legislation which authorized municipalities
to provide pensions for municipal employees.
Because of the experience which certain of
the department officers secured as the result
of the administration of this legislation, and
because these same officers were responsible
for the studies which led to the establish-
ment of OMERS, these officers were assigned
extensive responsibility with regard to many
of the organizational problems.
This was essential, because most of the
problems which arose were related to the
discontinuance of pension plans which had
been approved under The Municipal Act and
were terminated in order that the members
could secure the more favourable benefits
available from OMERS. Since the establish-
ment of the system, the field of pensions has
been an extremely active one. It has been
necessary for the government to make a
series of extended and difficult decisions
with regard to OMERS, as the result of de-
velopments concerning the revision of pen-
sions both in the private and the public-
sector.
The enactment by this Legislature of The
Pension Benefits Act and the amendments to
that Act, have had a direct effect on the
benefit structure of OMERS. In addition, the
enactment by the government of Canada of
the Canada pension plan has required this
government to make a major decision with
regard to the pension benefits available from
OMERS. Obviously, because of the many
unforeseen problems of a policy-making
nature which have arisen, and because of the
heavy flow of day-to-day decisions, it has not
been practicable to establish a board, many
members of which would be appointed from
across Ontario and would meet only several
times a year, and would not be available for
day-to-day decisions.
Let me assure hon. members of the House
that OMERS is operating in a completely
legal manner. The pension funds entrusted
to OMERS are invested in accordance with
the requirements of the OMERS Act,
approved unanimously by this Legislature.
Annual and audited reports have been pre-
sented to this House each year, as required
by the OMERS Act. Pension and other ben-
efits are being paid, as provided for in the
OMERS Act. And so, in conclusion, Mr.
Speaker, may I inform the hon. member that
it is the opinion of the government that the
time has not come, as yet, for the appoint-
ment of a board to administer the system as
contemplated in the regulations under the
OMERS Act.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my
hon. friend, in a supplementary way, if he
foresees, in the not-too-distant future, the
advisability of appointing such a board; or
has he ruled it out for all time?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I think
we must understand that the OMERS plan is
still being built. There are some municipal
employees to whom the benefits of OMERS
were not applicable until January 1, 1966.
There are other municipal employees to whom
the benefits of OMERS are not yet applicable,
and will not be for some time. Therefore it
is my feeling that, while we are going through
this period of building the system, it is not
possible to operate with this particular board
as envisaged in the Act when it was enacted
in 1962. I would hope, however, that before
too long, because I, personally, wish to be
relieved of the responsibility, it would be
possible to complete the organizational work
and then proceed with the appointment of
the board; but I cannot tell you that it is
going to happen tomorrow morning.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
a supplementary question? I have noted that
the hon. Minister speaks of OMERS with
enthusiasm.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! I am sorry, the
leader of the Opposition did not have a ques-
tion. The member for Grey South has further
questions for the Minister and it is he who is
now posing the questions.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I clarify
whether supplementary questions are per-
mitted?
Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry. I do not
think it is in order at this time to have a
debate on the subject. A question has been
asked of the Minister and the Minister has
replied. The member asking the question has
asked a supplementary question.
36
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: But no one else can ask
a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: The question is not to be de-
bated. It is for the member asking the ques-
tion, if he wished another supplementary
question; not anyone else to engage in the
questioning of the Minister.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, might I try the
hon. Provincial Treasurer for a question?
Would the hon. Minister explain whether
or not the recent increase in the retail price
of cigarettes was due to the government's
new method of collecting provincial sales tax?
Now be careful on that one.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am very
glad to provide the information requested by
the hon. member. May I say, at first, that
there has been no increase in sales tax. In
fact, tobacco products, which of course in-
clude cigarettes, were exempted from sales
tax as of December 31 last. A tobacco tax
was instituted in its place, effective January 1.
The rate under the new tax, which is based
on quantity, rather than value, is designed
to be as nearly identical to those in effect
under The Retail Sales Tax Act as possible.
The tax on packages of 20 cigarettes was
identical. The tobacco tax on packages of 25
cigarettes is 1.25 cents while, under the sales
tax, it was one cent; this is the only difference
of any consequence arising from the imposi-
tion of the new tax.
It would appear, therefore, that the in-
crease in the price of cigarettes was not
caused by the imposition of the tobacco tax.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I have just one
supplementary question. The adjustment that
has taken place in the imposition of this tax,
is it bringing in more money from this source
than it was originally?
Hon. Mr. Allan: The first returns will be
on February 15.
Mr. Oliver: The hon. Provincial Treasurer
will let me know then?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I will let him know.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Attorney General.
Would the hon. Attorney-General advise
the House:
First, has the government of Ontario re-
ceived any detailed information from the
Royal Canadian mounted police in relation
to the remarks made by RCMP Commissioner
George McClellan; and I am sure my friend,
the hon. Attorney-General, knows of the
remarks to which I refer, even though they
are not stated in the question? If not, has a
formal request been made to the RCMP for
such a report? If such a report has been
received, to what extent does it affect the
province of Ontario, and in what manner?
And, finally, if such a report has been re-
ceived, what steps are the law enforcement
authorities of Ontario taking to safeguard the
interests of the people of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I must say
that the question is very vague regarding the
remarks made by the RCMP commissioner,
George McClellan. He made remarks, the
only remarks I know of, running to six pages
of typewritten material, all of which I have.
These were made at the conference of
Attorneys General in Ottawa on January 7 and
8. I think the hon. member has made refer-
ence to a story which appeared, attributing to
someone in the mounted police statements
that payoffs were made by organized criminal
syndicates-
Mr. Singer: There was municipal corrup-
tion in the police and municipal organizations.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Very good. That ap-
peared in one of the local papers, I believe.
The remarks of the commissioner on that
subject were made in the conference at
Ottawa but there is no reason why they
should not now be made public. What he
actually said was, referring to organized
crime:
They develop over the years to where
they anticipate as a group an indefinite
span of assoeiation in criminal activity.
Therefore to operate successfully and con-
tinually they must have two factors in their
favour: (a) inefficient enforcement of exist-
ing laws; and (b) immunity from prosecu-
tion and interference.
This is the only reference, the paragraph
which follows, to the payoff:
A second factor is of great importance to
the group. To obtain immunity they must
ingratiate or make payoff to someone in
authority, be it the police, civic authorities,
politicians, or influential members of the
community. The by-product of this action
is corruption, a breakdown in the admin-
istration of justice, of government function
and of the moral fibre of the community.
That was Commissioner McClellan's state-
ment. I believe that someone in the Royal
Canadian mounted police, at some other level
—the report I read gave the source as Mont-
real — made some statement and named
JANUARY 26, 1966
37
Ontario and Quebec as places of payoff of
this kind.
My answer to that section of the question,
if that is what it refers to, is this: Representa-
tives of the Ontario police commission and
the Ontario provincial police have discussed
in detail with the Royal Canadian mounted
police representatives the remarks made by
the commissioner of the RCMP and other
remarks attributed to members of that force.
The comment made by Commissioner Mc-
Clellan is contained in a statement at the con-
ference of the Attorneys General in Ottawa
on January 6 and 7, 1966 and I have read
the relevant parts of that statement. This was
stated as being one of the factors that it is
most important to organized criminal groups,
and it will be seen that it is stated as a prin-
ciple not as an allegation or suggestion, that
such immunity or payoff exists in Ontario.
A subsequent comment attributed to a
member of the RCMP purported to say that
this sort of thing did exist in areas of Canada,
including Ontario, but this has now been
denied by the RCMP. All of the comments
on this subject have been discussed with the
RCMP; we have been assured that they have
no knowledge that immunity has been or is
being given to criminals in Ontario or that
payoffs have been made in this province. We
are further assured that the comments made
were intended as statements of a principle;
that there was no intention to suggest that
these corrupt practices existed in Ontario.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we were
quick to ask the RCMP on the basis of the
newspaper report if they had any such in-
formation and why had we not got it. They
were quick to say they had no such instances
to report or they would have reported them
at once. May I assure this House, Mr.
Speaker, that any information relating to this
form of practice would have been conveyed
to us through the existing intelligence system
if the information had in fact existed. There-
upon the appropriate law enforcement agen-
cies would have taken action.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Attorney General for his answer. It occurs
to me to ask him as a supplementary ques-
tion why this was not clarified, because this
sort of statement is very disturbing to the
citizens of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think, Mr. Speaker,
that first of all it was a speculative news-
paper report, picking up certain words say-
ing there is payoff in Ontario and other
places in Canada. Now it may be the way
the story was pursued gave it almost as a
specific case that "we know there is a pay-
off in such and such a place." All that was
being said was a general statement that
through Canada, if criminal elements are to
operate there will be payoffs and there have
been. I think it was relating to a situation
that was general.
However, the commissioner of the Ontario
provincial police immediately contacted the
RCMP and there was a complete denial at
once. He went on television, the same day
that the story appeared I believe, and broad-
cast the answer of the RCMP and stated that
there was no basis for the story. I did not
pursue it personally myself to that extent.
However, I was interviewed by the press and
I took occasion to say I have information
from the top authority that there is no
evidence of such payoff existing, and if the
RCMP had it they would have given it to us
and we would have been prosecuting. That
was the best I thought I could do.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Haskett). Does the hon. Minister have any
intention of implementing the as yet un-
implemented recommendations made by the
select committee on automobile insurance?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, each of the few remaining or
as yet unimplemented recommendations of
the select committee on automobile insur-
ance has been under detailed study in depth
as regards both specific and general conno-
tations and the disposition of each is now
receiving active consideration.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, as a supple-
mentary question, could I have a yes or no
answer?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The answer is no.
Mr. Singer: Oh, no! Well, that is good.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day and with your indulg-
ence, I should like to read an announcement
which was made public just a few minutes
ago. It concerns an agreement between Steep
Rock Iron Mines Limited and the Algoma
Steel Corporation, an agreement which has
been pending for several months and which
I am happy to say has now been finalized.
It is an agreement which will have a bene-
ficial effect on the economy of two parts of
Ontario immediately, that is the Steep Rock—
Lakehead area and Sault Ste. Marie, and
38
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which could in the long run revolutionize
the economic life of a large part of north-
western Ontario. May I now quote from this
statement which has been issued by the
Steep Rock Iron Company:
The Algoma Steel Corporation Limited,
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and Steep Rock
Iron Mines Limited, Steep Rock Lake,
Ontario, have signed joint venture agree-
ments under which Algoma acquires title
to substantial open pit hematite iron ore
reserves at Steep Rock Lake which will be
mined, pelletized and shipped to Algoma
by Steep Rock. The agreements cover a
minimum period of 22 years and involve
installation by Steep Rock of a pelletizing
plant at Steep Rock Lake for the pro-
duetion of 1.1 million tons of iron ore
pellets annually for Algoma. Construction
of the plant is underway with initial pro-
duction scheduled for the spring of 1967.
Iron ore pellets produced from low
grade taconite ores have proven to be
efficient for blast furnace burning, and
tests have established that pellets of equal
quality can be produced at lower cost from
the higher grade hematite ores at Steep
Rock Lake.
Agreements also cover shipment by
Steep Rock to Algoma of direct shipping
open-pit iron ore from Algoma's reserves
until the new pellet plant is in operation.
Production of this ore for Algoma will be
at a rate of approximately 600,000 tons
per year until 1967. Under the agree-
ments, Algoma also acquires a substantial
interest in iron reserves at Steep Rock's
Lake St. Joseph property which is some-
what north of there, approximately 170
miles north of Steep Rock Lake.
This magnetic taconite deposit is be-
lieved to be the largest known reserve of
pelletizing-type iron ore in Ontario. These
long-term agreements will augment
Algoma's supply of iron ore from its pro-
ducing mines on the Michipicoten iron
range some 150 miles north of Sault Ste.
Marie and will provide Steep Rock with
a large tonnage outlet for iron ore pellets.
In addition to mining and pelletizing
Algoma's reserves at Steep Rock Lake,
Steep Rock plans to supply pellets to other
Xorth American steel producers from other
reserves at Steep Rock Lake. A 20-year
contract for the supply of 250,000 tons
of iron ore pellets annually is under negoti-
ation by Steep Rock with another steel
company.
With this in view, a pelletizing plant
being installed by Steep Rock will have an
initial capacity of 1,350,000 tons per year
and is destined for expansion double this
capacity. Algoma Steel is the second larg-
est primary steel producer in Canada with
steel ingot production capacity of 2,450,-
000 tons a year. Algoma's president, Mr.
David S. Holdbrook, recently announced
a major deeply integrated expansion pro-
gramme estimated to cost about $175
million and expected to increase Algoma's
raw steel capacity to 3.75 million tons a
year. The major additions include a new
large battery of coke ovens, a new large
blast furnace, a new basic oxygen steel pro-
ducing plant with two 200-ton furnaces,
a 160-inch wide plate mill and extended
rolling capacity for sheet, strip and struc-
tures.
This programme, Mr. Speaker, is planned for
completion by 1969 or 1970 and a large pro-
portion of the increased iron ore requirements
to support increased iron and steel production
will be provided under the agreements with
Steep Rock.
These agreements will be of great economic
value to Ontario and Canada. They will re-
duce the amount of iron ore which would
otherwise be imported, thus assisting in main-
taining Canada's balance of trade, as well as
increasing employment at Steep Rock Lake
and Sault Ste. Marie.
1 am pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, to make
this announcement to the House, as it
assures the future stability, progress and pros-
perity of the northwestern area of Ontario
which I have, along with my hon. friend
across the way and the hon. member for
Rainy River, the honour to represent, and
also the area of the hon. Attorney General.
The benefits of these developments will be
felt not only in Ontario but throughout the
whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Before
moving the adjournment of the House, to-
morrow we will proceed with the first order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.50 o'clock, p.m.
No. 3
ONTARIO
HegMature of (Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, January 27, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk; Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, January 27, 1966
Unveiling plaque commemorating Sir James Pliny Whitney, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Thompson,
Mr. MacDonald 41
Reading and receiving petitions 42
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 43
Bailiffs Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Crown Administration of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Jurors Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 44
Presenting reports, Mr. Yaremko 57
Motion of thanks for Speech from the Throne, Mr. Knox, Mr. Carton 57
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Singer, agreed to 67
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 67
41
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, January 27, 1966
Tfie House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests, in the west gallery,
students from Deer Park public school,
Toronto.
Before the routine proceedings of the day,
I thought it best that we have the ceremony
of unveiling the plaque to my left, so that I
could better see the members wishing to find
the elusive eye of the Speaker, particularly
during the questions before the orders of the
day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask if you would pull the
cord? This is a rather unusual procedure; but
the Speaker consented to permit us to do this
in order that we might draw, to the attention
of the hon. members of the House, this plaque
which will be erected in what is now known
as the east block— which will be re-named
the Whitney Block in honour of Sir James
Pliny Whitney, who was the sixth prime min-
ister of this province.
He was bom in Williamsburg, Upper Can-
ada, in 1843, came to this House as the
member for Dundas in 1888, led the Opposi-
tion from 1896 to 1905, when the govern-
ment headed by the Hon. G. W. Ross, was
defeated. Mr. Whitney formed the govern-
ment in 1905. He remained prime minister
until 1914 and, in going through the record,
it has a somewhat familiar ring; this period
was perhaps remembered for the introduc-
tion of extensive legislation relating to agri-
culture, labour, education, and public utilities.
He was knighted in 1908.
Just for the information of the hon. mem-
bers, the east block was started in 1924, com-
pleted in 1927. In re-naming it, and bringing
some attention to this policy of naming the
buildings here, we really propose to accom-
plish two things. This was first discussed in
1964 but, with the construction of the new
complex to the east, we are going to have a
variety of buildings there. We are attempting
to bring the government back to Queen s Park
and this will mean that if these buildings are
named they will be much easier to identify
by the public, who will be using these build-
ings instead of the various places they now
go to— which is pretty much all over Toronto
at the present time.
Second, we feel that there is some virtue
in perpetuating the names of those men who
have gone before, and who have done so
much to serve this province.
The new Treasury building will be named
at a ceremony later on perhaps in this session,
and it will be named the Frost Building in
honour of Mr. Frost, who was the 16th prime
minister; beyond that, too, his association
with the Treasury stems from the fact he was
prime minister from 1949 to 1961 and treas-
urer from 1943 until 1955, which is a long
period, and again in 1958.
Then the building presently under con-
struction just beyond the east block, upon its
completion will be named the Hepburn Block
in honour of the late Mitchell F. Hepburn*
who was prime minister from July of 1934
until October of 1942.
Yesterday we had in the galleries some
students from the Whitney public school,
who came here to see the man for whom
their school was named honoured in this way.
Unfortunately, the events of yesterday just
simply did not permit us to get to this very
brief but very important function.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with
the hon. Prime Minister in making some re-
marks about Sir James Pliny Whitney. Might
I say at the start that I know I and my party
appreciate the fact that the government is
giving honour to the great sons of Ontario
who played a distinguished and dedicated
part in building our province. I believe that
we can learn a great deal from looking back
at these former prime ministers, and we get
inspiration and confidence as we look ahead
to the future of Ontario.
n
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I noted that Sir James Whitney had served
a period as leader of the Opposition and I
think this is a good apprenticeship for anyone
who is going to become the prime minister,
because indeed he was a great prime minis-
ter. He was, perhaps, leader of the Opposi-
tion for a little longer thafl some of us would
want to be, but then he had a pretty tough
government to throw out. As we know, it was
a Liberal government at the time.
I may say that, with the hon. Prime Min-
ister, we recognize that Sir James Whitney
left a legacy to all the people of Ontario and
I would like to allude to other areas which
have been of great importance to the people
of Ontario. I am thinking of the hydro-
electric power commission, which was started
in 1906; and I am thinking of workmen's
compensation, which was started in 1914. I
think that perhaps the students from the
school called after Sir James Whitney, would
have appreciated being here at the com-
memoration of this plaque, and perhaps
have also been stimulated from seeing parlia-
ment in action, which I am sure is somewhat
similar to the days when Sir James Whitney
was the prime minister.
I might say that, over the weekend, I was
reading some excerpts from Hansard, and also
from the comments made by the fourth estate
concerning parliamentary debate during the
time that Sir James Whitney was the prime
minister. I am sometimes inclined to think
that there is a bite and a sting to this public
forum which has become unique in this 20th
century, but I realize that they were tough
and rugged men in those days before us.
From reading both the newspaper reports and
Hansard I would say that if we sometimes
think the kitchen gets warm, it was steaming
as far as they were concerned.
Sir, I congratulate the government on
following through and commemorating the
great men who have gone before. We con-
cur in paying respect to Sir James Whitney.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there is nothing further that I could
add in tribute to Sir James Whitney, beyond
that said by the hon. Prime Minister and
the hon. leader of the Opposition. His place
in Ontario's history is well known and well
established, and I think it is highly appro-
priate that one of the main buildings of our
legislative complex should be named after
him.
I think I am correct in saying that there is
a rather interesting historical footnote with
regard to this action today. I have been led
to believe that at an earlier stage, the east
block was half-named the Whitney building.
But for some reason or other, the name did
not stick; it became lost in the shuffle of time
and became the east block. So we really are
just re-establishing what had been initiated
at some earlier stage and which, for some
some reason or other, did not become fixed
as a part of history.
I would just like to add one further com-
ment with regard to the general practice that
the hon. Prime Minister has indicated today,
that of naming these new buildings after the
honoured sons of the province. I think it is
a good idea. On earlier occasions I have
expressed some misgivings with regard to a
practice of naming outstanding spots in
Ontario— buildings and others— after people
who were living. In most instances, " it is
people who are dead. Every rule, I think,
should have an exception and I would be
the first one to concede that if you are going
to name the Treasury building after anybody,
it is appropriately named after a man who
was Provincial Treasurer longer than any
other in our history, namely, Leslie Mis-
campbell Frost. I hope that is the exception
that will prove the rule; and that it will re-
main the only exception.
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the township of
Saltfleet praying that an Act may pass em-
powering the corporation to relieve owners
of farm lands from part of certain special
assessments, yearly, so long as such lands
continue to be used for farming.
Of the board of education of the township
of Toronto praying that an Act may pass
annulling certain trusts and permitting it to
sell certain lands owned by it by virtue of
The Township of Toronto Act, 1962-1963.
Of the Greater Niagara general hospital
praying that an Act may pass establishing
the terms of office of the board of governors.
Of the corporation of the county of Water-
loo praying that an Act may pass providing
for the re-establishment of the boundaries of
the police village of Baden; also, of the cor-
poration of the town of Hespeler praying that
an Act may pass permitting it to pay the cost
of certain curb and gutter work by a special
rate.
Of the corporation of the town of Burling-
ton praying that an Act may pass to defer
frontage charges on storm sewers, curbs and
sidewalks.
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
JANUARY 27, 1966
43
to enter into certain agreements for the pur-
pose of maintaining and operating a com-
munity television system; and for other
purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves, seconded by hon.
J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer), that to-
morrow, Friday, and on each succeeding
Friday for the present session, this House
will meet at 10.30 o'clock a.m. and that rule
2 of the assembly be suspended so far as it
might apply to this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES
INSURANCE ACT, 1965
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Medical Services Insurance Act,
1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
brief remarks concerning this bill. I can
assure you, sir, that it will not be contro-
versial.
This amendment contains three basic
changes in principle in the present Act, which
are contained in sections 5 and 14 of the bill
and also the schedule. The first basic change
is that the standard medical services insur-
ance contract is to be supplied only by the
medical services insurance division of The
Department of Health. Accordingly, pro-
visions dealing with the licensing and regu-
lation of carriers in the medical services
insurance programme have been repealed
and complementary amendments have been
made.
The second basic change is that the bene-
fits under the standard contract are based
upon 90 per cent of the schedule of fees of
the Ontario medical association rather than
upon 100 per cent.
The third basic change relates to the
removal of special waiting periods from
maternity benefits under standard medical
services insurance contracts.
An amendment to the schedule provides
that certain surgical procedures performed
by dental surgeons in -hospital as specified in
the regulations will be covered by the
standard medical services insurance contract.
Limitations which were to be prescribed by
the regulations for psychotherapy and well-
baby care have been removed.
There are a few additional points which
I am sure, sir, will be of great interest to
the hon. members. The starting date of the
programme for those receiving assistance
under various welfare Acts is scheduled to
begin on April 1, 1966. The general pro-
gramme is to start on July 1, 1966. This
phased approach is considered desirable to
permit efficient administration and adequate
time for general enrolment.
Enrolment of individuals receiving assist-
ance under the various welfare Acts will be
automatic. The open enrolment period for all
others will be March 1 to May 1, 1966.
As for premium levels and assistance to
low-income groups, people receiving benefits
under any of the following Acts will not be
required to pay a premium— The Blind Per-
sons' Allowance Act, The Disabled Persons*
Allowance Act, The General Welfare Assist-
ance Act, The Mothers' Allowances Act, The
Old Age Assistance Act, The Rehabilitation
Services Act. In addition, the plan will auto-
matically provide fully-paid coverage for all
old-age security pensioners who are declared
eligible for such coverage by The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare in Ontario.
Assistance will also be given to the follow-
ing people, provided they have been resident
in Ontario for the past 12 months and make
application to establish eligibility. To the
single person, complete cost will be $60 per
year. The government pays $30, the sub-
scriber $30. For a family of two, the total
cost will be $120 per year, the family paying
$60, the government paying $60. For a
family of three or more, the total cost will
be $150 per year; the family head will pay
$60 per year, and the government will pay
$90 per year. ..v ..
As for premium payments for persons not
receiving assistance, there are three categories
in the following costs—the single person, $60
per year; the family of two, $120 per year;
and the family of three or more, $150 a,
year. _ r
In summary, sir, with these amendments
the plan will make available to those enrolled
practically all physician services in home,
office and hospital. It will also provide for
specialists' services when referred, it will be
publicly administered, and it provides for out-
of-province benefit. It is so designed that
portability can be arranged with other prov-'
inces. u c
44
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE BAILIFFS ACT, 1960-1961
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Bailiffs Act, 1960-1961.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
The purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to
add provisions to the Act governing the
handling of money by a bailiff.
THE CROWN ADMINISTRATION OF
ESTATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Crown
Administration of Estates Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The purpose of this
bill, Mr. Speaker, is to make it possible for
the public trustee to apply for letters of
administration and letters probate in estates
where next of kin are out of Ontario and
cannot be quickly discovered, and to prevent
delay of the proceedings towards securing
grants of letters of administration and letters
probate.
THE COUNT.Y COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the
bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the bill
makes a very small change and is related
only to the county court and the date of
opening, moving the date of opening in
Bracebridge from the second Monday in
December to the last Monday in November.
The late opening date makes for some diffi-
culties in completing the work of the court.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In explanation of this
brief bill, Mr. Speaker, I would point out
that, at present, where a fire insurer re-
insured with another company, the re-insurer
paid the tax on the premium. The amendment
would require the first insurer to pay the tax
and remove the obligation from the re-insurer,
and the tax payable on fire insurance claims
where the insurer is outside of the jurisdic-
tion is deleted.
THE IURORS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Jurors
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The reason for the
amendment of The Jurors Act comes about
by reason of the appointment of district
assessors and county assessment commis-
sioners, where the Act requires the local
assessor to attend at meetings with other
municipal officials to select jurors. This would
be rather difficult where there is one district
assessor or a commissioner, and it enables
him to delegate such attendance to an
appointee.
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Public
Trustee Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the
amendment is brief. It simply makes it clear
that the public trustee may act as executor
or administrator of an estate, as well as a
trustee.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Sheriffs
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of the amendment is simply to define
the duties of a deputy sheriff where, for one
reason or another, the sheriff is absent or
incapacitated and unable to act.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Mechanics' Lien Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of the bill is to provide for some reason-
able description in respect to discharges of
JANUARY 27, 1966
45
mechanics' liens, so that they may be more
readily followed in The Registry Act and
The Land Titles Act.
An hon. member: Why does the hon.
Attorney General not do a job on that Act?
Another hon. member: He is doing a job on
it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I might say, in
response to the interruption, or question, that
The Mechanics' Lien Act in general has
been referred to the law reform commission,
Mr. Speaker, and is receiving study there.
This small amendment will clear up a situa-
tion that needs prompt attention. We are
doing a job on it.
An hon. member: Too bad the hon. mem-
ber for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) did not know
that.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
question asked of me before the orders of
the day yesterday, by the hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. Newman), I would
request your permission, sir, and the con-
currence of the hon. member, to defer to the
hon. Provincial Treasurer for the purpose
of answering this question. I point out, in so
doing, that the question involves a matter
of negotiation at the civil service commis-
sion level, which department of government
of course is administered by the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, if I may ask of the hon. Minis-
ter of Highways: Is he aware that the em-
ployees threatened to strike at the first sign
of a fairly heavy snowfall and, as a result,
he may find the highways in southwestern
Ontario in a very bad condition? The em-
ployees have been negotiating with the gov-
ernment for two years now. Surely the hon.
Minister knows that $62.50-a-week, take-home
pay is not right?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the follow-
ing information to the House. The employees
in question, approximately 100 in number,
are chiefly employed in maintenance trades
and service classes. The civil service associa-
tion of Ontario has been given statutory
recognition as the representative of these
employees, for purposes of negotiating
salaries and other terms and conditions of
employment. Salaries for these classes, to-
gether with office and technical classes, in-
volving over 22,000 persons in total, are
scheduled for regular cyclical review on
January 1, 1966 and negotiations are well
advanced.
Representatives of the civil service associa-
tion and of the government are meeting at
this time, in an attempt to negotiate mutually
acceptable salary revisions for these classes.
Seven negotiation meetings have been held
since December 1, 1965 and proposals have
been made by both sides. Negotiations are
continuing in accordance with procedures
that have been mutually determined and
accepted by the parties, and progress is be-
ing made. A further meeting has been
scheduled. At such time as the new salaries
are finally determined, they will be made
retroactively effective to January 1, 1966. In
the event that settlement is not reached in
the negotiations now under way, The Public
Service Act provides that the matter will be
referred to the Ontario joint council for de-
termination.
The final stage, if matters are not resolved,
is a reference to the civil service arbitration
board for adjudication in accordance with
the provisions of The Public Service Act. I
would add, however, that senior officials of
the civil service association report satis-
faction with the progress of negotiations to
date.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there was a question
asked of me yesterday by the hon. leader of
the Opposition and I am prepared to give an
answer today.
This occasion gives me the opportunity to
perhaps give the House some information in
connection with the provision of pensions for
municipal employees.
As the hon. members know, the field of
pensions is difficult and complex. In recent
years there has been an unprecedented de-
velopment in the field of pensions, both in
the private and in the public sectors. Some
of these developments have been incredibly
complicated. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that
many of the problems with which we have
been faced in recent months in the field of
pensions is because of the complexity of
pensions on the one hand and the very many
developments which have been achieved, or
are in the process of being achieved, on the
other.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this govern-
ment has played a leading part in many of
these developments. For instance, insofar
as the private sector is concerned, as the
46
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. members of the House know, this gov-
ernment was responsible for the enactment
of The Pension Benefits Act— which Act has,
for the first time, established procedures
designed not only to provide portability of
pensions but also to ensure the financial
stability of pension funds, and thus has
ensured that when all employees in the prov-
ince reach normal retirement age funds will
be available to pay the pensions which have
accrued to them.
Many of the provisions of The Pension
Benefits Act apply not only in the private
sector but in the public sector in Ontario.
Insofar as municipal pensions are con-
cerned, as hon. members are aware, this gov-
ernment has enacted legislation which I am
informed is the most progressive in this field
of any provincial jurisdiction in Canada.
In 1960, the inadequacy of pensions for
municipal employees became increasingly ap-
parent to the government. It authorized a
study. That study disclosed, for instance, that:
(a) 97 per cent of the employees of villages,
(b) 88 per cent of the employees of townships,
and (c) 68 per cent of the employees of towns
did not have pension benefits. The pension
benefits available to the employees were
becoming increasingly inadequate; there was
no provision for portability from municipality
to municipality and the cost of pensions to
the smaller municipalities and local boards
was prohibitive. Because of the interest, and
at the same time the dissatisfaction, of the
municipalities a great many were expressing
their wish to present to this Legislature
private legislation in order to secure more
attractive pensions.
As a result of this situation, the government
authorized an extensive study into the field
of pensions for municipal employees. During
this study the practices of the 50 American
states, and those of the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand were examined.
As the result of this study, the government
recommended to the House the establishment
of the Ontario municipal employees' retire-
ment system. This system made available to
the employees the following benefits: (a) A
normal retirement pension at age 65; (b) a
disability retirement pension after 10 years
of service; (c) a pension to the employee's
widow; (d) an early retirement pension; (e)
a deferred pension; (f) immediate vesting—
almost a first in Canada; and (g) a refund of
employees' contributions with interest.
I can assure the House that this was a
most progressive group of pension benefits
and that, because of the financial, adminis-
trative and actuarial concepts, the system
could make available to the municipalities
and local boards these benefits at rates
slightly in excess of what was being paid
by many of the municipalities at that time
for lesser benefits.
The reception of OMERS by the muni-
cipalities speaks for itself. The system was
established on January 1, 1963. At the end
of that year, 9,900 municipal employees
participated in the system. At the end of
1964 this figure stood at 19,000. Today it
stands at 33,000.
I want to emphasize to the hon. members
of the House that to these 33,000 employees
OMERS represents a substantial increase in
the level of their pension benefits. For in-
stance, the wives of all of these men for
the first time are protected by a widow's
pension. All of these men benefit from imme-
diate vesting in the employer contribution.
I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that
OMERS is almost unique in this regard.
May I now make some brief comments
on changes which have been made in the
benefit structure of OMERS, as a result of dis-
cussions with either senior municipal officials
or officials of one or other of the unions
which represent the municipal employees?
Under the terms of OMERS the normal
retirement age of policemen and firemen is
age 60. Under the terms of the Canada
pension plan at the present time, on the
other hand, an individual will not be entitled
to a pension until age 65. As the result of
the integration of OMERS with the Canada
pension plan, a reduction in the contribution
and the benefit structure of OMERS was made
in relation to earnings up to $5,000 per year.
The reduction in the benefit structure will
be more than offset by the increased benefit
available from the Canada pension plan.
However, a pension from OMERS was avail-
able at age 60, whereas the pension from
the Canada pension plan will not be available
until age 65.
As the hon. members of the House will
recall, the statement of the hon. Prime
Minister on December 14 last contained the
following sentence:
This government has been especially
concerned to ensure that whatever action
is taken the retirement benefits will not
be in any way reduced. I give my assur-
ance that under integration absolutely no
reduction in present pension benefits will
occur.
Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters,
telephone calls, and visits from individual
members and officials of the unions which
JANUARY 27, 1966
47
represent the policemen and firemen of the
province. I am happy to draw to the atten-
tion of the House that, as a result of the
discussions which took place between these
members, officials, and the actuarial advisers
of the system, that the terms of the OMERS
pension plan have been amended so that
now, under OMERS, policemen and firemen
who are entitled to receive their normal
retirement pension at age 60 may now elect
to receive from age 60 to age 65 the pension
that was available before integration, and
at age 65 the OMERS pension is proportion-
ately reduced and this reduction at age 65 is
offset by the pension the officers will receive
from the Canada pension plan.
Another instance of a change in the bene-
fits structure of OMERS, as the result of
discussions with the officials of the municipali-
ties and in particular those of the municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto, is with regard to the
widow's pension formula that was initially
inserted in OMERS benefits. The initial terms
contained a provision for certain reductions,
depending upon the relative age of the widow
of the member, and the member. This clause
was considerably adjusted in order to elim-
inate what many municipal officials consid-
ered to be an onerous situation. Let me now
make a few specific comments with regard to
the problems associated with the integration
of the pension benefits available from OMERS
with those of the Canada pension plan.
As the hon. members know, the hon. Prime
Minister issued a memorandum on this matter
under date of December 14. I do not propose
to elaborate on that statement at this particu-
lar time. However, I would like to make the
point that this government is very much con-
cerned with the development of trained and
competent municipal officials. Obviously, in
determining its position in the field of pen-
sions for municipal employees, for instance,
the government certainly does not wish to
place the municipalities in a disadvantageous
position insofar as pensions are concerned,
with regard to the other employers in the
community.
I can assure the hon. members of the
House that the government will take what-
ever steps are necessary, as the record proves
it has in the past, to ensure that the munici-
palities are placed in a position to offer
attractive and competitive pension benefits to
their employees. On the other hand, the gov-
ernment has an obligation to protect the finan-
cial stability of the municipalities and to
examine very closely the impact of additional
costs on the local taxpayer.
In completing my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
may I state that the government is constantly
examining the problem of pensions for muni-
cipal employees, attempting to seek ways in
which the requests of the representatives of
the employees may be met within the finan-
cial resources of the employees involved and
the economic capabilities of the municipali-
ties and their ratepayers.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, a
question for you. Mr. Speaker, could I be
told what was the question that prompted
this White Paper on OMERS?
Mr. Speaker: The question was asked yes-
terday, I believe, by the leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Mr. Thompson: I was really going to say,
Mr. Speaker, that I have not had an answer
to my question. It has been interesting to
hear the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs,
but I would like to get an answer.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a
supplementary question?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Well, it is
the same question that was not answered. He
is looking up his files.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman). Would
the hon. Minister inform the House how
extensively the attire referred to, in the CBC
news last night, as "baby doll pyjamas" is
used in the reform institutions?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, the protective
clothing facetiously referred to as "baby doll
pyjamas", by inmates and others, has the
following history:
About five years ago the staff at Guelph
were concerned with the possibility of an
inmate doing violence to himself when placed
in segregation while suffering an acute emo-
tional disturbance.
Normal clothing in this regard is, of course,
hazardous. It can be torn into strips and used
for purposes of self-destruction.
The staff at Guelph consulted with the
psychiatric staff of Homewood sanitarium
and Dr. Burton of Homewood suggested a
special garment which can be described as
follows: It is of one piece, "V"-neck, with no
sleeves and comes down to the knees. It is
made of quilted cotton, which is difficult to
tear.
These garments were tried with segregated
inmates, who were emotionally disturbed.
48
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They proved practical and appropriate to the
purpose for which they were intended,
namely, the safety of the inmates, and are
used only in the case of an inmate who is
emotionally disturbed to such a degree as to
be a potential danger to himself, and then
only when that inmate is in a segregated
detention cell.
In this respect I quote a directive sent to
all institutions, dated November 24, 1961,
signed by the then deputy minister, and I
quote:
From time to time we have all experi-
enced considerable difficulty and anxiety in
handling prisoners who exhibit suicidal
and/or obstreperous characteristics.
Some time ago we had a particularly
serious case at the Ontario reformatory,
Guelph, and the psychiatrist recommended
that all clothing be removed and the pris-
oner be issued with a jumper, two quilts
and sockees, all of special design to prevent
the prisoner from harming himself. This
special issue has proven so effective that
we feel it should be available in all institu-
tions. You should therefore submit a requi-
sition to this office marked for the attention
of Mr. F. V. Ott.
Signed, the deputy minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as to how extensively they
are used, a check-up this morning established
the fact that in all our institutions, accommo-
dating a total of 2,877, there are at this
moment only eleven such items of protective
clothing in use.
It should be made clear that no reference
was made to this attire in the report of the
Anglican Church committee set up to study
charges made by Mr. West, who has made
reference to the alleged abuse of the use of
so-called pyjamas from time to time and on
television last night. It should be clear to all
that if Mr. West has any such evidence which
he claims he has, to support the charges, it
is his duty to present such evidence to his
own church committee which was set up to
investigate this charge, which he has, as I
have said, repeated from time to time.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): They have not
completed their study.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course they have
not. Just exercise some control! One can
only presume that either he has made these
charges before the committee and was not
upheld; or that the charges are still under
investigation by that committee. In either
case, it seems highly inappropriate, to say
the least, that a public statement should be
made by this gentleman, in the face of the
responsible actions of his own church com-
mittee which is attempting to deal with this
matter in a proper and formal fashion.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: Granted.
Mr. Young: Then two categories of people
were outlined who would use these particular
garments— the people who might be in
danger of committing suicide, and the
obstreperous people? I wonder if the hon.
Minister would tell us who determines who
are the obstreperous people? Is this a matter
of recommendation by the superintendent of
the institution?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the
superintendent of the institution, with the
advice of the staff who are qualified to make
this decision.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the hon. Attorney General. It
is in two parts.
1. Will the hon. Attorney General confirm
reports that the arrest of a Liberal member
of the Quebec Legislature last week for in-
fluence peddling came as a result of "wheels
set in motion by Ontario"?
2. What was the nature of the action from
Ontario which led to this result?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, we have
no report and have received no information
that this arrest was as a result of wheels set
in motion by Ontario, so therefore the second
part of the question falls.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the hon. Attorney General a supplementary
question? Can he explain, then, remarks
credited to him in an article by Barry
Zwicker in last Saturday's Toronto Globe and
Mail, following an interview with the hon.
Attorney General, to this effect?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I remember seeing an
article by Barry Zwicker, but I do not recall
that he attributed a statement of this nature
to me. He may have got information from
some other source, but I have no report.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Public Welfare
(Mr. Cecile), of which he has already had
notice.
JANUARY 27, 1966
Is the hon. Minister considering any form
of provincial help to raise the pay scales for
visiting homemakers?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure my hon.
friend will recall, at the last session the regu-
lations to The Homemakers and Nurses Serv-
ices Act were changed to increase the share-
able amount from $8 a day to $12 a day for
a homemaker. As far as we are aware, the
existing rate provides for this service, and I
can assure the House, Mr. Speaker that con-
sideration is constantly being given to any
required changes to the allowances.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would accept a supplementary
question. Is he aware that, even though they
receive either $8 or $12 a day, no home-
maker is receiving the minimum $1.25 an
hour here in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Speaker, the only
answer I can give my hon. friend at the
present moment is that I understand the
people who give most of this service are the
Red Cross; and their rate, so far as I am
aware, is from $8 to $10 a day, and they are
receiving it. I will be glad to take this under
advisement and find out about it. As for the
matter that the hon. member has raised, I am
not aware that any representation has been
made to me either by the municipalities or
any of these groups up to the present time.
Mr. Ben: I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions, Mr. Speaker.
Would the hon. Minister comment on the
charges made by the Anglican Church lay
clergymen's committee on conditions at Mill-
brook reformatory?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before I
comment on this report I should explain to
those not familiar with the Millbrook institu-
tion that it is the only adult maximum
security reformatory in our system. It is used
to house inmates who have shown violence in
other of our institutions— upset the pro-
gramme of training and treatment in those
institutions— attacked staff members and other
inmates, and so on. In general, the con-
firmed hard-core offender.
In addition, for purposes of security and
segregation in Millbrook's individual cells,
confirmed drug addicts and sex deviates are
also housed there at the beginning of their
sentence.
In the interest of clarity and for the infor-
mation of the House, with your permission,
sir, I will read in detail the report to which
the hon. member refers. It is entitled, "The
Interim Report of the Committee set up by
the Bishop of Toronto, Anglican Church of
Canada, to study statements concerning Mill-
brook Reformatory by the Reverend S. G.
West and the Peterborough Examiner."
While it has a great deal more study to
do in certain areas, the committee has been
able to validly establish in its mind the
following:
Millbrook, by location, is unsuited to a
programme of reform and rehabilitation.
Most of the staff other than custodial offi-
cers must be sought in the city of Peter-
borough, which is some distance away. Any
reform institution ought to be located in an
area where specialized help is readily avail-
able. The greater number of inmates are
in the institution only for short periods of
time, so psychological, psychiatric, medical,
sociological or educational help must be
very close at hand. It must be noted that
Millbrook was built before the present Min-
ister of Reform Institutions assumed office,
and so, no blame can be attached to him
for its location. The fact remains, though,
that it is badly located.
The educational standards demanded for
custodial officers are too low. While no
attempts should be made to remove any
existing staff, a much higher educational
standard than grade 10 should be de-
manded in future for the employment of a
custodial officer.
Pay rates for custodial officers are too
low. The Minister of Reform Institutions is
conscious of this, and within the last two
years has succeeded in obtaining salary
increases. Thus, the new starting salary for
custodial officers will be $4,050 and the
maximum salary will be $5,000. In order
to get people with higher educational
standards, though, it will be necessary to
increase salaries beyond this point.
There are some training programmes for
custodial officers in progress, but these
should be greatly increased. Also, on the
successful completion of a course of train-
ing, the custodial officer ought to be given
an increment in salary on a rated basis. A
system similar to that used by local school
boards who give increases to teachers
taking extra training ought to be used.
The Minister of Reform Institutions is
to be commended for his attempts to get
the present system of consecutive sentenc-
ing abolished. Yet, church and public need
to bring increasing pressure to bear on the
50
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister of Justice to have the Act
amended. The system of giving a man
three consecutive sentences of two years
less a day, which results in his spending six
years in Millbrook, should be abolished.
Anyone sentenced to over two years should
be sent to a penitentiary and not a reforma-
tory. Two inmates who were serving con-
secutive sentences at Millbrook started the
fires in the summer of 1965. They did this
to get themselves sent to Kingston.
The training of inmates at Millbrook
leaves much to be desired. Whether a
better system could be devised in view of
the constant movement of inmates, may be
open to question. But if it is wished to
rehabilitate those confined to reform insti-
tutions the training at Millbrook is hardly
likely to bring about the desired rehabilita-
tion.
It is apparent that the church has not
fulfilled her responsibility with regard to
reform institutions. In this connection, the
Anglican communion must accept its share
of the blame. From talking to concerned
persons, one gets the impression that the
church, by and large, is not interested.
While the director of chaplaincy of The
Department of Reform Institutions, Dr.
Flint, is to be commended for his work and
the great improvement made in the chap-
laincy while under his direction, the church
outside has not shown enough interest. She
has failed to study reform institutions suffi-
ciently and to arouse public opinion in
regard to ways in which reform institutions
could be improved. She has also failed to
provide enough visiting chaplains apart
from those on the regular staff of The
Department of Reform Institutions. Nor
"has she done enough in the matter of
referral, to ensure that an inmate on release
is made known to his local clergyman in a
congregation, so that he can extend the
hand of friendship to him.
This committee will continue its study
on Millbrook, but feels that the church
and public should be aware of its findings
to date.
It is signed: G. W. B. Wheeler, Chairman,
Bishop's committee on Millbrook.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with points
each in the order as they are raised in the
report.
Insofar as the location is concerned, I have
publicly stated that if we were building this
institution today it would be at another
location. However, I have investigated the
history of this building in an effort to estab-
lish the reason it was built on its present
site.
One cannot avoid, sir, reaching the con-
clusion that the location was chosen because
of its very isolation as a consequence of the
findings of the select committee of the Legis-
lature which inquired into the reform institu-
tions system and which brought in its report
in 1954. That committee, on which was repre-
sented all parties in this House, came to
the unanimous conclusion that as many as
75 per cent of the inmates in our institutions
were not amenable to reform. To quote
directly from the report:
That the reformable inmates be kept
separate from those not likely to reform
and, further, that sentences of confirmed
recidivists be long enough to bring real
benefit to society; and that Burwash pro-
vincial prison be set aside exclusively for
non-reformablc recidivists.
Presumably, as a result of these findings and
these recommendations, it was decided to
build a new institution which would not only
implement this recommendation but would
also permit all other institutions to reduce
their security measures.
The select committee in fact recommended
that we should be directing our rehabilitation
programme to only about 25 per cent, or less,
of the inmate population. In this respect may
I quote the words of a member of that com-
mittee, sitting in the House today. The hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) stated
to the House when this report was presented
on March 8, 1954:
I am delighted to present a unanimous
report.
and then went on to say:
The hon. member (Mr. Stewart), chair-
man of the committee mentioned— and it
struck the committee very forcibly— that
one cannot expect the money we are pay-
ing for rehabilitation, for psychiatrists, and
all these people we send in to the prisoners
to tell them how to live better, is going to
be well used, unless it is directed primarily
to the particular group which it is possible
to reform. What is happening in our
prisons and reformatories in this province
is: we send these men in, paying them
decent salaries and telling them to go in
and sow the good seed, and reform those
who have been bad. But when they go
into the institutions they are dealing with
100 per cent of the institutional population.
There are, I suppose—
JANUARY 27, 1966
51
I am still quoting the hon. member; these are
not his opinions only, they are the unanimous
opinions of the committee.
There are, I suppose, only between 20
and 25 per cent of that population whom
it is possible to reform, yet our efforts
are directed towards the 100 per cent.
I am still quoting the hon. member—
I suggest to the House, the hon. Prime
Minister, and to the government this after-
noon that we are not going to get the full
benefit of our reformative efforts, unless
we direct our money and our talents and
our manpower to dealing with those whom
it is possible to reform— that is, the 20 or
25 per cent. That is where segregation
enters the picture again. It is just like
pouring water over a dam, unless we
segregate the prisoners to the degree that
we know pretty well those who are capable
of reformations and those on whom we are
throwing money away in trying to reform
them, it seems to me we have a very long
way to go in this province in that regard.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this department, my
staff and myself, refuse to take the view that
there is such a large proportion of our in-
mates with whom no progress can be made,
and it is interesting to note that even though
Millbrook is somewhat removed from a built-
up area where clinical staff might be more
readily available, less than five per cent of
our inmates are kept there and, aside from
sex deviates and drug addicts, they are
those who have been brought there from our
other institutions.
As to educational standards for correctional
officers being too low, the church committee
in our view is placing too great an emphasis
on purely educational standards, without
taking into account the more important char-
acteristics of personality, ability to learn and
ability to help. In other words, academic
qualifications alone, should not be the criteria
for choice of correctional officers.
Pay rates, of course, are a matter for nego-
tiations between the employees' representa-
tives, the civil service association and the
civil service commission, and we must be
guided by whatever decision evolves from
such negotiations.
As to training of correctional officers, we
do have training programmes for correctional
officers. These are detailed and they are
effective, but we are constantly improving
and reorganizing to improve their effective-
ness. I doubt if we shall ever be satisfied no
matter how far we have advanced in this
field.
There is a suggestion made for an incre-
ment in salary on successful completion of a
course of training. We deal with this by the
better utilization of increased knowledge.
The majority of our officers who have
successfully completed the three-year course
we arranged with McMaster University have
been promoted with increases in salary.
Further, hon. members will note that in
the Throne speech it was announced that a
new staff training centre is to be constructed.
This is a further example of our continuing
progress in this field.
Now insofar as consecutive sentences are
concerned, the report details this as one of
the causes of difficulties we contend with in
our institutions; the report itself commends
me for the actions I have taken in an attempt
to get this problem resolved at the federal
level, the only place it can be resolved.
Inmates at Millbrook have all previously
had opportunities for training— this remark
has to do with a suggestion about training
for inmates of Millbrook. They have been
removed to Millbrook so as not to interfere
with the training of other inmates. As soon
as the social training they receive shows
effect in their behaviour patterns, they are
transferred back to another institution.
The Anglican committee, referring to the
church and corrections, commends our
director of chaplaincy services— who, inci-
dentally, is a priest of the Anglican Church
and of wide experience— saying "Dr. Flint is
to be commended for his work and the great
improvement in chaplaincy while under his
direction," which certainly gives little support
to the earlier statements of the Rev. S. G.
West, and I quote:
The administration has fairly success-
fully controlled all utterances by staff
chaplains.
or "The Department of Reform Institutions
has muzzled the church", in his references to
our chaplains as "trained seal" chaplains.
The denominational chaplains who have
served for long periods at Millbrook reform-
atory have accorded the following comments.
This is from the Baptist resident chaplain:
May I personally urge you to present
the case to those in authority in the
Anglican diocese of Toronto to make them
aware of the many factors that are in-
volved in such work, and advise them not
to become involved in emotional situations
whereby, with no real depth of under-
standing, they can make statements that
will destroy any therapeutic effect of Mill-
brook at all.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And from a Salvation Army chaplain with six
years' experience at Millbrook; he states:
I have never seen an inmate ill treated.
If I see anything going amiss or prisoners
being ill treated, I would be the first to
report it. As far as I am concerned, the
newspaper reports are a gross exaggera-
tion and, in many instances, direct false-
hoods.
And another chaplain, Mr. Speaker:
I have been disturbed by some of these
reports which, in my judgment, are both
misleading and false. No one can fully
estimate how much men in a reformatory
are influenced by kindly and patient con-
sideration, understanding and friendship.
I can think of many whom I knew, and, I
trust, helped to find new meaning for
their life. Some went out of Millbrook to
become law-abiding and useful citizens. I
can tell you of men it was my privilege to
help who are now in responsible positions;
others are taking their place in society as
good citizens. One young man has gradu-
ated from university and has an excellent
position. I correspond with a number of
these men and others come to see me
some years later. I can tell you of some
influenced to a new way of life, the Chris-
tian life; they were baptized, and a small
group came to Holy Communion.
Mr. Speaker, this is from the United Church
chaplain at Millbrook. I think I can say
from that that we do reform some of those
unreformables.
The Anglican visiting chaplain who has
been in and out of Millbrook for three years,
states:
Never have I been asked to speak with
an officer on behalf of an inmate, nor heard
of "dealings with an inmate" that seemed
to warrant comment by me to anybody
inside or outside the institution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this committee would
appear to be unduly harsh on its own mem-
bership and the church as a whole. Its reflec-
tions upon the interest of the church and
corrections in Ontario are not, in my view,
supported by facts. We are happy and en-
couraged by growing support and increased
interest. There are today 262 selected and
appointed representatives from seven denom-
inations visiting in Ontario institutions. The
number of full-time staff chaplains has been
increased by over 200 per cent in the past
two years, and the number of part-time
chaplains has also increased.
In Ontario alone, the Anglican Church has
appointed 50 clergymen who are on instant
call by governors and superintendents in case
of need.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I quote from a
grand jury report dated October 6, 1965:
We were welcomed at the Millbrook
reformatory by the superintendent, Mr.
James Marsland and were shown through
the administrative and custodial area by
Mr. T. Brand, the assistant superintendent.
Every part of the premises was made avail-
able for inspection and we were allowed
unlimited access to the staff and inmates.
There was no interference while we talked
to many inmates, whether in the reforma-
tory yard, cell blocks, detention cells or
shops. Inmates received their noon meal
during our visit and at the invitation of Mr.
Marsland we ate and enjoyed the same
meal given the prisoners. We consulted in
particular with inmates at all levels regard-
ing the alleged brutality and ridicule of
inmates which was reported in the press
and, in spite of a thorough questioning,
could find no evidence that these conditions
are present.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): If you will
permit a supplementary question, Mr.
Speaker. I think that was in answer to a
previous question.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the member
who asked the initial question would have to
ask the supplementary question. It is his
question.
Mr. Bryden: Is it not permissible for other
members to ask supplementary questions? I
would naturally concede the floor to—
Mr. Speaker: There is not supposed to be
any debate upon questions. It has always
been my understanding that when a member
asks a question and the Minister replies, the
person asking the question can ask the Min-
ister if he wishes to answer a supplementary
question. But I have not taken note of any
other members getting into the act, as it
were, of asking questions on the same subject
at that time.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, it has happened
in this House. It certainly has happened in
other similar bodies, including the British
House of Commons and the House of Com-
mons at Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to take it under
advisement. Perhaps my memory has slipped
on that particular point. I would like to look
it up first. I would ask the member who
asked the original question to ask the supple-
JANUARY 27, 1966
53
mentary question. I recall refusing the leader
of the Opposition yesterday on the same
point.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, do I assume from
what you have just said that there is a rule
or practice to the effect that only one supple-
mentary question may be asked?
Mr. Speaker: No, I am of the opinion that
the person asking the original question has
the right to continue with supplementary
questions, and not other members of the
House on the particular point the original
questioner is trying to raise with the Minister.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, may I address a
supplementary question to the hon. Minister?
I have two, actually. The first one is this:
Does the hon. Minister subscribe to the views
on penal reform as he ascribes to the select
committee of 1954? That is the first question,
Mr. Speaker.
The second question is this: In view of the
answer to the hon. member for Yorkview
as to the types of inmates who use these so-
called "baby dolls", is the hon. Minister
aware that in Guelph reformatory, where the
young offenders are sent, the so-called baby
dolls are the normal prescribed dress for all
inmates in solitary confinement?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not aware of
that, and I deny it.
Mr. Ben: Thanks. And now the first ques-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
talking about the whole report of the select
committee?
Mr. Ben: I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the state-
ments made, which the hon. Minister de-
scribes as being excerpts from the report, that
they should concentrate only on 25 per cent
of the people in our prison.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I
thought I made myself quite clear. We
absolutely do not subscribe to that. We hope
that any one of 100 per cent can be helped
and, as a matter of fact, we have helped
them.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis).
Can the hon. Minister comment on the
future of grade 13 now that the Lakehead
University and Waterloo Lutheran will accept
grade 12 students, thus apparently eliminat-
ing the need for grade 13 work?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I think that to comment at any
great length on grade 13 would take us all
afternoon and most of the evening. I suggest
that we deal with this during the estimates of
the department. As the hon. members well
know, certain studies have gone on with
respect to grade 13. Certain steps have been
taken and, of course, the recommendations
are receiving further study at this time. I
think, frankly, that the announcements by
the two universities— Lakehead and Waterloo
Lutheran— are somewhat out of perspective
when you look at the type of programme
they are proposing. When I say out of per-
spective to the total picture, the Lakehead,
as we understand it, is proposing to accept
some ten or 15 selected students from the
northwestern area, and Waterloo Lutheran
is anticipating accepting some 30 or 35
students. Both of these projects will be
strictly on an experimental basis. Actually,
Waterloo Lutheran is insisting on two
summer courses— I believe in English and
one language— before they can qualify for
the first term in the fall. There has been
some attention paid to this by the news
media; I think I should comment because
there was reference, I believe, to four institu-
tions that were adopting this procedure.
This, of course, is not the case. Windsor
is accepting students on the basis of the
grade 12 recommended marks, but together
with the grade 13 year, on an unconditional
basis. They have to complete the full grade
13 year. And of course Guelph University,
in order to implement the trimester system,
after discussions with The Department of
Education, is admitting students roughly at
the Easter recess, or April, into the first
semester. These students will have completed
roughly two-thirds of the actual time, and
perhaps 75 per cent of the course content,
and the understanding between the depart-
ment and the university is that the Ontario
institute for studies will evaluate the type of
progress these students make; so that I think
in fairness I should point out that these two
experimental projects could be helpful to us
in the overall analysis, but they do not, as
we understand it, indicate any general policy
by either of those institutions as far as
admitting students from grade 12 is con-
cerned.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, do I under-
stand from the hon. Minister that, when his
estimates come out, he will have by that
time arrived at the committee's decisions on
the committee concerning the fate of grade
13?
54
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I did not say that,
Mr. Speaker. I said that I anticipated we
would be discussing further the question of
grade 13 and that I would report to the
House on the progress that had been made as
a result of the recommendations in the grade
13 committee report.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions for the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree), proper
notice of which has been given.
The first is: Can the hon. Minister report
any success in trying to solve the province's
trucking strike and lockout?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the prob-
lem of solving the trucking strike and lock-
out rests, in the final analysis, with the parties
themselves. This is an accepted fact of free
collective bargaining. The responsibility of
The Department of Labour in this situation
lies in the most active endeavour on behalf
of the public interest to assist the parties
themselves to find the solution. This, too, is
an accepted fact of free collective bargain-
ing.
Now, I cannot speak for the parties them-
selves, but I can tell hon. members that I
and my department recognize and accept
our responsibility and are discharging it to
the fullest extent. I would also point out that
the government role in this particular dis-
pute is shared by both the federal and
Ontario Departments of Labour, for the
majority of companies involved are under
federal labour jurisdiction.
May I outline in general terms the steps
that have been taken since January 18, when
a vote of the members of the five teamsters
locals authorized strike action? On January
19, the federal and provincial departments,
acting in concert, brought the parties together
at a meeting in the offices of The Ontario
Department of Labour. This meeting con-
tinued for some four-and-a-half hours, but
the parties were unable to find a basis upon
which negotiations could proceed.
Since that date, I and my officials have
been in contact every day, and several times
a day, either by telephone or through per-
sonal meeting, with representatives of both
sides of the dispute, in an effort to help
them establish a basis for progress towards a
resolution of their dispute.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question. Does the hon. Minister
have any plans for attempting to bring the
parties together in the very near future?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes, that thought is
constantly in my mind, but the time is not
opportune.
Mr. Braithwaite: I thank the hon. Minister.
The second question, Mr. Speaker, is: Can
the hon. Minister report any steps which he
may be taking to reduce the number of con-
struction accidents in the Metro Toronto
area recently?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, the pre-
vention of accidents and deaths in the con-
struction industry is a matter which is
receiving concentrated attention and the
highest priority from my department. Last
year, in this House, I declared war on the
mounting toll of human suffering and death
in this industry. At that time, I outlined a
broad programme of attack, involving legis-
lation, inspection, education in industry and
labour co-operation. This programme is now
operating in high gear and I am pleased to
have this opportunity to tell the hon. mem-
bers of the concrete steps that are being
taken to reduce accidents, not only in Metro
Toronto, but right across Ontario.
1. As the result of amendments made last
year to The Construction Safety Act, (a) the
maximum penalty for an offence is now
$5,000, as compared to only $1,000 a year
ago. The result has been a marked increase
in the size of fines imposed by the courts, (b)
The responsibility for safety and compliance
with The Construction Safety Act has now
been placed squarely with the owners or
general contractors. Their responsibilities, and
those of the sub-contractor, have been clearly
defined. The door is now closed "on passing
the buck"— if I may put it that way— with
respect to safety matters, (c) All municipalities,
including those in Metro Toronto, are now
required to submit to our department, com-
plete statistics on inspections, accidents and
fatalities. This is helping us to root out and
concentrate on problem areas, (d) We are
now able to apply restraining orders prohibit-
ing the continuance of unsafe practices while
prosecution proceedings are pending.
2. The responsibility for enforcement rests
with the municipalities, and over the past
two years there has been a considerable
increase in the number of municipal in-
spectors. Nearly 250 are now at work across
this province.
In Metropolitan Toronto, in 1963 there
were 60 inspectors, six of whom were in-
volved full-time with construction safety. By
last year, the figure had grown to 81, with
14 being full-time construction safety in-
spectors. I understand that the city of To-
JANUARY 27, 1966
55
ronto has recently approved the addition of
six more full-time construction safety in-
spectors to its staff.
My own construction safety branch, Mr.
Speaker, has doubled its staff since 1962 and
is currently adding more safety engineers to
its complement. I will be asking the hon.
members to approve the funds for further
additions during my department's estimates.
During 1965, the construction safety branch
held training seminars for municipal inspectors
in Metro Toronto and across the province.
Regular monthly safety meetings were also
held with the TTC and unions in connection
with the subway construction here in To-
ronto. In addition, thousands of Ontario con-
tractors and construction workers were made
aware of their responsibilities under the Act
through a direct mail programme. The con-
struction safety branch is also organizing
standby rescue units for underground tunnel-
ling and compressed air work.
3. Another weapon in the battle to reduce
construction accidents is now being applied
by the workmen's compensation board, in the
form of penalty assessment for firms display-
ing habitually poor safety records. Assess-
ments are being as much as doubled, often
at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars,
for firms who have neglected the cost of
safety in their operation. To date 295 con-
struction firms in Ontario have received
penalty assessments amounting to nearly $1
million in increased assessments.
4. A stepped-up safety education pro-
gramme carried out by various safety associ-
ations is still another phase of our total
programme. To help to co-ordinate and
strengthen the activities of the safety associa-
tions, the workmen's compensation board has
established a new safety education depart-
ment. It has recently hired a qualified director
of safety education to carry this programme
forward, (a) This new department of the com-
pensation board is supplying central statistical
services relating to accident trends and fre-
quencies to all agencies involved in the safety
field, (b) It is reviewing and co-ordinating the
programmes of safety associations in the light
of accident trends in order to eliminate dupli-
cation and to expand coverage, (c) It is allo-
cating funds and overseeing safety programme
budgets, (d) It is developing new programmes,
particularly for areas outside the individual
concern of any one association, (e) It is co-
ordinating the production of promotional
materials for all the associations and promot-
ing the interchange of ideas and technical
personnel between the associations.
5. In addition to legislation, safety educa-
tion and enforcement, we have reconstituted
the Ontario labour safety council— an advisory
body of representatives from both manage-
ment and labour. The inaugural meeting of
the new council was held on January 17.
The purpose of the organization will be to
advise the Minister of Labour and the gov-
ernment on all matters pertaining to safety
education, enforcement and accident pre-
vention. It will be called upon to suggest im-
provements in programmes and co-ordination
between programmes.
I have great hopes, Mr. Speaker, that this
advisory council will be able to assist us in
finding new ways and means of combating
deaths and injuries not only in construction,
but also in other phases of industry.
The full impact of the steps we are now
taking has not yet been felt. However, there
are a number of encouraging signs. During
1964, for example, there were five deaths in
subway construction in Toronto; last year
there were none.
I am confident that with the full co-opera-
tion of management, organized labour and
individual workers, we will be able to sub-
stantially reduce the waste of human resources
and productivity that result from construction
and industrial accidents.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Labour, notice
of which has been given him. Will nurses in
the new bargaining unit at the Riverview
hospital in Windsor now have the right to
strike?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member may recall that the Legislature
passed an Act at the last session— The Hos-
pital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act— which
establishes a method of settling disputes and
making collective agreements between hos-
pitals and their employees without the need
to resort to strike or lock-out action. This will
apply to the nurses' bargaining unit at River-
view hospital.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
a supplementary question of the hon. Minis-
ter. Supposing the nurses do go to the limit
such as he has mentioned and still do not
get satisfaction as far as their problems are
concerned? What recourse do they then
have?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is a hypothetical
question. I do not think I have any answer
to it. We would have to meet the situation
as it comes along. I am not sure just what
the hon. member is specifically referring to.
56
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Health, notice of which has been
given, in three parts.
One: Are there any countries which have
no universities whose medical degree grant-
ing standards are acceptable to the Ontario
college of physicians and surgeons?
Two: If so, would the hon. Minister name
the countries?
Three: Among those foreign students
whose degrees were acceptable to the
Ontario college of physicians and surgeons
during the past two years, which countries
were represented?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The answer to the
first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.
The answer to the second part is Central
America, communist China, Republic of
China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan,
Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria and
Turkey.
The answer to the third part is the British
Isles, Republic of Ireland, Haiti, Jamaica,
United States, principally, and most Euro-
pean countries.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member
for Parkdale— I am sorry he is not in his seat
—asked for information which I did not have,
but which I undertook to get for him.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I inter-
rupt the hon. Minister to ask a supplementary
question before the question is diverted?
Does the hon. Minister think it likely that
there are no universities in any of the coun-
tries specifically excluded from the list which
he read which would not have undergraduate
degrees equivalent to those granted by uni-
versities in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Sir, I am not in a posi-
tion to answer that question. I have never
undertaken any study of their standards, and
since the administration of this Act is dele-
gated to the college of physicians and sur-
geons, nobody in my department has ever
been directed to study this.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give this addi-
tional information which was asked by the
hon. member for Parkdale concerning the
hospital construction projects in Metro
Toronto which had applied for and taken
advantage of the low-interest loans provided
by government. At the time the regulations
were passed, three hospital projects were
under construction in Metro Toronto. They
applied for and were given loans. Three
projects have since been given loans. The
total amount involved in these six was $8.5
million. Three more projects are presently
under construction; they have applied for
loans which will total $4,155 million. Ten
further projects in various stages of planning
which will come into being within the next
two years are now actively inquiring con-
cerning the loan, and it is anticipated that all
of those will make use of the low-interest
loan.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in the
absence of the hon. member for Parkdale,
does the hon. Minister consider that there is
still not a shortage of active treatment hos-
pital beds in Metro Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is that there now is a shortage of
beds. We have always been faced with this.
But with the facilities that are under con-
struction and will be constructed by, I be-
lieve, 1977, and a very small number in
1978, if I recall my figures rightly, the need
for beds will be met, as I stated yesterday.
The need is being met in active building
now.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett), notice of which has been given.
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
whether a settlement was reached with the
employees' representatives of the Ontario
Northland Railway after a meeting with them
on January 18 respecting the integration of
the Canada pension plan with the present
pension plan for Ontario Northland Railway
employees?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
agreement has been reached with the em-
ployees' representatives and the Ontario
northland transportation commission and has
been initialled as agreed upon by all parties
concerned.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question of the hon. Minister?
Is the settlement final, and have all the
conditions of settlement been accepted un-
conditionally by the employees?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the settle-
ment is not final, but it has been accepted by
the employees' representatives.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Attorney General. Could he
advise what action, if any, he intends to take
on the request of the mayor of the city of
JANUARY 27, 1966
57
Toronto about the reorganization of the
Metropolitan Toronto police commission, par-
ticularly the appointment to it of more elected
rather than judicial persons?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have not
received any request from Mayor Philip
Givens on this matter. If I receive such a
request I will discuss it with the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs, who is the Minister with
jurisdiction in respect of the statute under
which that commission is set up. I assure the
hon. member that any submission I receive
will receive prompt and full consideration.
I should point out that police commissions
generally, in all municipalities, are designed
under The Police Act, but the Act of Metro-
politan Toronto is a special municipal Act and
its police commission is set up there, so that
it does not come strictly within my hands. I
would be glad to discuss it with the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Attorney General is aware that there is
a news story that says that the mayor is seek-
ing your opinion on this?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He must have got to the
newspaper to say he is seeking it, but he has
not got to me yet.
Mr. Singer: We will have to tell him.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to present to the House
the following reports:
1. Public accounts of the province of
Ontario for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1965.
2. Provincial Auditor's report, 1964-1965,
for the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by
Mr. G. R. Carton (Armourdale), that an
humble address be presented to the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor, as follows: To
the Honourable W. Earl Rowe, P.C., LL.D.,
D.S.C., S.O.C., Lieutenant-Governor of the
province of Ontario:
May it please Your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects of the legislative assembly of the
province of Ontario now assembled, beg
leave to thank Your Honour for the gra-
cious speech which Your Honour has
addressed to us.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on
the way in which you have carried out your
task in this House. During my time in the
Legislature, you have carried your office with
dignity and great honour and most of us here
have nothing but praise for your skilful per-
formance as Speaker of this House. At the
same time, I am sure that not many of us
would trade places with you, simply because
we have advantages and privileges which you
do not have, in that we are permitted to
express in this assembly our own hopes and
ideals for the areas of people we represent,
which privilege is not accorded to yourself.
We have two new faces in the Legislature
this session, and although they might not
have been here had the party of which I am
a member perhaps worked a little harder, still
I offer warm congratulations to the hon.
member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith). As
was stated in this House yesterday, we per-
haps as politicians hope that their stay here is
short, but in the meantime, we are very happy
to have them in this House.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of
the riding of Lambton West, and on my own
behalf, may I express our thanks for the
honour and distinction which has been con-
ferred upon us, as a result of my being given
the privilege of moving this motion and
thereby opening the important debate which
will follow. In fact, a search of records fails
to disclose that anyone from our riding has
ever moved acceptance of the Throne speech.
However, the records do disclose that Mr.
Timothy Blair Pardee, representing our riding,
did second the motion in the years: 1874,
1877, 1878, 1882, 1884, 1885, 1886, and
1887.
In 1916 Mr. William John Hanna from
Lambton West was the seconder. I might say
that it is an added honour to me to have my
name associated in this way with the names
of these honourable gentlemen from the
Lambton West of former years.
The basis for the debate to which I
referred is the Speech from the Throne
which indicates the course over which we
will be guided for the next few months by
our great leader, the hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario (Mr. Robarts), to whom all Progres-
sive Conservative members of this House
pledge their loyalty, and respect, and support.
Before I make further reference to a few
of the ideas contained in this session's Throne
speech, I am constrained to pause and reflect
briefly on the tremendous contributions this
government has made to the progress of our
58
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
society to keep step with today's ever-chang-
ing image and accelerated pace. Such meas-
ures as:
1. Creation of The Department of Univer-
sity Affairs;
2. Setting up of an Ontario University
Capital Aid Corporation;
3. Minimum Wage Act;
4. Used Car Dealers Act;
5. Establishment of Sheridan Park Corpora-
tion;
6. The Ontario Housing Corporation;
7. The Ontario overseas trade opportunities
missions;
8. The Ontario Development Agency;
9. The Ontario flag;
10. Extending Workmen's Compensation
Act to cover farm workers;
11. A committee on Confederation;
12. Royal Commission on Redistribution;
13. Railway commuter service between
Burlington and Dunbarton;
14. Voluntary medical health insurance
plan;
15. Royal Commission on Civil Liberties;
and there are many others.
Time will allow me to touch only on some
of the ideas emanating from the Throne
speech; and I would ask that you bear with
me as I bring you up to date on plans and
problems and, in short, the present situation
that we in Lambton find ourselves, while
applying to our ridings these new ideas from
the Throne speech to which I am about to
refer.
We always have need of government in-
terest, encouragement, advice and financial
support, and these we are getting and no
doubt will continue to get where we have an
entitlement. We need facilities and some of
these we are getting. The reference in the
Throne speech to improved county roads
leads me to commend the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. MacNaughton) for introduc-
ing the county roads needs studies. The in-
estimable value of this plan is just now begin-
ning to be felt in Lambton West. We are
getting our fair share of the highways pro-
gramme from a department which is alert to
the needs of rapidly expanding industrial
traffic and the surety of a heavy flow of tour-
ist traffic crowding in upon us. I want to say
more about that in a few minutes.
Two years ago, in my maiden speech, I
drew to the attention of this government the
dire predicament we were just approaching
in our needs for potable water. My plea was
heard, action followed, and on January 21,
1966, the OWRC with the hon. member for
Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) in the chair,
reported to Lambton the results of a year-
long study of our water needs, and the
ways and means of satisfying them. They
left with us a choice of going ahead with
their recommendations or of seeking some
alternative answers with their help. This
matter of the choice remaining with the
people is, to me, Mr. Speaker, the essence
of good government and should be applied
wherever possible at all.
But we in Lambton West have need of
other facilities, particularly at this time in
the education field. Reference is made in the
Throne speech to the colleges of applied arts
and technology. His Honour is correct in
saying that the introduction of these institu-
tions has met with tremendous interest. Here
is an exciting, progressive proposal and only
on a very few occasions have I ever seen
the people of all Lambton, including Sarnia
city, so united as they are in their desire to
have our county named as a site for such a
college.
You see, from its very inception, the
purpose of these colleges appears to have
been conceived with the Lambton situation
in mind. The whole concept is made-to-
measure for the Lambton area, where the
need for specially trained technicians and pro-
fessionals becomes more acute daily; where
there exists a large staff potential amongst
our own people who can be recruited to
teach those skills and requirements peculiar
to an oil and petro-chemical complex such
as ours, and unlikely to be taught elsewhere
in the province.
At the earliest opportunity our people must
communicate our story to the council of
regents for these colleges in a way that will
result in the naming of Lambton as a site
quite early, and thereby ensuring that our
college can open in September 1966 in facili-
ties which are available to us until proper
buildings can follow in the normal course of
things.
This particular field of education comes
easily to our attention but let us not over-
look other ways in which this department is
not just meeting the needs but is expanding
to provide for future needs and making full
education universally possible for our people.
The revision of school programmes; the
special attention to areas where people are
at a geographical disadvantage; those who
have physical or psychological disabilities;
those who lack academic capacity, or who
JANUARY 27, 1966
59
suffer economic handicaps; as well as depart-
mental reorganization which is bringing
administrative and academic help and advice
right down to the local area. One cannot
overemphasize the awareness of this gov-
ernment in the field of university training
and the steps it is taking to be prepared to
meet all exigencies to ensure self-fulfillment
for the individual and the attainment of our
•economic and social goals.
Lambton county is, by acreage, largely an
agricultural community, and three townships
lie within the riding of Lambton West. Such
measures as The Milk Act of last year; the
proposed efforts to take a strong lead in
Tielping to secure qualified farm labour; the
bold new field of crop insurance into which
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart)
proposes to move will ensure thrilled atten-
tion to the agricultural phase of our pro-
grammes on the part of our very progressive
farm people, some of whom have so far been
unable to harvest important 1965 crops due
to climatic conditions. All of us will watch
closely the expanded programmes and poli-
cies developed to meet the needs of agricul-
ture in the north. A glance at the Throne
speech assures us that we can look forward
to much far-reaching legislation being pre-
sented at this session— new, exciting, forward-
moving, agriculture legislation.
In fact, as I view the programmes of this
government and the proposals suggested in
the Throne speech of last Tuesday, I am
more certain than ever that no one can
possibly use against us such words as "dry,"
""stodgy," or "dull." I see better than ever
before how well chosen are the words Pro-
gressive Conservative. What can be more
real and all-embracing in government than
to send its select committees all over the
province to sit with the people, meet them,
and understand their local situations in such
matters as mining, corporate law, consumer
credit, conservation, not to mention bold
new undertakings by the committees on
aging and youth which have so captured the
imagination of our people.
This is really a grass-roots approach and
well-received by members of all parties in
this House, I am sure, and very much appre-
ciated by the people on the local levels.
What is more progressive than a commission
on human rights; than our bold new look at
mass transportation facilities; colleges of
applied arts and technology; the new
emphasis on training in every department of
our government; an awareness of the rights
of the people to the beauties of nature and
the active preservation of the best of these
and indeed creation of new ones? These
things stir our imagination and make every
citizen proud to be a part of today's exciting
developments. No wonder people say we
are the true reform party of this age.
Speaking of the preservation of the
beauties of nature, we of Lambton county,
and indeed of Kent as well— if the hon.
members will allow— are very gratified to see
mention in the Throne speech of the
approaching creation of a St. Clair parkway
commission. The St. Clair parkway as a
project was announced by the hon. Minister
of Highways last year and we have now pro-
gressed to this next important step. That you
may have a better concept of this undertak-
ing, let me spend a moment or two.
This parkway will stretch some 30 miles
from Mitchell's Bay in Kent county along
the whole shoreline of the beautiful St. Clair
river to Point Edward and the Blue Water
bridge. This is a new concept for a parkway,
and it has been promoted by sacrifices in
time and money by the municipalities and
individuals of the counties of Lambton and
Kent, and when supplemented by the re-
sources of the province through this govern-
ment, will guarantee to you and your
children, and your children's children, a
plethora of beauty unsurpassed in its kind
anywhere. We will transform the chemical
valley of Canada from a purely utilitarian
complex to one which combines the supply-
ing of oil, petro-chemical, gas and farm
products so necessary to our burgeoning
economy with beauty and recreation and
opportunities to contemplate the wonders of
nature and ponder on the scheme of things
and the God who created them, or with brush
and camera catch the magic of it all.
All of you know what an oil and petro-
chemical complex looks like by day but in
Lambton at night it becomes a fairyland with
its hundreds of thousands of lights and its
bright flares, all of them reflected in the blue
waters of the St. Clair whereon the ships of
the world pass by with lights aglow. I want
to digress here for a second to remind you
that the waters of the St. Clair, emptying
from that large reservoir of potable water,
Lake Huron, is pure; and because of its
purity great industries have settled on its
banks, one alone using several millions of
gallons of water per hour for cooling pur-
poses and returning the water undefiled to
the river.
Needless to say, we ask the support, of all
of you, whenever the occasion arises, to fight
any and all threats to its pollution from what-
ever direction this threat may come. We in
60
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lambton are dedicated to this proposition and
to sparing no effort or expense to further puri-
fication projects as they become feasible.
To get back to the parkway. At Christmas
time in this valley, the lights on our industrial
towers and columns are changed to present
colour schemes of breathtaking beauty, and
every plant dresses up in ever-changing inter-
pretations of the Christmas story. Now you
can see how the decision of a wise govern-
ment to establish a parkway right through the
gates of the present industries, and along the
most obvious route of their expansion and for
new industries, stirs the imagination. It is a
new idea, a new concept. See this in your
mind right in the heart of our industry:
Beyond the tracks a long row of golden
willows sweeps around the outside of the
curve and is stopped abruptly by a large
block of columnar English oaks in the
border of the right-of-way. On the south
side of the Hydro station a mass of Russian
olives screens the lower portion of the plant
area and leaves the upper and more inter-
esting structures in view. The foreground
of the Dow Chemical Company property is
planted to screen lower portions of build-
ings and parking areas with ginkgos,
sycamores, honey locusts, and specimen
flowering trees.
It has stirred our people! Moore township,
Lambton county, one of the townships of
Kent county, the village of Point Edward,
have all moved swiftly, at their own expense,
spending large sums of money to secure
blocks of land along the parkway for the
public use, and 60 acres within the city of
Sarnia have been purchased for the same
purpose by the city at a cost of $.25 million.
As much more will be spent to develop it,
and they are spending $7,200 just to be told
how to develop it to fit in with the parkway
concept, thus reclaiming precious waterfront
property on Sarnia Bay, lost to the public
domain at a time of industrial expediency in
the long ago.
Industry will continue to grow on, and with
our parkway, for we intend to work with
industry to give it room to reach its much-
needed abundance of fresh water while indus-
try, in turn, will present real tourist attractions
in landscaping, in parks and recreational facil-
ities, and in sightseeing opportunities. Pres-
ently we have under construction in our
riding some $350 million of new and expand-
ing industry, most of it right on the parkway.
In fact, just in today's mail I received a
news release which states that Dow Chemical
of Canada Limited has announced a new
chlorinated hydrocarbons complex to be built
at its Sarnia works. The engineering is already
well advanced and construction will begin
shortly. The plant, to be built at a cost of
approximately $6 millions, will produce a
wide range of chlorinated hydrocarbons in-
cluding methyl and methylene chloride,
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, perchloryl
ethylene, and trichloryl ethylene. So, we con-
tinue. You may hear more from me on the
parkway theme later in the session.
In other areas of interest, our riding is
awaiting approval to undertake an urban re-
newal study that will embrace the city of
Sarnia, Point Edward, Courtright, and the
townships of Moore and Sarnia. A great part
of their future depends on the outcome of
this study. One township, Moore, is consider-
ing a council manager form of government
similar to that of the city. In these days of
railway line abandonment it is refreshing to
relate that the CNR has just laid ten miles of
new line in Moore and Sombra townships to
take care of present and future industrial
requirements. Thus does our riding progress,
making full use of the welcome assistance and
guidance afforded us by this government
which recognizes local stimulation and pro-
gressive activity.
I would like to turn to a more philosophi-
cal vein at this time. As one who has spent
a lifetime in the field of education, I have
been disturbed by what I read in Hansard, in
speeches in public, from newspaper articles
and editorials, from conversations with indi-
viduals, old and young, in all walks of life, on
the subject of training and education. In a
day of real need for more and more trained
people to fill specific needs, sometimes inad-
vertently, some times intentionally, I am
afraid we stress learning of a skill because of
the greater remuneration that will follow.
The purpose is to fill a utilitarian need in
society and the bait is a dollars-and-cents
need in the mind of the individual.
We tend to hunt out the shortest route to
the goal and pare away what many unfor-
tunately regard as "fat". Are we forgetting
the humanities? Will we one day wake up to
the terrifying truth that we have created
a race of mechanical men without hearts,
without any depth of being, with no mean-
ing in life save to supply one expert service
in a little round cage for X number of dollars
to spend on selfish interests?
Thomas Henry Huxley, a great natural
scientist, while urging that more and more
scientific studies be included in the curricu-
lum, in 1882, wrote in a paper entitled, "On
Science and Art in Relation to Education":
There are other forms of culture besides
JANUARY 27, 1966
61
physical science, and I should be pro-
foundly sorry to see the fact forgotten,
or even to observe a tendency to starve
or cripple literary or aesthetic culture for
the sake of science.
In a paper called, "A Liberal Education,
and Where to Find it", written in 1868, he
attempts to define a liberal education, and
I quote this short passage:
That man, I think, has had a liberal
education who has been so trained in
youth that his body is the ready servant
of his will, whose intellect is a clear, cold,
logical engine with all its parts of equal
strength, and in smooth working order;
ready, like a steam engine, to be turned
to any kind of work and spin gossamers
as well as forge the anchors of the mind;
whose mind is stored with knowledge of
the great and fundamental truths of nature
and of the laws of her operations; one
who, no stunted ascetic, is full of life and
fire; but whose passions are trained to
come to heel by a vigorous will, the servant
of a tender conscience; who has learned
to love all beauty, whether of nature or of
art, to hate all vileness and to respect
others as himself.
I contend these views are as valid today as
in 1868, or 1882. In fact, a recent editorial
in the Sarnia Observer on this same theme
brings these older ideas up-to-date, or per-
haps expresses them from a different stand-
point, and I quote, in part:
There is something besides mere gain
and animal comfort to be won by educa-
tion. Today the graduates are sent into
the world with exhortations to climb the
ladder of success.
The editorial goes on to say:
Another side of education is pointed out
by Contemporary and Alumni News, the
school quarterly of St. Francis Xavier Uni-
versity in Nova Scotia. Contemporary quotes
Monsignor Robert Moses in a talk he
gave in 1949 when he said:
"We want our people to look into the
sun, and into the depths of the sea. We
want them to explore the hearts of flowers
and the hearts of our fellowmen. We want
them to live, to love, to play, and to pray
with all their being. Life for them shall not
only be in terms of merchandising but in
terms of all that is good and beautiful, be
it economic, political, social, cultural, or
spiritual.
They are the heirs of all the ages and
of all the riches yet concealed. They will
usher in the new by attending to the bless-
ings of the old. They will use what they
have to secure what they have not."
The editorial goes on to conclude:
Perhaps there is rhetoric here. Maybe
the words are a little on the florid side.
But they are something better for mankind
in a world where the hard-nosed job of
earning a living and keeping up with the
Joneses and the time payments has drained
out much of the simple joyousness of
being neighbourly and discovering the
beauty and the wonder of the simple
things around us.
And so I say, let us be warned by those
who foresee the dangers. While trying to
supply the demand for more and more people
in every walk of our society who can provide
certain skills, let us make sure that, in every
level of our education, we provide for train-
ing in the humanities as well. Otherwise we
may be sorry some day that we have
neglected the finer things of life; indeed we
may see our nation fall apart for lack of sym-
pathy, depth of character, understanding, and
a deep sense of satisfaction in service to
others.
We, here, in this Legislature have the
opportunity, yes, the duty to ensure that the
citizens of tomorrow in Ontario are not en-
snared by one-sided education. More than
that, as people elected to give leadership we
ought to demonstrate in our daily activities
here that our education in this House is not
one-sided, but embraces the whole broad
field. We are really in training here; we are
in a sense attending a university, and this is
not a new idea at all.
John Henry Newman, the English scholar
and the writer of the beautiful hymn "Lead,
Kindly Light", in an address given in 1854,
entitled "What is a University", says in part:
A university is in its essence a place for
communication, and circulation of thought
by means of personal intercourse through
a wide extent of country.
And later on he says:
I admit I have not been in Parliament;
yet I cannot but think that statesmanship
as well as high breeding is learned, not by
books, but in certain centres of education.
Parliament puts a clever man au courant
with politics and affairs of state in a way
surprising to himself. A member of the
Legislature, if tolerably observant, begins
to see things with new eyes, even though
his views undergo no change. Words have a
meaning now, and ideas a reality, such as
62
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they had not before. He hears a vast deal
in public speeches and private conversation
which is never put into print.
The bearings of measures and events, the
action of parties, and the persons of friends
and enemies are brought out to the man
who is in the midst of them with a dis-
tinctness which the most diligent perusal
of newspapers will fail to impart to him.
It is access to the fountainheads of political
wisdom and experience; it is daily inter-
course with the multitude who go up to
them; it is familiarity with business; it is
access to the contributions of fact and
opinion thrown together by many witnesses
from many quarters which does this for
him. However, I need not account for a
fact, to which it is sufficient to appeal, that
the Houses of Parliament and the atmos-
phere around them are a sort of university
of politics.
In my work at school I have occasion to
administer a test which includes the question,
"What is the difference between a statesman
and a politician?" A grade 7 boy once gave
this answer:
A statesman is a man who does great things
for his country, and a politician doesn't do
much except try to get elected to something
all the time.
Well, it is unlikely that all of us are cut out
to be statesmen, but we can try. Man's reach
should be beyond his grasp, or what's a
heaven for, said the poet.
So I ask everyone in this Legislature to join
with me during this session in an endeavour
to spend less of our time trying to be a poli-
tician in the sense of the young boy's defini-
tion, and try harder to become statesmen; to
eschew nit-picking, and witch-hunting, and
weeping at the wall; to forego excessive and
pointless verbiage just because we like the
sounds of our own voices, and with dignity—
and I underline dignity— and a good sense of
humour, and according to our party beliefs
and personal convictions deal with the im-
portant business contained in this Speech
from the Throne to the end that we will
demonstrate to the people of this great prov-
ince that here is a Legislature of which they
can be proud, which accepts its responsibili-
ties for leadership and gets on with the busi-
ness for which it was elected.
Mr. G. R. Carton (Armourdale): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a sense of honour on be-
half of the constituents of the riding of
Armourdale— the riding which I have the
privilege of representing in the House— that
I rise to second the motion of the hon.
member for Lambton West (Mr. Knox) for
the adoption of the Speech from the Throne,
presented by the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor of Ontario. I imagine it is rather
unique, sir, to have a government member
who has crossed the floor of this House as
recently as this week to be invited to speak
on behalf of the government. I concur whole-
heartedly, sir, in the remarks of the hon.
member for Lambton West relating to the
dignified and impartial manner in which you
carry out your most important duties.
May I also take this opportunity of wel-
coming the two new members to this Legis-
lature. For those who may not know, the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) is a
lawyer by profession, and thus we add an-
other humanitarian to our ranks.
I understand that the hon. member for
Nipissing (Mr. Smith) is a druggist by pro-
fession; it may well be that in this capacity
he will be able to prescribe the proper
remedy for an ailing Opposition— one of the
hon. members to my left suggests "Geritol
for tired blood" as a start.
Mr. Speaker, it is now over two years since
the good ship Robarts— a new, young, stream-
lined model, lifted anchor and set sail on a
four-year voyage under contract with the
people of Ontario, having taken on many
new crew members, and with the flag of the
27th Parliament flying overhead.
At the helm was our captain— the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), and backing
him up was a formidable array of executive
officers, well qualified in their respective
posts. The hold was laden down with vast
amounts of important legislation, which dur-
ing the past two years has been unloaded at
various ports in Ontario and from these,
distributed for the benefit of the citizens of
this province.
Presently, since the voyage is now half
over, we are setting course on the return trip
to Queen's Park, after having loaded another
valuable cargo of legislation which likewise
will be dropped off at various ports on the
way.
There has been much speculation already
as to when our captain intends docking once
more at Queen's Park to make an accounting
to the owners of our ship, the people of this
province. As we commence the return leg of
our journey, there is no doubt that we do so
with increased popularity, despite repeated
attempts to scuttle our ship over the past
two years.
There are, I understand, two other parties
interested in taking away our contract with
JANUARY 27^ 1966
65
the people of this province. However, their
ships are not ready, nor will they be, due to
certain , factors, including a lack of suitable
material and sufficient labour, and I under-
stand that their crew is inexperienced, not
having been off the mainland in 22 years.
I, for one, am happy to be aboard the
good ship Robarts, skippered by the hon.
Prime Minister, confident in my belief that
he and his advisers chart the best possible
routes in the best interests of the owners of
our ship, the people of the province.
Mr. Speaker, in preparing this speech I
came across two suggested recommenda-
tions for a good speech.
One concerns itself with the definition of
the length of a good speech which is defined,
"a beginning and an ending placed not too
far apart."
The other concerns itself with the form
and contents by one of the best liked poli-
ticians of our time— the late Adlai Stevenson
—and his advice is set to poetry as follows:
If you would make a speech or write
one
Or get an artist to indite one
Think not because 'tis understood
By men of sense 'tis therefore good.
Make it so clear and simply planned
No blockhead can misunderstand.
I have tried to incorporate both these sugges-
tions this afternoon.
I make reference first, Mr. Speaker, as one
of the members representing a Metropolitan
Toronto riding, to the proposed legislation
respecting Metropolitan Toronto.
The basis for this proposed legislation will
be the statement made by the hon. Prime
Minister on the report of the Royal commis-
sion on Metropolitan Toronto, on January
10 last.
We are all aware that The Metropolitan
Toronto Act was passed in 1953, that this
novel form of government has had an im-
pressive record of achievement, that it has
been an outstanding success and recognized
as such around the world.
We also know that an amending statute
has been presented to this Legislature every
year since 1955.
On June 15 last, Dr. H. Carl Goldenberg,
Q.C., delivered to the government his report
of the Royal commission on Metropolitan
Toronto.
Subsequent to that date, the most detailed
and exhaustive analysis and study was carried
out by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner) and his officials, including the
examination of more than 100 submissions
from members of the Legislature, municipal
councils, boards, commissions, ratepayer
associations, and private citizens. This time-
consuming thoroughness was necessitated be-
cause the decision reached affected not only
the people of Metropolitan Toronto, but the
well-being, stability and prosperity of the
entire province.
It was necessary that the decision be in
the best interests of all concerned.
The hon. Prime Minister's statement, ex-
cept for one minor objection, met with
almost unanimous approval of the elected
representatives of the area I represent.
It met with the approval of the present
chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, as well
as the reeves of the four largest suburbs, and,
I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, it has
met with the approval of the majority of
the citizens concerned. It will, I submit,
provide the basis for another highly success-
ful form of government for Metropolitan
Toronto.
Perhaps, sir, an excerpt from an editorial
in one of the local newspapers, in the area
in which I reside, will better, and in an un-
biased manner, describe the reaction to the
hon. Prime Minister's statement:
Robarts' Metro reform demonstrates a
government philosophy that preserves the
values which permit the reasonably intel-
ligent and reasonably well-informed citizen
to understand the local government of
which he is a part. This new Metro
government enables the citizens of this
municipality to participate in the manage-
ment of their affairs without undue diffi-
culty. It also recognizes an important
democratic principle of representation by
population— every 50,000-voters group in
Metro will have a voice on Metro council.
The premier has recognized the pitfalls of
amalgamation. An amalgamated government
serving several hundred thousand persons
becomes incomprehensible to the majority
of citizens. The people see little or no
purpose in their attempts to influence the
state of affairs. They feel the government
increasingly tends to leave decisions to
experts and planners.
As the world's large urban centres study
complexities of municipal overhaul, more
and more are deciding that decentralization
is the solution. The premier of Ontario has
recognized this and it must be one of his
main reasons for preserving a Metro
which will include the city of Toronto and
the boroughs of North York, Scarboro,
Etobicoke, East York and York.
64
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
May I point out, and emphasize that the prob-
lem encountered in dealing with this situa-
tion, the fact-finding undertaken and the
decision reached, reflect once again the
wisdom of the hon. Prime Minister and our
government in refusing to be stampeded into
hasty decisions. These momentous decisions
cannot be made overnight. There is an old
saying "Act in haste— repent in leisure". To-
day more than ever we should fly the caution
flag and learn to make haste slowly.
Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any specific
mention of taxes in the Speech from the
Throne but at this time of year we are tax
conscious, and I would like to digress for a
moment and make a few personal observa-
tions about the fiscal responsibility of gov-
ernment.
Insofar as Ontario is concerned there is no
doubt that enormous expenditures will be
required in the years ahead.
This populous and economically advanced
province is the main source of wealth for all
Canada and money must be found for the
investment necessary to maintain and increase
Ontario's production of wealth for the benefit
of all.
Investment in human capital is as important
as other types of investment for the promotion
of economic growth— this means investment
in education and investment in social welfare
as well as highways, and so on.
Governments today are truly on the horns
of a dilemma. The burden of taxes is already
heavy, but if we do not spend the money to
provide the services required for growth,
our economy will lag and the standard of
living fall.
Yet, if government borrows to meet ex-
penditures we are merely adding interest and
postponing the day when the bills will have
to be met.
In my opinion, one thing is sure and that
is government cannot go on succumbing to
this pressure or that pressure and spending
more and more money each year.
It is government's job to weigh the various
positions taken by conflicting interest groups,
to attempt to reconcile these positions and
to develop policies which are in the best
interests of the general public.
Governments at all levels must plan. They
must plan in order to clarify and define
objectives, to mobilize all departments and
agencies towards achieving these objectives,
to co-ordinate the activities of these depart-
ments and agencies, and to exercise maximum
economy in their operations.
Government has no money except what it
collects from the people by way of taxes.
When we demand services, we must be pre-
pared to pay for them.
Perhaps one of the greatest inherent
dangers in a democracy such as ours must
surely be the demanding of services which
are in excess of our ability or capacity to
pay.
It is we, the elected representatives, who
must hold the line, for today it is obvious
that many of our people live beyond their
means. Credit buying has reached stagger-
ing proportions, and it would seem that our
citizens expect us to adopt the same attitude
in expending public funds.
Almost two centuries ago, a teacher by the
name of Alexander Fraser Tyler, made an
observation about the rise and fall of the
Athenian republic over 2,000 years ago,
that:
Democracy cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. It can exist only until
the voters discover they can vote them-
selves largesse out of the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the candidate promising the most
benefits from the public treasury, with the
result that democracy always collapses
over a loose fiscal policy.
It is alarming to note the popularity of the
concept today, that anything obtained from
the government is free.
As elected representatives, Mr. Speaker,
we should ascertain from our civil servants
and tell the electorate, frankly, how much
additional services will cost. We should
explain the additional cost in terms the voters
can understand; we should explain what new
or increased taxes must be collected to pay
for new or increased services; we should
relate these increases in dollars and cents
per year for different income groups.
We should, through our civil servants, be
responsible in seeing that government de-
partments are run as efficiently and economic-
ally as possible— that the answer is not always
a fresh infusion of tax dollars to balance the
budget.
But perhaps more than anything, we
should make an effort to try to educate the
public on the cost of government services-
straight figures and facts and not the dis-
torted views of special interest outside critics.
What is our position in this province rela-
tive to the whole of Canada? We hear many
statistics about our great province in this
Legislature, but unless they are related or
JANUARY 27, 1966
65
compared they are meaningless. For ex-
ample, while our population of less than
seven million is only one-third of the popu-
lation of Canada, we produce over 40 per
cent of the national income and contribute
some 50 per cent of the direct taxes collected
in Canada. Ontario factories produce 90 per
cent of all motor vehicles produced in
Canada; 94 per cent of all automotive parts
and accessories; 92 per cent of all office
furniture; 90 per cent of all production of
the electrical industries; 87 per cent of all
agricultural implements; and 86 per cent of
all iron and steel production. Factory ship-
ments of manufactured goods have risen to
15.7 billion in 1964 from 5.7 billion in 1948
—190 per cent increase in 18 years!
In agriculture, Ontario, with only one-
tenth of the occupied farmlands in Canada,
out-produces all other provinces in terms of
market value of its products. As a matter of
fact, Ontario produces one-quarter of the
agricultural production value of Canada.
Last year, Ontario farm crops were valued
at just over $1 billion— an increase of 97 per
cent in just over three years.
In mining, Ontario leads all other prov-
inces in value of mineral production. The
total Canadian production will be close to
$1 billion, of which 42 per cent comes from
Ontario mines.
In manufacturing, Ontario industries
account for more than 50 per cent of the
total manufacturing output of the entire
Canadian industry, and in terms of total
production of goods and services, Ontario
accounts for more than 40 per cent of the
Canadian gross national product.
Our province enjoyed its fifth consecutive
year of economic expansion in 1965, estab-
lishing many new records in the process.
Employment, income and production all
reached new peaks during this past year as
the level of prosperity in the province rose.
Overall expansion, measured by the in-
crease in the gross Ontario product, was 9
per cent, with over 6 per cent of this repre-
senting growth in real terms. The roughly 3
per cent increase in prices was the largest
annual price increase of the current expansion.
For Canada, as a whole, the unemploy-
ment rate has been reduced from 5.5 per cent
in 1963 to 3.6 per cent in November 1965.
For Ontario it has declined from 3.8 per cent
to 2.3 per cent in the same period, a truly
remarkable record of achievement demonstrat-
ing and reflecting good government— the gov-
ernment of Prime Minister John Robarts.
The hon. member for Lambton West
has outlined some of the progressive legis-
lation enacted by this government during
the past two and one-half years. This is in-
dicative of the fine leadership we are getting
within our own sphere— within the confines
of the province of Ontario.
What about our leadership in national
affairs? For as the leader of the outstanding
province in Canada, this is a must to us as
Canadian citizens. What about Canadian con-
federation? Donald Smythe, of the University
of British Columbia, writing in the December
issue of the academically-oriented Canadian
Forum, said: "Mr. Robarts proposed a set
of principles about the Canadian confedera-
tion which establishes him as the most clear-
headed English-speaking political leader in
these matters".
What were these principles? These were
outlined by the hon. Prime Minister in a
recent speech as follows:
It was impossible for Ontario to accept a
federal system which is not based on the
principle of a single national economy, and,
furthermore, a single national government
which has control over that economy.
National economic policies must be made
sensitive to regional needs through more
adequate and more frequent consultations
with the provinces.
Ontario rejected the proposition that "the
government of Quebec in any way repre-
sents the interests of French-speaking Cana-
dians living in any other province of
Canada."
The existing constitutional provisions re-
lating to French language and culture were
to be regarded as inviolable with the in-
sistence that these privileges belong to
people— not to government.
These enunciated principles taken in con-
junction with his numerous addresses on the
topic of Confederation, his understanding of
the problems, his patience, his tact, and,
above all, his love of Canada and his ability
to get along with people, point out to us all
unmistakably that Ontario does indeed have
a voice on national unity second to none,
through a true Canadian statesman— the hon.
Prime Minister.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker,
promises a busy and productive session. It
contains a most interesting selection of pro-
posed legislation covering a wide range of
interests to the people of this province.
The proposed legislation dealing with the
aged, including the licensing and supervising
of nursing homes, will meet with the whole-
hearted approval of everyone.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The proposed amendments to The Securi-
ties Act and The Corporations Act will cer-
tainly give more and better protection to
the investing public.
The man in the street will be vitally in-
terested in legislation proposed on the basis
of the report of the select committee on
consumer credit.
The establishment of a new legal aid plan
is a major step forward, and the creation of a
new Ministry within The Attorney General's
Department is a sensible move.
I am particularly happy with the proposed
aid to small business, particularly in certain
areas, because I maintain, always have main-
tained, and, I suspect, always will maintain,
that the small business is the backbone of our
economy. Every possible aid should be given
to encourage the establishment and retention
of the small business.
There is no need to further enlarge on the
Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause the hon. members of this Legislature
will be dealing with its contents specifically
this session, at which time I am sure full
debate will take place on the legislation
proposed.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make reference to the Opposition in general.
I am aware that when one talks in general
terms, it is unfair in many cases, because
there are always exceptions. Having regard
to the fact that I am a minor backbencher,
having just been demoted from a front seat
bench to the back bench— indeed, the Chicago
Gang tell me that my next jump is to the
East Gallery— and premising my remarks by
stating that because of my inexperience I may
be somewhat wrong in my observations, I am
sure that the Opposition hon. members will
not mind my devoting a few moments to
them. What I have to say may give them a
few bitter pills to swallow, but in the long
run it may prove to be good medicine.
I may say, before I start, that dissension is
natural to politics— as is disagreement— and so
is clash of personality. We in this House,
however, have a common denominator— the
best interests of the people of this province—
and for this reason, we work together with
goodwill.
My remarks are prompted by the debate
which took place yesterday, charging that the
hon. Prime Minister is unfair in his treatment
of the Opposition— a most unfair charge, in
my opinion— one completely without founda-
tion. On the contrary, I never cease to marvel
at his patience, his understanding, his tact,
his bending over backwards, his almost
fatherly benign attitude to the leaders and
members of the Opposition. I think the*
terminology of the Opposition is "sweet reas-
onableness".
I have heard the hon. Prime Minister say
countless times in this House that he is pre-
pared to spend all year sitting if necessary to
properly deal with the business of the Legis-
lature. Certainly no one looks forward more
to the sessions than the hon. Prime Minister,
This is to him what the stage is to the actor;
this is the life-blood of politics. Perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, one of the difficulties is that certain
hon. members of the Opposition are not too
well-informed on the rules of the House.
There is a saying that a biased critic will
always find something to try the sharp edge
of his tongue on, and especially so when he
is ill-informed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the
rules of the House nor the alleged hand-
cuffing of the Opposition that is to blame for
their lack-lustre performance to date. I sug-
gest specifically that the Opposition in this
House have forgotten how to oppose, have
forgotten their primary function.
They have not had 22 years' experience in
Opposition; they have had one year's experi-
ence 22 times.
Good government requires good opposition
and, fortunately for our government, we do
not have to rely solely on Opposition parties
—we are able to provide a good deal of our
own opposition.
The Opposition reminds me of a little pup
that a father took home to his six children;
the pup tried to go in six directions at once
to please six children at the same time.
So it is with the Opposition. At the open-
ing of each session, they dart off in all direc-
tions—hell-bent for election, as it were— like
the spray of a shotgun at long range, not
hitting home on any issues, just making a
mess. How much better if they prepared
properly, took steady aim, and hit the target
once in a while, for I am sure that we do
make mistakes; there are always mistakes
when the human element is involved.
Many times, Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this
House and, yes, in committees, expecting
opposition on matters of utmost importance-
opposition that should be planned intelli-
gently and constructively— only to have the
whole matter fizzle undramatically for lack
of opposition.
It is like opening a lion's cage expecting a
lion to come roaring and charging out, and,
instead, a quiet little mouse tiptoes softly
out. I also never cease to be amazed at the
wrangling which takes place between the
two Opposition parties. Sometimes there is
JANUARY 27, 1966
67
a thin line of demarcation— as thin, Mr.
Speaker, as the broth made from the shadow
of a chicken that died from starvation. At
other times, they are diametrically opposed-
suspicious, jealous, and at that time one or
the other of them sidles apologetically up to
the government party seeking refuge on its
shoulders as on those of a big brother.
I do not stand alone in this viewpoint of
the Opposition; others more knowledgeable
ithan I share it. It is indeed shared by the
hon. leader of the official Opposition himself
(Mr. Thompson), because in a recent radio
interview he stated: "From now on, we are
going to oppose more, we have not been
opposing enough." I congratulate the hon.
leader of the official Opposition for his de-
tection of this inherent weakness and suggest
that instead of whining about being muzzled
that he and the other Opposition members
study and get down to the fundamental
Taasics of opposing. Then this fourth session
of the 27th Parliament will prove most
fruitful and beneficial to the people of this
great province.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before moving the adjournment of
the House, tomorrow there are some formali-
ties we will go through. There will be the
report of the striking committee, I believe,
and there may be some other introduction of
bills, but I would like to proceed with a dis-
cussion of resolutions numbers one and two
on the order paper. I believe the movers of
those two resolutions, and they are quite
closely linked together, will work out some
way in which they can be dealt with satis-
factory to the House, but that would be the
order of business after we have completed
the formalities in the morning.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.45 o'clock, p.m.
No. 4
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of #ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, January 28, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, January 28, 1966
Report, select committee re standing committees, Mr. Mackenzie 71
Motion to appoint Mr. L. M. Reilly as chairman of the committee of the whole House,
Mr. Robarts, agreed to 72
On notice of motions Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Singer, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Thompson,
Mr. Grossman, Mr. Young, Mr. Yaremko 75
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Trotter, agreed to 92
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 94
71
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, January 28, 1966
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome, as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery, Metropolitan
Toronto school for the deaf and Baywood
Boulevard public school, Downsview; in the
west gallery, St. Andrew's junior high school,
Willowdale.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) from the
select committee appointed to prepare the
lists of members to compose the standing
committees of the House, presented the com-
mittee's report which was read as follows and
adopted:
Your committee recommends that the lists
of standing committees ordered by the House
be composed as follows:
Agriculture: Messrs. Brunelle, Butler,
Carruthers, Evans, Ewen, Farquhar, Free-
man, Gaunt, Gisborn, Hamilton, Henderson,
Hodgson (Victoria), Johnston (Carleton), Leth-
erby, MacDonald, Morningstar, McKeough,
McNeil, Nixon, Olde, Oliver, Paterson, Pit-
tock, Rollins, Root, Rowe, Sandercock,
Spence, Villeneuve, Walker, Welch, Whicher,
Whitney, Yakabuski— 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Education and University Affairs:
Messrs, Apps, Bales, Downer, Eagleson,
Guindon, Hodgson (Victoria), Kerr, Knox,
Lawrence (Russell), Lawrence (St. George),
Lewis (Scarborough West), MacDonald, Mc-
Keough, Newman, Nixon, Peck, Racine,
Smith, Welch, Worton, Wells-21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Government Commissions: Messrs. Apps,
Beckett, Ben, Braithwaite, Brunelle, Carton,
Davison, Downer, Dunlop, Edwards, Ewen,
Gaunt, Hodgson (Scarborough East), Johns-
ton; (Parry Sound), Kerr, Lewis (Humber),
MacDonald, Mackenzie, McNeil, Morning-
star, Noden, Peck, Pittock, Price, Pritchard
(Mrs.), Renwick, Rollins, Singer, Sopha, Tay-
lor, Thrasher, Walker, Whicher, Whitney— 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Health and Welfare: Messrs. Apps,
Braithwaite, Bukator, Carruthers, Cowling,
Demers, Dunlop, Eagleson, Ewen, Harris,
Lewis (Scarborough West), Noden, Pritchard
(Mrs.), Racine, Reilly, Rowe, Trotter, Ville-
neuve, Wells, Worton, Young— 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Highways and Tourism: Messrs. Apps,
Brown, Brunelle, Butler, Carruthers, Davison,
Demers, Edwards, Evans, Farquhar, Free-
man, Gisborn, Guindon, Hamilton, Hender-
son, Hodgson (Scarborough East), Hodgson
(Victoria), Johnston (Carleton), Knox, Law-
rence (Russell), Olde, Mackenzie, McNeil,
Newman, Noden, Paterson, Root, Rowe,
Smith, Spence, Taylor, Whicher, Whitney,
Yakabuski-34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Legal Bills and Labour: Messrs. Bales,
Beckett, Ben, Braithwaite, Butler, Carton,
Cass, Eagleson, Evans, Henderson, Gisborn,
Lawrence (Russell), Lawrence (St. George),
Morningstar, Reaume, Reilly, Renwick, Sopha,
Thrasher, Trotter, Welch-21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Municipal Affairs: Messrs. Bryden,
Bukator, Cowling, Demers, Dunlop, Ewen,
Gordon, Harris, Hodgson (Scarborough East),
Kerr, McKeough, Newman, Peck, Pritchard
(Mrs.), Reuter, Rollins, Sargent, Singer,
Walker, Wells, Young-21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Natural Resources, Wildlife and Min-
ing: Messrs. Brown, Brunelle, Butler,
Davison, Demers, Evans, Farquhar, Freeman,
Gibson, Gisborn, Guindon, Hamilton, Hodg-
son (Scarborough East), Hodgson (Victoria),-
72
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston (Carleton),
Letherby, Mackenzie, McNeil, Noden, Pater-
son, Pittock, Rollins, Root, Rowe, Sandercock,
Sargent, Smith, Spence, Taylor, Villeneuve,
Welch, Whitney, Yakabuski-34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Private Bills: Messrs. Apps, Bales,
Beckett, Ben, Brown, Brunelle, Bukator, But-
ler, Carruthers, Carton, Cowling, Demers,
Eagleson, Edwards, Evans, Ewen, Freeman,
Gaunt, Hamilton, Harris, Henderson, Kerr,
Lawrence (Russell), Letherby, MacDonald,
Mackenzie, Morningstar, McKeough, New-
man, Nixon, Olde, Peck, Price, Pritchard
(Mrs.), Reaume, Reilly, Renwick, Reuter,
Rollins, Sandercock, Singer, Sopha, Trotter,
Villeneuve, Walker, Wells, Whicher, Whit-
ney, Worton, Young— 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Privileges and Elections: Messrs.
Beckett, Bryden, Butler, Downer, Dunlop,
Guindon, Harris, Kerr, Lawrence (St. George),
Nixon, Oliver, Peck, Reaume, Renwick, Rol-
lins, Smith, Walker, Wells, White, Worton,
Yakabuski-21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Public Accounts: Messrs. Bales, Bryden,
Carton, McKeough, Reuter, Rowe, Sopha,
Trotter, Wells-9.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Standing Orders and Printing: Messrs.
Apps, Ben, Carruthers, Cass, Downer, Ed-
wards, Ewen, Farquhar, Freeman, Gisborn,
Gordon, Knox, Lewis (Humber), Olde, Oliver,
Pittock, Price, Pritchard (Mrs.), Reaume,
Sandercock, Thrasher— 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves,
seconded by Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader
of the Opposition), that Mr. L. M. Reilly,
member for the electoral district of Eglinton,
be appointed chairman of the committee of
the whole House for the present session.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in putting forward the motion I
would like to make a short comment.
I think that this appointment and this
motion has a bearing on what we were dis-
cussing the other day concerning the various
functions of this House and its procedures.
In these latter years, when the committee of
the whole House or the committee of supply
has come to be really a forum in which the
conduct of various departments of govern-
ment is very closely examined, as well as the
estimates of actual spending, this office has
developed in increasing importance. The
hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly)— to
give you just a brief rundown on his position
here— was elected at a by-election in 1962.
Perhaps other hon. members will not recall
as vividly as I do, that his fate hung in the
balance of a recount in those days. He was
successful in that recount, and then the
electors of Eglinton in the general election
of 1963 realized that they had chosen
properly, and perhaps a little thinly in the
by-election of 1962, and he was returned by
a very large majority.
Mr. Reilly 's background reaches into muni-
cipal affairs. He was an alderman from 1947
to 1955, and of course he has served as
chairman of various standing committees of
this House and has a long background in the
sometimes difficult task of chairing meetings
and chairing gatherings where perhaps every-
one is not exactly agreed on what is being
discussed. I have great pleasure in recom-
mending him to the hon. members of the
House as Deputy Speaker and chairman of
the committees of the House with the full
knowledge and confidence that he will be
able to discharge these duties to the satis-
faction of everyone in the House.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to second the motion of the hon.
Prime Minister for the hon. member for
Eglinton.
We know that he is a man of independent
thought, we have seen that in the House on
other occasions when he spoke his mind. We
also know he is a man of considerable and
varied talent. We have seen that also in
the House when he has sung his mind. I do
not think he will need to do that in the dis-
cussions in the committee of supply, although
perhaps it might liven up some of the heavier
moments which take place in the wee hours
of the morning.
May I say that from our side of the House
we appreciate the importance of this job, of
this position. We are aware that it requires
impartiality and fairness and we know that
the hon. member will live up to that
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know whether it is possible
JANUARY 28, 1966
73
to third a motion, or to double second a
motion, but I take great pleasure in doing
that, and particularly so with the hon.
member for Eglinton. As the hon. leader of
the Opposition says, he has indicated some
of those characteristics which I think are
necessary to be a good Deputy Speaker and
among them I do not think is the fact that
he increased his majority in the last election.
I think that becomes irrelevant at this point.
That is a touch of partisanship which he
must now discard just as you, Mr. Speaker,
have to in your position.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has
alluded to a point which was rather teasing
me as I look forward to the prospect of this
session with the hon. member for Eglinton
in the chair. Undoubtedly, notwithstanding
our respect for the hon. gentleman, there
will be occasions when we will have differ-
ences, indeed there may even be occasions
when this House degenerates into a little
bit of chaos, and I can now see the solution
to it. The hon. Deputy Speaker will rise and
he will break into song. Now if it is an Irish
song that we all know, we will forget our
differences and sing together. If it is a song
like some we have heard from him, we will
just have to listen to it as a solo.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole; Mr. L.
M. Reilly in the chair.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Members of
this Legislature, first of all I should like to
express my personal appreciation to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) for his motion
this morning and for his kind words. I accept
the words that have been spoken as a tribute
to the people of Eglinton and I am glad, of
course, to receive this assignment as your
Deputy Speaker and chairman of the com-
mittee of the whole. I am particularly
pleased to hear the kind words expressed by
the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Thompson) and by the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald). As all these
hon. members have said, it is not an easy
job.
Many of you may not relish this particular
assignment. I accept it as a challenge. I
realize that in order to do the work that
you want done it will require tact, and it
will require tolerance, and it will require the
full co-operation of every hon. member of
this House. Contrary to what has been
suggested by some of the speakers, it is not
my intention to break out in song. As a
matter of fact, I overheard one of the
members, the hon. member for Woodbine
(Mr. Bryden), say: "Please don't encourage
him."
Earlier this week several hon. members sug-
gested the necessity for improvement, par-
ticularly from the standpoint of committees,
and have made several suggestions on how
we can improve and expedite the working
of the House. I am suggesting to you that
perhaps one of the best ways we can improve
it is in the committee of the whole House.
Perhaps some of you will recall, when I
came in here in 1962, that my maiden
speech to the House stated that I felt we
could make some improvement along these
lines. I suggested that it reminded me too
much of Toronto city council, that there was
a lack of dignity and there was a lack of
decorum. And I think that, with the co-
operation of every hon. member of this House,
we can look forward to expediting the work
of the House. Certainly I am going to depend
upon you for your support and full co-opera-
tion.
I will do my best to make sure that the
work of this House is carried on in the way
that you would like to have it done. And in
so doing, rest assured that I shall not try to
rule with an iron fist but I will try to rule
firmly and fairly. Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: The committee of the whole
House begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day I have a question for the hon. Minis-
ter of Health (Mr. Dymond) which has been
submitted.
In view of the need for doctors, has the
hon. Minister inquired of the college of
physicians and surgeons whether there are
doctors established in Ontario who took
undergraduate courses from universities which
74
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the college of physicians and surgeons now
exclude? If so, has the hon. Minister asked
for an explanation from the college for
excluding internationally recognized doctors
from practising in Ontario?
Hon. M. R. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that I take this as notice,
in view of the fact that I have talked to
the college on several occasions verbally
but to answer the question on that basis
here would be trusting it solely to my memory.
I would have to point out that the college
has a small staff, and is not accustomed to
having to provide material, such as would be
necessary to answer a question of this kind,
at the short notice that we accept in this
Legislature.
I would, therefore, ask that I may take it
as notice and provide the answer as soon as
I can.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minis-
ter of Energy and Resources Management
(Mr. Simonett). Will the Minister inform the
House why Harold Praill, the Chatham florist
who sued Keystone Construction Company
for $2,000 damages suffered to his greenhouse
during the installation of sewers for the On-
tario water resources commission, should be
denied the $1,000 damages assessed by the
judge and instead have the case dismissed
with costs; the reason being given that the
company was doing contract work for the
OWRC and therefore the claim was barred
by The Public Authorities Act? Forgive me,
Mr. Speaker, for a sentence as long as that
but I do not know how you can do it other-
wise if you want to ask the question intelli-
gently.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry that I was unable to get the answer
for the hon. member this morning. Rut I will
take this as notice and have an answer for
him on Monday of next week.
Mr. J. Renwick (Rivcrdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health, notice of which has been given to
him.
How many students from Jamaica and Haiti
have been admitted by the Ontario college
of physicians and surgeons to practise medi-
cine in Ontario during the last two years?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I will
have to take this as notice for the same reason
that I gave in response to the question of
the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree),
notice of which has been given.
Can the hon. Minister advise if an investi-
gation is underway into the death of Renzo
Nicolussi of Indian Grove, who was killed
when he was installing fluorescent lighting at
a warehouse in Toronto?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, immediately following this acci-
dent, which occurred on December 10, an
industrial safety officer from my depart-
ment carried out a thorough investigation
of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Renzo
Nicolussi's death. Our inspector later testi-
fied before a coroner's inquest held on
January 26. The coroner's jury found that
Mr. Nicolussi was responsible for his own
death, since: 1. He had not locked the
casters on the scaffold. 2. He had failed to
wear a safety helmet. 3. He was carrying a
heavy coat over one arm while descending
the scaffold.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Minister a supplementary question?
Would he comment on the statement made
to the press by John Russell, president of the
electrical firm, who said the company had
no formal safety programme but left safety
supervision up to contractors where his men
were employed?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have not seen that
statement, but I would comment in this
fashion about it. I would be very much sur-
prised and concerned if an employer of
labour did not have any safety programme;
and I will undertake to look into that matter
personally.
Mr. K. Rryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis).
What action, if any, has been taken or is
contemplated arising out of the inquiries
made by the Cabinet committee which the
hon. Minister advised the House on June 4
last had been appointed to look into the
question of pensions paid to certain super-
annuated women teachers and teachers'
widows?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, this matter was further con-
sidered, as I said to the House on that
occasion, during the considerations of the
government and discussions with the pension
committee. The discussions then arose with
the Ontario teachers' federation, with respect
to the integration of the teachers' superannu-
ation fund with the Canada pension plan. At
JANUARY 28, 1966
75
the time these discussions were concluded,
the teachers' federation suggested to the gov-
ernment they wished to make some proposals
about reassessment for the fund. We under-
stand these proposals are now being pre-
pared by the teachers' federation and the
proposals include the superannuated teachers,
as we call them here, and also the widows
of the retired teachers— the two groups the
Legislature has been concerned about. Their
proposals will be coming to the government
and they will be given consideration at that
time.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Speaker, may I
ask a supplementary question? Why do the
needs of this small group of people— who I
think we all agree have quite extraordinary
needs— why should they have to wait while
a whole lot of complicated matters affecting
the plan generally are dealt with?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are
not a whole lot of matters affecting the plan
generally; but any consideration given to this
part of the teachers' superannuation fund is
of concern, of course, to the entire member-
ship of the fund. The reassessment that the
federation is asking for, as I said to the
hon. member, includes, as we understand it
from the federation, proposals that include
the problem raised by the superannuated
women teachers.
Mr. Bryden: Has the hon. Minister any
idea when this reassessment might be com-
pleted and he, therefore, might be in a
position to make a definite announcement of
policy?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I cannot say, Mr.
Speaker, when the reassessment will be com-
pleted. The federation has informed us it
wishes to make these proposals just as soon
as it has its own calculation and so on
completed.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Education, notice of which has
been submitted to him. It is a three-part
question.
1. Have plans been completed for the new
western Ontario institute of technology?
2. If so, when will tenders be called?
3. What is the target date for the opening
of classes at this institute?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, Mr. Speaker,
I am answering this for the hon. Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Connell). The plans
have not been completed. There are two
firms who have been contacted with respect
to the planning— Masson, Langlois and Associ-
ates, and William J. Hilliker. Since the
original concept of the western Ontario
institute of technology for new construction
was proposed, some 60 acres were acquired,
as I am sure the hon. member knows, in
Sandwich West. Since that time, approval
has been given for planning what has been
called our vocational centre. The development
will now include a complex comparable to
the Hamilton situation. It is impossible at
this stage to give any specific target date
because of the increase in this complex.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a
supplementary question of the hon. Minister:
Will the educational complex as contemplated
now include a community college?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
a position to answer this question at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to call the first and
second resolutions under other motions, and
the first of these resolutions is moved by
the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer)
and the second by the hon. member for
Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop). They involve the
same thing to some extent; there are some
differences, but by agreement of the movers of
each of these resolutions, the mover of one
will second the other and the mover of the
other will second that one. This will permit
us to consider these two resolutions at the
same time. Those hon. members of the House,
who wish to debate them, can direct their
remarks to either one or both of the two
resolutions, if we follow this procedure. As
I say, this is agreeable to Mr. Speaker, it is
agreeable to both the movers, and is agree-
able to us, but can only be done with the
permission of the whole House. If that per-
mission is forthcoming, I would move resolu-
tion No. 1 and then subsequently I will move
resolution No. 2 and the debate can take
place.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS NOS. 1 AND 2
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion
No. 1, by Mr. Singer.
Resolution: That this House advise the
Minister of Justice at Ottawa of its grave
concern relating to the distribution of hate
literature and racist propaganda in the
province of Ontario, and that the govern-
ment of Canada be urged that amendments
be made to the Criminal Code of Canada
which will make it an offence for anyone
76
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to advocate or promote genocide, or for
anyone to communicate statements in any
public place which incite hatred or con-
tempt against any identifiable group, where
such incitement is likely to lead to a
breach of the peace, unless such statements
communicated were true or relevant to any
subject of public interest and on reason-
able grounds were believed to be true.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I move,
seconded by Mr. Dunlop, resolution No. 1
standing in my name which has just been
read.
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion
No. 2, by Mr. Dunlop.
Resolution: That, as, in the opinion of
this House, the dissemination of statements
or matter disparaging to individuals or
groups by reason of race, national origin,
colour or religion, is a matter of grave
concern, and as it has been long held to
be contrary to public policy to promote
feelings of ill-will and hostility between
different classes of Her Majesty's subjects,
the Ministry should make further and
appropriate representations to the gov-
ernment of Canada advocating the enact-
ment of amendments to the Criminal Code
and other legislation designed to eliminate
those acts offensive to the dignity of Cana-
dian society without the erosion of any of
the liberties of the subject so long recog-
nized as fundamental to our concept of
democracy; and that the following amend-
ments to the Criminal Code be included
among the specific legislative proposals to
be made as part of these representations:
(1) Everyone who publishes or circulates
or causes to be published or circulated,
orally or in writing, any matter intended
or calculated to incite violence or provoke
disorder against any class of persons, or
against any person as a member of any
class in Canada, is guilty of an indictable
offence and is liable to punishment.
(2) Everyone who publishes, orally or in
writing, a statement, tale, news or matter
that he knows or ought to know is likely
to cause injury or mischief to the public
interest, is guilty of an indictable offence
and is liable to punishment, save that no
person shall be convicted of an offence
under this section by reason only of having
published statements relating to controver-
sial, social, economic, political or religious
beliefs or opinions, unless he advocates or
incites disorder or the use of violence, or
intends primarily to promote hatred or
hostility against a racial, national, religious
or ethnic group or the members thereof.
(3) (i) Everyone who, with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group as such,
kills a member of the group, is guilty of
an indictable offence and is subject to
such penalty as the Criminal Code pro-
vides for murder; and
(ii) Everyone who, with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group as such,
causes bodily or mental harm to a member
or members of the group, or deliberately
inflicts on the group or any of its members
conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction, in whole or in
part, is guilty of an indictable offence and
is liable to punishment.
Mr. Dunlop moves resolution No. 2, seconded
by Mr. Singer, in the form read by the Clerk
of the House.
Mr. Singer: The form in which these two
resolutions come before this House is a most
unusual one and I would think a unique one
in the history of the Ontario Legislature. This
is indeed about to be an historic occasion,
Mr. Speaker.
Some of the suggestions that have been put
forward by my hon. leader (Mr. Thompson)
and others about revised procedures have
indeed fallen on fertile ears.
Notwithstanding the remarks made yester-
day, Mr. Speaker, the rather nasty aspersions
about whining and so on, I am glad to see
and I am grateful to see that the hon. Prime
Minister has accepted some of these ideas
and has suggested the calling of both these
resolutions together, and that the hon. mem-
ber for Forest Hill and myself have been able
to work out a method of co-operation. I am
grateful as well, Mr. Speaker, to all the hon.
members of the House for giving their unani-
mous consent in allowing these matters to
proceed in this manner.
Mr. Speaker, the subject matter, the prin-
ciple in both these resolutions is a matter of
most outstanding and significant importance
to the people of Ontario and to the people of
all of Canada. Let me say at the commence-
ment of my remarks that in principle I am
certain that the hon. member for Forest Hill
and myself are in complete agreement.
I have some substantial reservations per-
haps about the method in which he suggests
that his objective be achieved and perhaps he
has the same sort of reservations about the
method I suggest.
JANUARY 28, 1966
77
Be that as it may, and I will come back to
the form of the resolution of the hon. member
for Forest Hill in due course, I think it is
significant, sir, that a member of the gov-
ernment party and a member of the Oppo-
sition have put on the order paper early
in the session two resolutions which urge
that recommendations— and I would hope
before this morning is over that they be the
unanimous recommendations of this House-
that recommendations be forwarded to the
government of Canada suggesting that cer-
tain changes be made to our Canadian laws,
more particularly our Canadian criminal laws,
which would deal with some very serious
problems that face the Canadian community.
There has been concern for many years,
Mr. Speaker, about whether or not legisla-
tures should interfere with so-called freedom
of speech. There has been the question
asked, perhaps a rhetorical question, as to
whether or not we can legislate tolerance.
Does it mean anything to put on the statute
books an expression of morality in this par-
ticular context? Is this going to change
human nature? Perhaps the answer to that
question, Mr. Speaker, is that all our laws in
some form or another are an expression of the
morality of the community.
I think, really, the complete answer to this
question and this oft-raised criticism is that
what better expression can there be of the
morality of the community than the expres-
sion of that view by the legislators, whether
in the provincial House or whether in the
federal House, who were duly selected by the
voters to gather either at Queen's Park or in
Ottawa and from time to time to express their
views.
Those views are expressed in the form of
statutes or resolutions. These are the views,
the current views, the prevailing views, of the
morality of the community. So I suggest, sir,
it is important that matters such as this come
before this Legislature and be discussed and
be resolved in a manner that is as satisfactory
as can be to a majority or perhaps all the
members.
I am not suggesting for a moment that if
this resolution passes this morning, or that if
the government in Ottawa takes the action
that this Legislature might recommend, that
the day after there will be no more hate or
intolerance or lack of understanding amongst
all of the citizens of Canada. But I am sug-
gesting, sir, that if this action is taken there
will be an important expression of opinion
which will form part of the record of this
House, which will be a very strong guide to
those legislators in Ottawa as to what this
Legislature thinks, as to what we mem-
bers think. This will have, has to have, a
very salutary effect on the thinking of the
people of Ontario and the thinking of the
people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is not new to this House
that this sort of problem has aroused the type
of criticism we have heard from time to time:
You cannot legislate tolerance. This Legisla-
ture perhaps broke new ground when it began
to embark on the various phases of what is
now called The Ontario Human Rights Code.
The same sort of suggestions were made. We
could not legislate tolerance by legislating
freedom of accommodation, we could not
legislate tolerance by legislating freedom of
job employment, and that sort of thing. But
the fact is that we do have several meaningful
statutes on the books of the province of
Ontario which have had, in my opinion— and
I think the opinion of most people who have
studied these things— a very important effect,
a very good effect, on the thinking of the
people of Ontario.
We are far from reaching the millenium,
certainly, but the fact that these statutes do
exist and are part of our laws and became
part of our laws by a unanimous expression
of the members of this House, has been
an indication of the thinking of this Legis-
lature at its best. It would be my earnest
hope, sir, that before this morning is through
there will be unanimous approval of both of
these resolutions.
There is another concern, another very
real concern, when an approach is made to
legislation of this type. There is a view, a
very sincere view, of those people who be-
lieve that the right of freedom of speech
must not be in danger, must not be infringed
upon. They think that as soon as we get into
this field there is a real danger that we are
going to place on the statute books restric-
tions that will make it impossible to allow
freedom of discussion. We worry, and rightly
we worry, about the McCarthy era in the
United States. We worry about the effects
that the former section— I think it was 98
of the Criminal Code of Canada— had on this
country in the mid-30's when people, by
attaching a label to them, could be carted
off to jail and imprisoned apparently because
of what was in their mind. We must con-
cern ourselves very carefully with the dangers
of generally saying this kind of legislation is
needed, then carelessly drafting the form of
legislation that is going to go into the statute
books.
Perhaps we in Ontario, or we in this
Legislature today, should not spend too much
78
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time dealing with the intricacies of the word-
ing, because the wording is not our respon-
sibility. If these resolutions pass, if the
federal government sees fit to accept the
suggestion of the Ontario Legislature and
the suggestion of many others, responsibility
of the wording will be the responsibility of
that Parliament. But there is a very sincere
concern in the minds of a great number of
people that even by putting very careful
statutes into the law, there will be a real
infringement on the right to criticize and the
right to debate and the right to be con-
cerned about the other person's point of
view. So it is a very narrow line that we
must walk in taking action of this sort.
Mr. Speaker, most European countries
have on their statute books— most western
European countries— some sort of legislation
of this type. Some of it I think is good, some
of it I question insofar as its effect in word-
ing goes. But as a result of the sort of
tragedies that we saw in pre-war Germany
and during the war, and because of some of
the actions we have seen from some of the
people who live in this country, I think we
must be very gravely concerned about draw-
ing a line between absolute freedom of
speech and license.
There is a difference between freedom and
license. In England recently the government
decided that they were going to limit the
speed of vehicles on the road to 70 miles an
hour and a great public outcry arose saying
that their freedom, their right to drive on
the roads at unlimited rates of speed, was
being endangered. Well, it is all a question
of degree and the public good was important,
apparently, that there be a speed limit on
the roads in England and they brought it in
at 70 miles an hour, with the idea of saving
lives.
If unrestricted and unfettered freedom is
allowed to exist, this would be the ideal; but
where this unrestricted and unfettered free-
dom can endanger people in our community,
groups in our community, then the legisla-
tors have a responsibility to concern them-
selves with these dangers and to try to work
out legislation which will not infringe on the
freedom of speech, but still will be a pro-
tection to those people who might be in
danger. This type of action has been dis-
cussed for some time in recent years by a
variety of people.
There have been a number of bills intro-
duced into the House of Commons. There
was a bill introduced by my associate, Mr.
Walker, the federal member for York Centre,
along with Mr. Klein, a member from Mont-
real. There is a bill by Mr. Orlikow from
Winnipeg. There are several bills. A bill
by Mr. Gelber, the former federal member
for York South, and several other bills before
the House of Commons in Ottawa, expressing
the sort of principle the hon. member for
Forest Hill and I are expressing in a variety
of ways.
There has been a committee of the House
of Commons set up to consider this problem
and to recommend what action, if any, the
federal House of Commons should take.
There has been a Royal Commission of the
House of Commons, headed by Dean Max-
well Cohen, the Dean of Law at McGill
University and I am advised that that com-
mittee will be reporting to the House of
Commons fairly soon. I understand that their
report is completed and they will be report-
ing to the House of Commons reasonably
shortly and making their recommendations in
regard to this problem.
So certainly, Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt that this is a matter that is of urgent
public importance and of real public concern.
Really, Mr. Speaker, I think that the only
question that we can usefully pursue this
morning is whether or not it is possible,
within the best intelligence that we have
available, to put into the statute books some
form of legislation which will give reasonable
protection against these very serious dangers.
I do not think we want the sort of legisla-
tion that will persecute people by the label
that they wear. The outlawing of the
Communists, for instance, really achieved
nothing, because the Communists changed
their label to Labour Progressive; and if they
outlawed Labour Progressives, then they
change the label to something else. And I do
not think it would achieve anything to outlaw
the fascists as such, or the Nazis as such,
because the labels by themselves do not mean
anything. Then there is the other danger of
trying subjectively to get into the mind or
into the thinking of people, and this is where
the hon. member for Forest Hill and I part
company. It is in method rather than in
principle.
He talks about matters intended or calcu-
lated to incite violence and it is my thought,
Mr. Speaker, that if we outlaw matters
intended or calculated to incite violence, then
we would be putting far too grave a burden
on our courts to inquire into what is in the
mind of the people who will be charged.
Judges and magistrates, being human and
being moved by the spirit of the times, could
very well work serious injustice on people
who come before them, by reason of what
JANUARY 28, 1966
79
those judges or magistrates might conclude
is in the minds of the people who are
charged.
Again, as I say, Mr. Speaker, my quarrel
is with the method and not with the prin-
ciple. The hon. member for Forest Hill
suggests that everyone who publishes a state-
ment which he knows or ought to know is
likely to cause injury or mischief to the
public interest— and I am worried. As a
lawyer I concern myself with phrases like
this that do not immediately bring a meaning
to me. I wonder how a judge or a magistrate
is going to interpret what might be— what is
likely to cause "injury or mischief to the
public interest."
Then, in his second paragraph in his reso-
lution, he talks about, "intends primarily to
promote hatred or hostility." The thing
that I am trying to establish, Mr. Speaker, is,
if the wording is so vague, that there is a
real danger of placing such serious restric-
tions on freedom of speech that, by con-
curring in legislation of this type, we will do
more harm than good.
One cannot help think of some of the
errors that have been committed in this coun-
try: The treatment of the Japanese during
the war; the imprisonment of people without
trial, again during the war. These are things
that perhaps were made necessary by the
emergency situation which the nation faced,
but I would be very loath to see, on our
statute books, statutes that were vaguely
worded, which would allow the emotions of
the judiciary, the emotions of the community,
to carry away that right that we so jealously
guard— the right of criticism, the right of
debate, the right of a person of a minority
group or minority party to stand up and
say, "I disagree with the majority", the right
of my colleagues and myself to stand up and
say that we think that this government is all
wrong, that they are a bunch of rogues and
they should go out. This should be our right.
The hon. Prime Minister says we exercise
that right, and I hope the laws of Ontario
and the laws of Canada will always give us
the right to exercise that right. This is why I
worry about the vague wording that might
creep into statutes of this type.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I share with the
hon. member for Forest Hill his abhorrence
of the crime of genocide. The expressions of
the United Nations in their charter, and the
conventions in this regard, the various discus-
sions—I think everyone in this country shares
that similar abhorrence. Well, I just question
in passing whether killing that is a part of
a genocide plan really is not covered in the
statutes already. Murder is covered in the
statutes of Canada, and it should be.
Then finally, sir, when the hon. member
for Forest Hill suggests that everyone who
causes mental harm to the members of a
group, I just ask him, and not in a critical
spirit, what he means by "causing mental
harm" and how he makes it a crime to "cause
mental harm"? If I am going to say nasty
things about him— and I am not going to this
morning, but in the next debate we have
perhaps I might cause him some mental
harm by suggesting that some of his ideas are
completely wrong— would the wording in this
section that he is suggesting be broad enough
to have me brought before the courts?
Mr. Speaker, I have gone through the
resolution of the hon. member for Forest Hill
at some length to point out what in my
mind are some of the dangers. But I do
suggest that there is available to us, to the
government of Canada, a method whereby
there can be an expression of public opinion,
an expression of the elected representatives,
that we abhor the type of actions about
which we are talking and that we do put on
the statute books something that is not there
today. There have been studies by many
learned lawyers of the present provisions of
the Criminal Code.
There is certainly no doubt that where
there is a breach of the peace the people
who cause a breach of the peace can be
dealt with under present criminal laws. But
we are asking for something more than that.
It is the opinion of many learned counsel
who have examined provisions of the code
—and I think the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) shares this view, the matter was
brought up in this House a year ago— that the
provisions as they presently exist would not
be sufficient to prosecute people for certain
actions which they have taken.
The young and foolish, and perhaps men-
tally ill, group of boys who paraded in a
park. This is the sort of thing that causes the
community great concern, these boys who
wore arm bands and called themselves the
Nazi party of Canada. This is the sort of
thing that we have to worry about, the
dissemination of this hate literature.
I think the hon. member for Scarborough
West (Mr. S. Lewis) spoke about this in the
last session and brought several samples.
There is no point in bringing all this material
again before the House. These are things
which must concern us, Mr. Speaker, and
these are things on which I would hope, and
I would really expect, this Legislature will
act and express its opinion.
80
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In my opinion, if we pass a resolution, if
we pass both these resolutions this morning,
we will have substantially expressed the
opinion of the people of Ontario that we
want action to be taken, we want legislative
action to be taken, and I think we will have
achieved a great deal for our country.
Mr. E. A. Dunlop (Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker,
there will be few hon. members of this Legis-
lature, indeed very few responsible persons
in this province, who have not been subjected
to letters, handbills and pamphlets which dis-
parage individuals and classes of individuals
solely by reason of their race, colour, national
origin or religion. This disparagement is fre-
quently accompanied by words and matter
which incite persons to violence and even
urges destruction of individuals of particular
classes, or of the class itself.
The Legislature has demonstrated its abhor-
rence of depriving any class of rights and
privileges enjoyed by others starting, as the
hon. member for Downsview has pointed out,
as far back as 1943 when it enacted The Fair
Accommodation Practices Act which now ex-
tends to discrimination in employment and
the full range of The Ontario Human Rights
Code.
To a large extent, this Legislature has gone
as far as it can in its own field of jurisdiction
in accomplishing the objects which I am sure
are cherished by every hon. member of this
Legislature. The remedies against what we
may call hate literature and hate mongering
appear clearly to lie in amendments to the
Criminal Code and other federal legislation
exclusively falling under the jurisdiction of
the government and Parliament of Canada.
It would, I think, be futile and certainly a
waste of our time if we were regularly to
debate motions dealing with matters coming
under the jurisdiction of Canada. Yet there
are important matters upon which the views
of this Legislature should be heard from time
to time. I notice on the order paper there
are questions from other hon. members, there
are motions from other hon. members, dealing
with subjects such as divorce and constitu-
tional amendments which are clearly under
federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I think we could readily
justify debating these resolutions today even
though the remedies come within the juris-
diction of Canada, for at least two reasons.
First, it should strengthen, we would hope,
the resolve of the government of Canada to
proceed with action; it should add to the
voice of its own parliamentary committees
and the voice we expect to hear from the
Cohen committee. In any event, by approv-
ing these resolutions this Legislature will have
stamped hate literature and hate-mongering
as unacceptable to the legislators of this prov-
ince, and in their view as unacceptable to the
people of Ontario.
At one time, Mr. Speaker, the population
of this province was very homogeneous in its
nature, differing only in certain aspects of the
Christian religion. Today, particularly follow-
ing the tremendous influx of persons from
Europe and other countries, the population of
Ontario is heterogeneous and there are many
identifiable groups who are seeking to main-
tain their identity within a Canadian frame-
work; which I think we applaud and approve.
They have differences with other groups, and
any group that has differences which are
identifiable may be subject to vilification by
persons of a sick mind who do not fully
appreciate the contribution of those other
groups to the society in which we live in
the province and the community in which
we live.
The primary target of hate-mongering of
recent years has been the Jews and the
Negroes, but it could happen to any group
or class in this province or in this country.
Because the primary target has been the
Jews, the Canadian Jewish congress has un-
happily become expert in this matter and
developed a very considerable body of expert
knowledge. I drew freely upon material pre-
pared by and for the Canadian Jewish con-
gress in drafting the motion which stands in
my name.
I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that
reasonable men have different points of view,
different opinions, about the proper means of
solving this problem. We face quite clearly
a danger that a solution which would elimi-
nate or substantially reduce hate literature
might at the same time impair some long-
cherished freedom of our society. Most
clearly in hazard is the freedom of speech and
expression. Of course, in passing, I might
observe that none of these freedoms is en-
tirely unimpaired.
The freedom of speech and expression, for
example, is not unlimited. It is limited, among
other things, by Acts of this Legislature— The
Libel and Slander Act; and indeed The
Labour Relations Act— limited in the interests
of society. It is said that absolute freedom is
chaos and that the absence of freedom is
tyranny. I think it is clearly the duty of law-
makers and of judges to find the point be-
tween these extremes which produces a
situation which conforms with our view of a
free and democratic society within which
individuals have their liberties and within
JANUARY 28, 1966
81
which the welfare of society as a whole and
classes among society are also cherished.
Mr. Speaker, some reasonable men hold
that the fabric of our society is so strong that
no action whatsoever need be taken at this
time— that the assaults of the sick-minded
hate-monger cannot hurt our society as it
stands. Some other reasonable men may not
share that view, but believe that the laws of
Canada as they stand today — notably the
criminal law— provides sufficient remedies, if
one would but seek a test case. It is interest-
ing to recall that the law officers of the
Crown, in the right of Canada and in the
right of Ontario, both declined to recommend
test case prosecutions within the last two
years, apparently on the grounds that they
believed that, as the law now stood, con-
victions could not be obtained.
Many believe, and I think many reasonable
men believe, that some new legal remedies are
required. I would like to take a few moments,
Mr. Speaker, to explain the specific proposals
that I placed in my motion; but, before doing
so, I would like to emphasize that the primary
purpose of my motion was to urge the Minis-
try to make further and appropriate repre-
sentations to the government of Canada,
advocating that the government of Canada
enact amendments to the Criminal Code and
other legislation which would eliminate these
offences to Canadian society and to Cana-
dians, without at the same time limiting the
liberties of the subject— eroding the liberties
of the subject— so dear to our concept of a
democratic society. This I believe can be
achieved; and I sincerely trust, all hon. mem-
bers of this Legislature believe it can be
achieved. I know that many reasonable men,
learned in the law, believe that this can be
achieved.
The specific examples I have included were
designed to be illustrative of the kind of
action which is worthy of consideration and I
am very happy to leave the drafting to those
learned in the law and in a better position
to do so. I would suggest to my hon. friend
from Downsview, with whom we are in close
and mutual sympathy, except apparently on
matters of draftmanship, that the draftmanship
here is not perhaps quite as loose as he
would like to suggest, or has already sug-
gested to this House. I do not claim any
credit for having drafted the majority of
these specific proposals myself, because they
have been drafted by people for whose legal
draftmanship I have the highest regard, per-
haps higher even than my regard for the
legal drafting skills of the hon. member for
Downsview.
Let me comment, however, on the three
points. The first of these points refers to the
incitement to violence and breaches of the
peace. I am assured quite clearly that this
kind of thing is a crime today in the present
state of our law, but it must be demon-
strated that some individual is in clear and
present danger. This proposed amendment
to the law only extends the idea to classes
of persons, so that the same kind of language
or activity which would be a crime expressed
towards an individual or persons, in clear and
present danger, would be also a crime if
expressed towards a class. I think we are all
against breaches of peace and violence no
matter how they occur or how they are
incited.
The second point has to do with spreading
of false news. The false news section, section
166 of the Criminal Code, is well known. The
inclusion of the phrase "not only knows but
who ought to know" brings in the well-
known concept of the reasonable man. It is
a thing a reasonable man would not do. This
is not vague in wording or vague to the
law or to jurisprudence. It provides in its
saving clauses that opinion, fair comment on
matters of religion and race and any other
matters of this kind are not to be regarded
as offences against the law unless they are
done primarily for the purpose of inciting
hatred among classes.
The third point has to do with genocide.
Canada has ratified the United Nations con-
vention against the crime of genocide but has
done nothing to give domestic effect to that
ratification. The sub-clause 1 of my third
point, having to do with genocide, clearly
refers to what would be today murder; and
murder is already a crime in Canada. Why
then is it placed here? I will give that answer
in a moment. The two points of clause 3
together comprise the main elements of the
crime of genocide as recognized in inter-
national law.
Mr. Speaker, our law has a variety of other
offences to be found throughout the Criminal
Code, including conspiracy. Thus I am told
it would be highly desirable if the entire
crime of genocide could be spelled out in one
section of the Criminal Code so that other
sections having to do with conspiracy and
counselling, violence and disorder, and so
forth could be related to that section. May
I say that in my view much of the hate
literature we have already seen counsels
genocide without counselling necessarily the
existing crime of murder. If the Crown is
going to be able to proceed against people
who counsel genocide, the crime of genocide
has to be found on the statue books.
82
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I did not particularly wish to get into a
legal discussion of these matters with my
hon. friend from Downsview. I only point
them out to say that even those well versed
in the law would have various differing
opinions. I have consulted those who are
well versed in the law and we believe be-
tween us, I am sure, that these are matters
which can be dealt with effectively by the
Parliament of Canada, by the government of
Canada, and their advisers.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend
from Downsview that this may well be an
historic day in this Legislature. I hope that
these motions will receive unanimous approval
of its members.
Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to
thank all hon. members for their courtesy
in assenting unanimously to the procedure
which enabled this debate to proceed in this
somewhat unusual manner.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
let me say at the outset that we support the
principle of the two resolutions which are
being debated in this assembly this morning.
We have certain reservations about the scope
of the language of the resolution placed on
the order paper by the hon. member for
Forest Hill who has just spoken.
I think we are in agreement, though, that
this is not the time or the place to discuss
the technical questions of drafting, as the
hon. member for Forest Hill has stated, but
rather to deal with matters which are within
the competence of this Legislature to deal
with on this subject of genocide and hate
literature and the incitement to violence, by
one group in the community, of others in the
community.
It was in March, 1964 that my colleague,
the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young)
first raised in this assembly the question of
hate literature. Subsequently, on March 11
of that year, the hon. member for Scar-
borough West, who is unable to be present
today, documented at some length the extent
to which hate literature had become a prob-
lem within our society. I need not at this
point review the documentation which he
presented at that time. It is on the record,
and is available for anyone who cares to read
that magnificent address to this assembly.
I take issue, however, with the hon.
member for Forest Hill who says that the
area of concern is one related solely to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada and has no bearing on matters which
can be dealt with by this assembly. I would
submit and suggest, for consideration by this
House, two items which if enacted by this
Legislature would complement each other
and would go some way— I think some con-
siderable way— toward solving this very diffi-
cult and sensitive question, related as it is to
civil liberties, the right of freedom of speech,
the correlated right of freedom of the press
and the right of freedom of association.
One possibility for this House to consider
is the enactment of a statute which would
provide for the civil wrong of group libel or
slander. This would give to any member of
a group which was libelled or slandered, the
right to bring a civil action for damages in
the courts of Ontario. I do not think that
this would be a difficult civil right to draft
for legal purposes from the viewpoint of
clarity, or from the viewpoint of interpreta-
tion in the courts, in a way which, I believe,
would give individuals a fundamental sub-
stantive right in this province to damages
for any such libel or slander of a group to
which such a person belongs.
The correlative question then relates, of
course, to the need to identify the person
who slandered or libelled the group. I
realize it is, in some instances, a difficult
question to ascertain who in fact was the
person who slandered or libelled a particular
group.
However, in the area of publications it
should not be difficult to do so and I think
we can get substantial benefit from a brief
consideration of an Act of the Congress of
the United States of America which was
passed on October 23, 1962 and which now
appears in the United States Code, Section
4369 of Title 39.
That particular law of the Congress of
the United States of America requires a state-
ment of ownership, management and circula-
tion to be published by the editor or the
publisher, or a responsible person connected
with the publication, showing the title of the
publication, the frequency of its issue, the
address of the publication's office, the names
and addresses of the publishers and editors,
the names and addresses of the owners. And
here is a significant attempt to ascertain who
in fact is the true owner of such a publica-
tion where the owner appears as a limited
company or as a trustee or in any other
fiduciary capacity the names of the person
or corporation for whom such trustee is act-
ing. This statement has to be supported by
affidavits of the editor and publisher as to
the circumstances and conditions under which
persons who do not appear as trustees hold
their interest other than as a bona-fide
owner, the number of copies of each issue
JANUARY 28, 1966
83
published, the number of copies of each issue
distributed as paid circulation by mail, by
carrier delivery, or other means, and by sales
through news dealers; and, finally, the total
number of issues in fact distributed.
If it were a requirement that such a state-
ment be made on the initial publication of
any document in the province of Ontario
which would fall under the definition of a
publication in such an Act; and if thereafter,
either six-monthly or annually, a statement
such as the one of which I have attempted
to indicate the particulars, was required to
be filed in a public office in the province of
Ontario, one could readily ascertain the ex-
tent and degree to which literature of the
kind which is of concern to this House today,
is in fact distributed throughout the province
of Ontario. It would also obviously facilitate
any person who was attempting to find the
true persons who in fact slandered or
libelled any group within the community so
that, in conjunction with the proposed
remedy of civil action for group libel or
slander, he would be able to bring that
person to account in the courts.
I would ask that serious consideration be
given by the government to the introduction
of two such measures as a basic and funda-
mental way in which this province under its
Constitution could in fact go a long way to-
ward solving the question of hate literature.
In conclusion I would say that I had
noted in the resolution of the hon. member
for Forest Hill that he refers to further and
appropriate representations to the govern-
ment of Canada by this government. I would
hope during the course of this debate that
the government would give us an up-to-date
statement of the representations which have
till now been made on this subject. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Could I ask a question of the last
speaker before he concludes his remarks?
Has he given any thought as to how damages
could be assessed in the type of action he is
talking about?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, in response- to
that question, the only thought that I have
been able to give to that question is that
there is always an area for the court to award
what are in substance punitive damages in
the cases, as I understand it in a very tech-
nical branch of the law, where the libel or
the slander is prompted by malice towards
the group. Therefore it would permit any
member of that group to bring such an action
in the civil courts.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in
entering into the discussion of this motion.
May I say, following the hon. member for
Riverdale, that I feel he has proposed some
very constructive suggestions. I feel sure that
the hon. Attorney General will give them
consideration.
I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, in the
remarks by the hon. member for Forest Hill,
following the remarks by my colleague,
the hon. member for Downsview. I would
just like to add my own sentiments to this.
The hon. member for Forest Hill had pointed
out that there is a changed population in
Ontario and, indeed, Canada. We are really
rather unique in the fact of the variety of
people, variety of background, that we have
in this province and in this country.
I know it gives a great deal of satisfaction
to all hon. members of the House to know
that we are an example to the whole world.
People of different backgrounds, of different
faiths, of different creeds, live together, re-
specting each other, working together har-
moniously. As I say, this is an example to a
world where there is tension because of
racial background, because of historical back-
ground, because of religion.
But I do not think that we can be smug or
complacent in this. The very fact that we
have this strength, from the very background
of our people indicates to us that we have to
be constantly vigilant; because if there is dis-
crimination towards one group, then, sir,
there is discrimination, or the danger of dis-
crimination, towards every group. We are all
aware in this Legislature that in Ontario,
and indeed in other parts of Canada, there
have been these psychotic groups, very small
groups and very ill people, who have stood
for hate across our nation and in our prov-
ince. All men of good will are offended at
the license which these small groups are
taking. There have been instances in Ontario
of hate literature and in Vancouver, in
Victoria, and in Winnipeg.
Now, sir, the crux of the question, of
course, is this: What is freedom and what is
license? Freedom of speech is the main
cornerstone of our life and there are those
who say if you put limits on our way of life
you will erode the whole essence of our way
of life. I notice that as far back as the 17th
century great spokesmen on freedom, such as
John Milton and John Locke— let me take
something from Milton. He said:
Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who-
ever knew truth put to the worse in a
free and open encounter?
84
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I want to take that point of view, sir, and
just speak for a moment on it.
There are those who suggest that truth will
always prevail and that has been pointed out
by the other hon. members who spoke. We
find today that we have seen situations where
truth has not always prevailed in a society,
where it has been twisted, it has been man-
oeuvred in order to create hatred, and indeed
violence and genocide for groups of people.
Others have talked of the triumph of
fascism and its defeat. Others have talked of
the national socialism in Germany and the
horrors which this brought forth. Today, with
TV and with radio, with the skills of psycho-
logical warfare, it is not the statistics of the
number of people in our country who have
this psychotic hatred; they are a small group,
but they have the license to send across the
nation that which is offensive and dangerous.
May I say, as I am sure most hon. members
of the Legislature know, that Canada did sign
its statutory signature to the genocide conven-
tion and therefore I think it is very suitable
that in this province, in the Legislature, we
should be discussing this question.
I want to emphasize with the other
speakers that freedom cannot be supported
in absolute terms. Indeed, as the hon.
member for Forest Hill said, I think very
succinctly, absolute freedom is chaos and the
absence of freedom is tyranny. It is with this
delicate balance that we are concerned.
We are concerned, no matter the intentions
of men of goodwill, when they draft legisla-
tion that it could mean it would stultify
legitimate freedom. I quoted John Milton,
the great proponent of freedom, and yet
when we examine what he considered
dangerous to the good society of England
we find that he was concerned that
Mohammedans and atheists were disrupting
it. Therefore, sir I, who am not a lawyer, not
skilled like the lawyers who advised the hon.
member for Forest Hill, I have a little bit
of concern at the looseness, to me, of some
of his draftings.
Public interests? John Milton spoke of
public interests, but he denied freedom to
Mohammedans, to atheists and, I might add,
to Roman Catholics in England at that time.
There could be an interpretation which
would exclude certain people under these
vague terms. As a layman, and not as a
lawyer, I was wondering how you can coun-
sel genocide without counselling murder.
But these are small points. The main thing
of concern in both of these motions is that
we are trying to achieve an objective. We
are recognizing that freedom is not absolute.
We are recognizing the inherent necessity in
our society to permit freedom, but not to
permit license which would incite people to
genocide and the horrors which we have seen
in the not-too-distant past.
It is because of this, sir, that I take great
satisfaction in endorsing these two motions.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, of course I support
the resolutions and will urge every hon.
member here to do likewise.
First, let me state that I am very pleased
that one of the resolutions was presented by
an hon. member of this House who is not of
the same religious faith as I. I have been
most anxious to present such a resolution for
some time and I have refrained from doing
so because, in my view, human rights are
everybody's concern, or should be, and not
merely the problem of any particular racial,
religious or ethnic group. I was most anxious
that it should not get around that it is only
the concern of one particular group. We find
ourselves in the position here, today, of
supporting two resolutions and differing in
some respects— many of the hon. members—
from each of them.
I am concerned with the resolution of the
hon. member for Downsview. While I
promised myself I would not get into any
legal discussions, because I am not qualified
to do that, there is no doubt, as I began
making notes for this discussion today, that
we soon find ourselves involved in the very
important matter of how we are going to do
this legally. I am concerned, even as a lay-
man, in the part of resolution No. 1 of
the hon. member for Downsview stating
"likely to lead to a breach of the peace unless
such statements communicated were true or
relevant to any subject of public interest and
on reasonable grounds were believed to be
true." Well, I can see a million loopholes in
that. I think I could drive a team of horses
through that, quite frankly.
It seems to me that all one of these people
would have to do is say, "Well, I believed it
to be true, because so and so told me." Now,
who was that so and so? Well, he was, in his
day, some distinguished, some prominent
man. As a matter of fact, I am sure the
hon. member for Downsview has read some
of the stuff which has emanated from some
people across the line who were retired
commanders of the navy, retired generals of
the army, and so on. I think, if I were de-
fending myself in a case of this nature, I
could make a pretty good case that I be-
JANUARY 28, 1966
85
lieved it to be true, because it came from
such a source.
As for the hon. member for Riverdale's
suggestion that we can perhaps alleviate the
situation somewhat by actions of this provin-
cial Legislature, he suggests that we take
some action here. Mr. Speaker, I have found
that no matter how much disagreement there
was as to how this was to be accomplished,
there was almost unanimous agreement
among all those who were concerned with
this problem that the provinces should not
muddy the waters. In fact, that is the ex-
pression some of them used, that it will only
make matters worse for the provinces to
attempt to legislate in this field, and give the
federal government further reason for further
delay. It must be federal.
As to the specific suggestion that the legis-
lation should require the publication of the
source of the publication, well, of course I do
not think really this would accomplish a
great deal. In the first place, I do not think
anyone, as far as I have been able to
ascertain, has ever been successful in a
matter of group libel; and the forced publica-
tion of the names of all of those concerned
with the publication of such material is not
going to do much good, because most of this
garbage comes from the United States. Those
people who publish them are not ashamed of
having their names publicized; in most cases
their names are right on the publication. It
has not done anything by way of reducing the
flow of this literature at all.
Now I have in my files, the same as the
other hon. members, material containing this
vile type of filth, and it is the vilest stuff that
can be conceived by a perverted mind. It is
directed in varying degrees against Jews,
Negroes, Roman Catholics and, in some in-
stances, free nations. I will not dignify these
rantings, Mr. Speaker, by reading any of it
to the hon. members. They will understand
the nature of this filth when I advise them
that the material ranges all the way from
suggesting that Jews use blood of Christian
children for their religious services; to
attacks on U.S. President Johnson, charg-
ing that he has Jewish blood in his veins; to
statements that Mrs. Johnson had a degener-
ate upbringing, because she had lunch with
a Negro serviceman; and probably the most
tragic joke of all— and the only reason I use
the word joke at the moment is because I
cannot think of another phrase to replace the
word joke— the most tragic joke of all is the
suggestion, in fact the flat statements, that
the Jews were the ones who gained the most
frOm the last war.
Mr. Speaker, surely people, nations, gov-
ernments, who forget the lessons of history
are destined to repeat those ghastly errors.
Surely we have learned by now that the
proposed victims of hate, never, but never,
end up by being the only victims of that
hate. History is replete with the records of
the same tragic process, in which a single
minority group has been used as the scape-
goat, but before the whirlwind of hate had
expended itself, thousands, millions of others,
including those who had sown the wind,
were destroyed.
It is only 20 years since the end of the last
whirlwind, the end of the last holocaust,
when the grisly bookkeeping of hatred was
toted up and showed all too clearly that the
winds of hate, which had been so much
against one group, had reaped a whirlwind
of over 50 million casualties. Our duty
therefore, the duty of all decent and intelli-
gent people, even in self defence, is to do
whatever is required to eradicate race hatred
as far as it is humanly possible to do. Cer-
tainly it is possible to at least eradicate the
overt manifestation of it.
What about the concern about the pro-
posed laws affecting the rights of free
speech? Again, as a non-lawyer, it seems
to me that the laws of obscenity offer just as
much danger to free speech as the proposed
laws against the dissemination of hate propa-
ganda. It has always been the concern of
some that the laws of obscenity can endanger
freedom of artistic and literary expression,
and even freedom of the press. Yet we have
such laws. Surely it is more important to
attack the propagation of hate and genocide
than it is to concern oneself with an obscenity
crusade? And surely it should be no harder to
define the propagation of hate and genocide
than it is to define obscenity?
I know some will say that we are not
making a good point because it is difficult to
define obscenity, and this has already caused
us a great deal of difficulty. But nevertheless
we try, and in many cases we are successful
in doing so. Surely we can at least do the
same for a matter which concerns us more
than obscenity and which certainly is much
more dangerous in its implication. What I am
saying is that while I appreciate the need to
assure that the freedom of expression, the
freedom of the press, and so on, are not
diluted to the point where such freedoms
become non-existent, I am sure that our legal
brains can provide a solution which will safe-
guard those freedoms and yet at the same
time assure that freedom cannot be turned
into license.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I need not dwell upon the philosophy
which accepts that freedom of speech, for
example, should be curtailed by prohibiting a
person from shouting "fire" in a crowded
theatre. We have heard that before.
Furthermore, the hair-splitters seem to find
nothing wrong in forcing a man to share
accommodation he owns with a person he
may find repulsive; in fact we do this in our
Fair Accommodation Practices Act. Yet these
same people hesitate to enforce laws which
would prohibit that same man from libelling,
reviling, abusing and insulting a group of
law-abiding citizens, and even urging that
their fellow citizens be murdered. We have
laws which make it an offence to publicly
slander an individual, but we see nothing
wrong in a slander which includes all the
people of the slandered victim's racial or
religious group.
Let me give another example of the ludi-
crous position in which we find ourselves. It
is illegal, under our human rights code in
Ontario, for a person to have a sign on his
property stating that no Jews, Catholics, Prot-
estants, Negroes or Freemasons may enter
these premises, and/or be accommodated
here, and yet that same person presumably,
under our existing laws as the legal purist
would have it, may have a sign hanging from
his premises stating all Jews, Roman Cath-
olics, Negroes and Freemasons should be
murdered as they are the scum of the earth,
or something equally scurrilous.
Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to publish the
name of a juvenile delinquent, and opinions
have been expressed from time to time that
this infringes on the freedom of the press. It
does in fact infringe somewhat, but I ask does
this prohibition in fact create any serious
danger to the fundamental freedom of the
press? The answer, of course, is no. The fact
remains that the freedoms we enjoy— and that
has been well pointed out here today— are
those which are consistent with the public
good; and many laws have their genesis in
the roots of that which is not in the public
interest or, in other words, public policy.
May I refer this House to a famous case
which made history in this province and
across this country. In 1945 there was a case
before Mr. Justice J. Keiller Mackay in the
matter of an application brought by an owner
of certain lands registered in the registry
office for the county of York to have declared
as invalid a restrictive covenant assumed by
him when he purchased those lands and
which he agreed to exact from his assigns,
namely, land not to be sold to Jews or persons
of objectionable nationality. Jews having
been mentioned here in addition to those of
objectionable nationality, we must presume
that the Jews were not to be considered of an
objectionable nationality but just because
they were Jews.
In that case the distinguished justice stated,
and I quote:
If sale of a piece of land can be pro-
hibited to Jews it can equally be prohibited
to Protestants, Catholics or other groups or
denominations. If the sale of one piece of
land can be so prohibited, the sale of other
pieces of land can likewise be prohibited.
In my opinion nothing could be more cal-
culated to create or deepen divisions be-
tween existing religious and ethnic groups
in this province or in this country than the
sanction of a method of land transfer which
would permit the segregation and confine-
ment of particular groups to particular
business or residential areas, or conversely
would preclude particular groups from par-
ticular business or residential areas.
And here is the point, Mr. Speaker, and I
continue the quote:
Ontario, and Canada too, may well be
termed a province and a country of minori-
ties in regard to the religious and ethnic
groups which live therein. It appears to
me to be a moral duty at least to lend aid
to all forces of cohesion and similarly to
repel all vociferous tendencies which would
imperil national unity. The common law
courts have, by their actions over the years,
obviated the need for rigid constitutional
guarantees on our policy by their wise use
of the doctrine of public policy as an active
agent in the promotion of the public weal.
While courts and eminent judges have,
in view of the powers of our legislatures,
warned against inventing new heads of
public policy I do not conceive that I
would be breaking new ground were I to
hold the restrictive covenant impugned in
this proceeding to be void as against public
policy. Rather I would be applying well
recognized principles of public policy to a
set of acts requiring their invocation in the
interest of the public good.
And further on he states:
If the common law of treason encom-
passes the stirring up of hatred between
different classes of His Majesty's subjects,
the common law of public policy is surely
adequate to void the restrictive covenant
which is here attacked.
The jurist states:
My conclusion therefore is that the cov-
enant is void because offensive to the
JANUARY 28, 1966
87
public policy of this jurisdiction. This
conclusion is reinforced, if reinforcement is
necessary, by the wide official acceptance
of international policies and declarations
frowning on the type of discrimination
which the covenant would seem to per-
petuate.
And that is the end of the quote.
It seems to me, sir, that the philosophy
upon which the decision of the learned justice
was based was on the point of public policy.
I repeat the last portion from that decision:
It merely makes it more appropriate to
apply existing principles if the common law
of treason encompasses the stirring up of
hatred between different classes of His
Majesty's subjects, the common law of
public policy is surely adequate to void the
restrictive covenant which is here attacked.
I suggest to you, sir, that if we substituted
for the words "restrictive covenant" in this
ruling, the words "right to publicly vilify and/
or insult any religious, racial or ethnic group"
that the same logic and reasoning would
apply.
Let me paraphrase the judgment with the
new way it would read. The common law of
public policy is surely adequate to void the
right to publicly vilify and/ or insult any
religious, racial or ethnic group which is here
attacked. The learned Mr. Justice Mackay, in
my view, made history by applying the rule
of public policy which has held to this day,
and I might point out that it was even more
novel for him to do so in those years as it
would be for the Parliament of Canada today
to enact like legislation prohibiting the publi-
cation and/or propagation of hate literature.
In other words, I suggest that the foundation
of the new law needs only to be based on
public policy and the Ontario Human Rights
Code and/or the federal Declaration of
Human Rights.
I concerned myself, Mr. Speaker, with this
matter some time ago and it was discussed
within our own government. I am proud to
say that the hon. Prime Minister and our
hon. Attorney General were most anxious to
act in this matter but it was agreed by all
concerned, as I mentioned earlier, that it
would be inappropriate and unwise for the
provincial government to function in an area
which was unquestionably, in the view of all
of those who participated in the discussions
we held, ultra vires of the province and that
our best efforts should be directed to induce
the federal government to take the necessary
action.
At that time the hon. Attorney General
urged the Minister of Justice to make changes
in the law in this regard and publicly stated
that when such laws were enacted they would
be enforced in this province to the letter. The
hon. Prime Minister moreover asked that this
problem be put on the agenda of the then
upcoming federal-provincial conference.
Now some may recall, Mr. Speaker, in a
public speech I made some time ago, I had
stated, "Anyone who spews forth Nazi
poison, anyone who calls himself a Nazi to-
day here, anyone who demands a return to
Nazi genocide, any of these is probably
insane and society owes it to itself and in-
deed to them"— meaning the Nazis— "that
they be isolated from society until cured."
At that time I was taken to task by some
people for that suggestion.
One editorial writer castigated me as he
put it, "He"— meaning me— "wants alleged
Nazis put in institutions without the benefit
of a trial."
Now the point I was making— and it was
quite clear— was that the expounding of
genocide in this day and age could be prima
facie evidence of a mentally disturbed person
and such person should be given a mental
examination. I did not suggest he be thrown
into a mental institution without any hear-
ing. Was this such an outrageous proposi-
tion?
First, I would point out that, just about
the same time, there was on the order paper
in the House of Commons a bill, CI 17, to
amend the Criminal Code, which was placed
there by W. B. Nesbitt, the Conservative
M.P. for Woodstock. I will not trouble the
House by reading the bill but the explanatory
note on the bill itself states:
This bill proposes to enlarge the
Criminal Code definition of a defamatory
libel to include hate literature because
such literature is in many cases the ex-
pression of a sick mind. The bill further
proposes that any person charged or con-
victed of publishing such a libel shall be
placed under mental observation to deter-
mine whether he is mentally ill.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. leader
of the Opposition referring to these people as
psychotics, and sick or ill I think was the
expression he used.
Further, Mr. Speaker, it might interest the
hon. members to hear the views of an
eminent Canadian psychologist on this point.
He states:
The Canadian Nazi party advocates the
abolishment of the democratic process once
they have achieved power. The members
88
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the party propose to substitute a
morality which does not have its roots in
Judeo-Christian ethics, in humanistic con-
cerns for the rights or welfare of the
individual or indeed any acceptable system
of values within our society.
Morality is to them the will of the
person possessing power. Might is right.
There is no standard of morality beyond
the will of the all-powerful group who has
achieved control of the social order.
Children brought up in such a social
order come to accept this definition of
morality. This phenomenon is seen and
has been seen in totalitarian societies of
the past which adhere to the power defini-
tion of morality. The individual who is a
product of our Canadian democratic
society yet gravitates to a movement which
advocates the termination of the demo-
cratic process upon receiving power,
followed by the mass extermination of a
group of our citizens, is frequently the
paranoic who seeks a target for his psy-
chotic feelings of persecution or the in-
adequate person who hopes to absorb some
of the power which is promised by the
group or the mentally retarded whose
limited capacities of reasoning render him
prone to suggestion and influence.
It may not be the case that all members
of a group advocating mass murder are
mentally ill within a definition of that term
which requires that they manifest classical
psychiatric symptoms of mental illness, yet
it is in the interests of the individual who
is drawn into such organizations, and in-
deed in the interest of our society, that
we identify which of those individuals who
desires to engage in genocide is a product
of mental illness requiring care and treat-
ment, those whose advocacy of murder is
to be seen as a problem for our legislators
to deal with.
The position taken earlier is reiterated:
The person advocating mass murder of a
group of our citizens, whether they be
Jews or otherwise, must be considered
suspect of a form of mental disorder and
a psychiatric examination should be
undertaken. In the recent case of Matthew
Carey Smith, the so-called "Beatle bandit",
evidence was presented at his trial that
he suffered delusions, considered himself
an agent of social justice and that his pur-
pose in life was to amass an army to
achieve the violent overthrow of the
Canadian government. His robbery and
the murder he committed were justified
by him on those grounds.
In the Lee Harvey Oswald case, the
feelings of deep-seated inadequacies and
the experience of power and self-justifica-
tion in the act of the assassination of the
President were brought out by the psy-
chiatrist who had examined Oswald in
childhood and who had studied the case
subsequently.
When you suggested that our local neo-
Nazis should be given mental examina-
tions, some newspaper editors recoiled in
horror. Apparently they reacted to the
potential for perversion of such a pro-
cedure. That is, that anyone who disagrees
with a prevailing system of morality should
be considered mentally ill. While it is not
believed that the advocation of mass
murder necessarily indicates mental illness,
one cannot agree that it should be ignored
or treated as a boyish prank. It may very
well be indicative of a dangerous form of
mental illness and it is advocated that the
existing provisions of our society for the
determination of such issues be employed;
that is, an examination by professional
persons competent to judge such issues.
This is the end of his opinion.
So I still believe, Mr. Speaker, my point
is valid and worthy of consideration by the
federal authorities. I hope Mr. Nesbitt presses
his bill again in the new Parliament.
Now we have heard all the arguments,
that you cannot legislate prejudice, which
has been brought out by previous speakers.
It should be clearly understood that no one
is suggesting that we legislate prejudice. A
person has the right to hate to his heart's
content, if I may put it that way, but he has
no right to allow his hate to harm another
person.
The right to differ does not or should not
include the right to defame. The right of free
speech does not or should not include the
abuse of that right. We have found that where
our laws, such as the Ontario human rights
laws, are such that they tend to encourage
people to live with and get along with each
other, that those people have benefited
thereby, learning to lead a much richer
and much fuller life, having found through
their close contact with others that the dis-
torted stereotypes they may have built up in
their minds over the years, were generally
proven completely false.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have had many letters
from various organizations and individuals
asking for some legislation to curb this propa-
gation of hatred. They are from all types:
Anglo-Saxons, Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Italians,
JANUARY 28, 1966
89
Czecho-Slovakian, and so on, they run the
gamut of all our different groups of our
society in Ontario today.
For those who may feel we need never
have concern in this country about this
disease of hatred taking root, permit me to
quote from an article in the Canadian Weekly
dated June 19, 1965. It is an article entitled
"When the Ku Klux Klan rode in Saskatche-
wan". The writer is Jeannine Locke. It is a
spine-chilling account of how powerful the
Klan was here in Canada in the late 20's and
early 30's. I will merely take the liberty
of quoting the last paragraph of that very
extensive article. Miss Locke concludes:
But from those tiny files beneath Sas-
katchewan's legislative assembly he [the
promoter of KKK philosophy] emerges
again a substantial figure, a master in the
techniques of spreading ignorance and fear
in order to turn men against each other.
If the times are ripe, the Gardiner papers
reveal, our society too can be temporarily
subverted by the hatreds that bigotry
arouses.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are urging
upon the federal government we hope will
tell them clearly and unmistakably that the
7,000,000 people of this province want some
action in this regard.
As I say, I wholeheartedly endorse the
resolutions. I congratulate the sponsors and
recommend to all hon. members of this
House that they unanimously support the
resolutions, placing the people of our prov-
ince behind the philosophy that we are
expounding here today and, as has been
said, participate in a declaration and eventual
legislation which will make history in this
country and also a better nation for all of
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
am conscious that the time is slipping away
and I will not take up too much time of the
House.
Already practical suggestions have been
made by my colleague, the hon. member for
Riverdale, and the other hon. members of this
assembly. But I must rise to my feet this
morning and participate in this debate be-
cause I have long felt strongly about this
matter and indeed raised it in the House a
couple of years ago. I feel very strongly
about it because in my own riding I am in
constant contact with people who have lived
through the Hitler horror and who carry with
them the tattoos on their arms designating
their status at that time. These people, when
the hate literature and similar propaganda
appears, feel something of the old terror and
they express to me and to others the heartfelt
hope that somehow, in this new land of theirs,
there will be the framework of legislation and
action so that what happened to them could
not happen to them again and could not hap-
pen to their children and to the people among
whom they live today. They want assurance
that it cannot happen here.
I would like to emphasize what the hon.
member who has just spoken pointed out, that
the serious nature of this kind of hate prop-
aganda emerges in times of crisis. Perhaps
we do not worry too much about it except in
time of crisis, because then it becomes very
significant and very powerful.
The hon. member for Forest Hill mentioned
that in the early days in this province we had
a very homogeneous population; but if he
looks back over the history of that time he
will realize that there were stresses and
strains building up in this province, in the
structure of society, which resulted in this
very kind of smear campaign. The family
compact, sensing the challenge to its power
on the part of the rising leaders of democracy,
began to pinpoint the American non-conform-
ist preachers and the American people who
were coming into the province who had real
experience in the democratic tradition, and so
the word "American" became the smear word
of that day. No less a man than Egerton
Ryerson was launched on his career largely
out of this kind of hate-mongering which took
place during those significant years.
We know what happened in Germany
when out of the suffering and unemployment
of that land the people were given a scape-
goat. The scapegoat anti-Semitism and the
persecution of the Jewish people of that
nation.
In Paraguay today, a ruthless dictator gives
his people an enemy to take their minds off
their own troubles, which are largely caused
by his own regime, and he points to Com-
munism as the great danger there. And so,
in times when crisis builds up, these are the
times when the hate-mongering takes on added
significance and greater power— when people
are insecure. So I would point out to this
House that the final answer to effectiveness in
this field is security for our people— the kind
of a civilization and the kind of society where
no group feels insecure, and where all groups
feel they are a vital part of the society in
which they live.
But, after all, what has been said is true;
the people who write this sort of thing, and
90
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
disseminate the hatred in this way, have dis-
eased minds and those minds need to be
examined. But I do think also that we should
face the fact that we can deal with diseased
minds in other areas; so that in this area, too,
the diseased mind should have at least social
concern and social action.
A little over a year ago, I brought to the
attention of the hon. Attorney General, the
present Attorney General, a pamphlet which
was being spread, and still is being used,
The Red Rabbi. At that time, I pointed
out that the author of this pamphlet is the
master of the big lie, and is directing his fire
against Rabbi Feinberg from whose speeches
over the years he lifts bits and pieces com-
pletely out of context to make them say things
contrary to the whole spirit of the crusade the
rabbi has waged for social justice and world
peace.
And this kind of smear, you see, is hard to
meet because it does give the rabbi's words;
but, as I say, it lifts them out of context and
it presents an entirely different picture than
it ought to of the man concerned.
I sent this to the hon. Attorney General
and told him:
I am enclosing a leaflet which has been
receiving distribution in Toronto. It is with-
out doubt one of the most vicious and un-
warranted attacks on a man of outstanding
character and reputation that I have seen.
I urge that immediate steps be taken to
find ways and means of circumventing
poison of this type being published and
circulated in Ontario.
I realize that problems exist in this area,
but surely a way can be found to prevent
this kind of character assassination and the
wholesale smearing of groups of people
through the printed word. I hope that
appropriate action can be taken, and taken
quickly by your department.
At that time, the hon. Attorney General said
distribution of the pamphlet will be studied
as part of the department's current investiga-
tion of hate literature. I hope that the hon.
Attorney General may enter this debate and
give us something of the results of that study,
and perhaps some suggestions of what might
come.
I think all of us who are interested in this
matter have files of literature calling for
wholesale genocide, literature which never
should be published and never should be
allowed.
So, this morning, I would simply say that
we should be able to set bounds within which
real freedom can be exercised, but bounds
beyond which no one should be allowed to
go in this field. While I do not agree
entirely with the complete substance of these
resolutions, I do feel that this House should
unanimously endorse the spirit that is here
outlined and that we should take whatever
appropriate action should be taken to make
sure that this kind of activity can be
adequately dealt with, within the province
of Ontario.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege indeed to rise in
this House at this time, to participate in
this debate, which has been referred to by
the hon. member for Downsview as being
an historic one. It has been quite properly
pointed out that the basis of the discussion
of the two resolutions lies outside the juris-
diction of this House, and some reference
has been made to the fact that it lies within
the federal jurisdiction. Yet the very fact
that this has been a topic, not only at the
level of federal jurisdiction, but one in
respect of which some 55 nations saw fit to
sign the United Nations convention, brings
it within the purview of the discussion of
all men.
One of the things that make worthwhile
the fighting to take a seat in this Legislature,
is to have the opportunity of expressing one-
self on matters close and dear to one's whole
life. We will be discussing, during the
course of this session, many things which
affect the interests of our citizens. The pro-
gramme which has been unveiled by the hon.
Attorney General will indicate a goodly
number of measures in which we set out to
protect the consumer; to protect his pocket-
book.
Yet in the overall life of parliaments and
nations nothing is so important as the field
of the rights of the citizen. We here in the
province should be proud of the role we have
played in the development of this for we
have not only set the way for our citizens
but for other jurisdictions to follow in our
path.
This province has adopted the Ontario
Human Rights Code, and it is one of those
statutes which does have a preamble and
that preamble states, and I quote again for
the hon. members of the House, as follows:
It is public policy in Ontario that every
person is free and equal—
I underline these words:
—in dignity and rights without regard to
race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry
or place of origin.
JANUARY 28, 1966
91
And what other form of dignity or what
other right is more important than that re-
ferred to in the two resolutions placed before
us?
We, in our jurisdiction, have gone ahead
and have fleshed this policy with statutes
through the years which have set out in
specifics that which we find as being contra
or offensive to this public policy. It was with
pride that all Canadians saw that, in 1952,
the federal House saw fit also in unanimity to
endorse the United Nations convention in
this regard.
Now perhaps the time has come to flesh
out there what has been accepted as public
policy, because certainly the adoption of that
convention indicated what was public policy
in Canada, to flesh out that convention by
more specifically setting out what is offensive
to that charter. We in this province have
accepted as an underlying philosophy "the
brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of
God". In weeks ahead that will be referred
to in this House.
We have here too in this province a very
unique situation that I have referred to on
other occasions. To me the most outstanding
fact of Canada as a nation, and our jurisdic-
tion as a province, is that here more than
anywhere else in the world men and women
have come from all parts of the world, bring-
ing with them differences of creed and cul-
ture.
Yet, sir, we are bringing about a society in
which, in large numbers, these men and
women live side by side in harmony, and
one in which they are working out their own
destinies as individuals within the confines
of their families and communities.
We come to a situation where we are
called upon to resolve great principles. Here
again one of the things which I have counted
a good fortune in my life, is that I, a citizen
of this country, privileged to have been born
in this country, have enjoyed freedoms of
which none of my predecessors through
countless centuries enjoyed in the homeland
of the birth and growth of their kinfolk. It
was here for the first time in perhaps a
thousand years that a Yaremko was able to
participate and be dignified with all of the
freedoms that his fellow citizens have.
I have before me a pamphlet issued by the
Queen's printer at Ottawa in 1959 called
"Our System of Government." At the out-
set, in the introduction, there are listed the
basic freedoms. Some nine, I believe, are
referred to, known to all. But I should like
to read the description of the basic freedom,
listed as number one, "freedom of speech,"
as follows:
Every person in Canada has the right to
state his opinions freely and openly on all
public matters without fear of being pun-
ished or interfered with by the police,
government officials or any other person.
And then it goes on to say:
It is understood, of course, that no
person may make false statements that
would damage the reputation of others or
make seditious remarks calculated to stir
up resistance to lawful authority or create
disaffection toward Her Majesty the Queen.
Perhaps the author of that, were he rewriting
it today, would also state that it is understood
that these things referred to in the resolutions
should not be done. Perhaps we have indeed
come to the time when understanding is not
sufficient. We in this province have given
to our citizens the utmost of freedom in all
of their actions and yet we have limited
them in some degree. Of course, our human
rights code is outstanding in that limitation.
I notice particularly in the resolution of
the hon. member for Forest Hill that he in-
corporated as part of his resolution the
general principles laid out in the United
Nations convention adopted in 1948 and he
accepted the definitions of genocide as re-
ferred to therein. It is an indication of the
weaknesses of mortal beings that here today
in the 20th century we should have found it
necessary to have nations adopt as guiding
principles these matters, and that here on
this date, January 28, 1966, we are engaged
in a discussion of these things.
I do not think it is really necessary that
we debate the details of these two resolu-
tions. Suffice it to say that they have given
us all an opportunity of subscribing to general
principles. To some of us perhaps there has
been experience brought about by intimate
contact. In the sphere of genocide I know
that the race from which I have sprung
in the mid-30's was subjected to a genocide
programme which eliminated some 7,000,000
of those who called themselves Ukrainian
through a calculated programme of starvation.
Those events are still commemorated today.
In June of this year three of the smallest
nations of Europe, the Baltic states Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia, will be commemorat-
ing the 25th anniversary of events of June,
1941, when, in hundreds of thousands, citi-
zens of those lands were taken, killed or dis-
appeared into the vastness of Siberia, never to
be seen again.
92
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Aild so, Mr. Speaker, all citizens, some
with a much more personal interest than
others, will take notice of today's discussion
in the House. As I say, it is a privilege to
have participated in this event, which we
hope will culminate in some concrete steps
being taken within this land of ours to again
add to the dignity of our citizens.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
it is 1 of the clock. I presume I should
adjourn the debate, but there is one thing
I would like to have through you, Mr.
Speaker: The assurance of the hon. Prime
Minister that the debate on this resolution
will continue in the near future. So often
these resolutions are adjourned and then they
die on the vine. We on this side do not want
this one to die on the vine, we would like
to see it come to a vote. I was wondering,
Mr. Speaker, if we could have the assurance
of the hon. Prime Minister that we could
continue this debate in the early part of next
week?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are
several other hon. members of the House
on all sides who would like to speak to these
resolutions and the order will be called again.
I can give no undertaking as to precisely
when, but in the business of the House I am
sure there will be an opportunity before too
much time passes.
Mr. Trotter: On this understanding, that it
will not go too long and will not die on the
vine, I will adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on Mon-
day we will proceed with the first order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before you put that motion, I wonder
if I might ask the hon. Prime Minister
whether he would consider, in conjunction
with resuming this debate, an early debate
on the topic which is involved in resolution
10 standing in my name on page 5 of the
order paper, namely, the whole approach to
the Canadian Constitution in the wake of,
dare I say at this moment, the demise of the
Fulton-Favreau formula?
A couple of weeks ago the hon. Prime Min-
ister himself was credited publicly with indi-
cating that he thought that the formula is
dead; that there was a vacuum and that we
should move to fill it. My point is that I
think, now that we have got some time fur-
ther to discuss it, that this would be an
appropriate place, in this Legislature, to give
some thought to this. Will the hon. Prime
Minister give us some assurance of an early
opportunity to debate this and related
matters?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has immediately started the debate
by putting his point of view here. I would
not necessarily agree that the Fulton-Favreau
formula is dead. I notice, among certain ele-
ments in our political life, that there is some
disagreement. I cannot really just follow
what is going on with the Fulton-Favreau
formula but this is a question which I think
might be debated here and I will consider the
representations made, and also I am aware of
all the resolutions that are on the order paper.
Mr. Thompson: Could I say that I do not
agree with my hon. friend on my left? I am
hoping that the hon. Prime Minister will fol-
low the order of the resolutions rather than
jump around in connection with these.
Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one final
comment on that. If this is what we are dis-
cussing, I have a further plea to the hon.
Prime Minister; that he give some thought to
a procedure that exists in other legislatures,
namely, that we have a specified hour, once or
twice a week, and then I would agree with
the hon. leader of the Opposition that we
take them in sequence. In other words, bills
and resolutions put on the order paper in the
name of Opposition members or government
members were treated with some degree of
dignity as though they would be considered
by this Legislature instead of being sloughed
off at the end, which has generally been the
practice. I would concede to the hon. Prime
Minister that he has improved it some, but I
think the final improvement is to give a speci-
fied time when there will be an opportunity
to discuss these.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I did not
intend to enter into a debate on this proced-
ural matter at this stage. I can only say that
I am happy for those very slight words of
recognition of what has been done, because I
think anybody who examines the operations
of this House, and what has happened in the
last three or four years— and I am sorry I had
to get up and say this myself, but there have
been some very distinct improvements. I do
not think there were many items left on the
order paper after the last session that were
not dealt with; and also I do not think that
they were dealt with in the manner certain
JANUARY 28, 1966
93
horn members of the Opposition always like
to assert.
I do not know for whose benefit it is that
they are dealt with at 11 o'clock at night; I
do not know what the difference is in dealing
with the estimates of The Department of
Education at 11 o'clock at night; so what dif-
ference is there in dealing with one of these
resolutions?
In the last session, if you will recall, there
were certain times set aside to deal with these
resolutions and notice was given as to when
those times would be, and the resolutions that
would be called, so that those who chose to
speak to these resolutions— be it the mover or
be it some other member of the House— were
free to do so.
Therefore I am not prepared to sit and
have anyone say that these matters are not
dealt with in an orderly manner because I
maintain they are.
The other point I would make, in reply
to the hon. member for Parkdale is, that
it is very difficult to start at the beginning
because, to give an example, there is a
motion here, No. 4 for instance, standing in
the name of the hon. member for Huron-
Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) providing for provincial
licensing and inspection of existing nursing
homes. There is a bill, a government order,
dealing with this matter, and surely that is
the place for the hon. member to make any
comments he may wish, on second reading of
that bill, where the matter can be discussed
in principle, or when the bill is in the com-
mittee of the whole House stage and will be
considered clause by clause. So there are
quite a few things that enter into the decision
of when and how these matters are going to
be called.
I can assure the House that we will pro-
vide opportunities, as I have said on many
other occasions, for discussion of any matter
that any member wants to bring before
this House. Let me point out that next week
we are going to commence the Throne speech
debate and this is an opportunity for any
member of this House to rise and speak on
any matter he may wish. He does not need
a resolution, he needs only to file his name
with the whip of his party; that debate has
never been completed until we have run out
of speakers and as soon as the Throne speech
debate, as it is called, is completed, the
Budget debate will commence and that de-
bate is of exactly the same character. There
are no limitations placed whatsoever. It is
called a Budget debate but in that debate
hon. members may roam far and deal with
anything they wish.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Nothing spe-
cific is debated.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Nothing specific is
debated but anything can be said. It is an
opportunity, sir, for any member of this
House to introduce on the floor of this House
any subject he likes, and in fact we have
no time limitations and he may speak as
long as he likes. I would suggest to lion,
members of the House on all sides, who
have matters which they wish to bring before
the House, that this is a way of doing it.
And finally, I must say that, in conducting
the affairs of the House, it is the responsibility
of the government to run the government;
and, of course, we must look to government
business. It must have priority and, regardless
of what jurisdiction you may quote to me,
this is true in every jurisdiction having a
parliamentary system. Finally I can assure
you, as I have before, that there will be
opportunity provided for these matters to be
discussed here, but the business of the
government must have priority; otherwise we
would not have a government.
Mr. Speaker, that is my contribution to
what really is not a debate, and which I
did not intend to enter as a debate, but there
is the position.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the hon. Prime Minister having made these
statements, I would like first of all to suggest
to him that, in your rules and proceedings
of the House, if he was to follow the rules
correctly the government does not always
have priority on every day the Legislature
meets, to conduct the business. There is a
period which is allocated to the Opposition,
or to private members, specifically to them,
and one of the concerns has been in the past
that— let me first of all say that the hon.
Prime Minister has certainly been better
than his predecessor where it became almost
futile for the Opposition to present any bills
or resolutions, because they just were com-
pletely ignored. I think that was flagrant
abuse of Parliament and I appreciate that
the hon. Prime Minister has permitted some
resolutions. But I am fairly sensitive about
this, because my resolution, which I put on
last year, was not permitted to be debated—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Number three.
Mr. Thompson: Number three. And I
would say that there is always a danger if a
Prime Minister is going to set the priority
of even the private members' time. This
is really why I would like to see a set
94
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time for private members' bills, or public
bills as they are called, and for resolutions,
so that there could be some opportunity of
initiative on the part of the Opposition. We
can put the government on its mettle for a
change. Today we have. But if we could
initiate some business— because we repre-
sent certain groups of the province— and in
Parliament, if it is to be democratic, we
should have our opportunity, as well as the
hon. Prime Minister.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I recog-
nize the principle being advanced and I
could say that if the procedure of the House
were checked it has been recognized on
previous occasions and it will be recognized
as in the past. I have no desire to have all
the initiative here; and I do not think that,
from the way the House has been conducted,
at least since I have been here, that this is,
in fact, the case. I have always given notice
as to when private members' business would
be called, and I am quite prepared to con-
tinue as before. . .
Perhaps there will be sufficient time for
certain days to be set aside. I would like
to give notice of when these things will
be called, but I cannot accept the propo-
sition that a start be made at number one
and that we should go right through the
whole list, because this simply may not be
practicable. But I am quite certain that, as
the affairs of the House unfold, hon. mem-
bers will find that they will have plenty of
time to discuss these matters; because many
of them are of interest to members on this
side of the House, who wish to hear the
debate and perhaps to take part in it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.15 o'clock, p.m.
No. 5
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, January 31, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk; Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, January 31, 1966
Reading and receiving petitions 97
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first reading 97
Statement re Vanier institute of the family and Vanier institution for women,
Mr. Grossman 97
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Thompson 100
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 119
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 119
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, January 31, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
welcome guests to the Legislature and today
we welcome, in the east gallery, students
from William Treadway public school, Scar-
borough.
Presenting petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Toronto
praying that an Act may pass confirming a
certain by-law respecting fences; and for
other purposes; also, the petition of the gov-
erning council of the Salvation Army, Canada
East, praying that an Act may pass exempting
certain real property owned by it, as defined
in The Assessment Act.
Of Fanny Eliza Dickieson and Viola Belle
Gray praying that an Act may pass vesting
certain property of the late William A.
Dickieson in the petitioners.
Of the corporation of the city of Sudbury
praying that an Act may pass to establish a
parks and recreation commission.
Of the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic separate schools for the city of
Windsor praying that an Act may pass vest-
ing certain lands and premises in it in fee
simple.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves,
seconded by Mr. R. J. Harris (Beaches) that
Mr. H. E. Beckett (York East) be substituted
for Mr. Harris on the standing committee on
municipal affairs.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Election Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, a
brief explanation of this bill is as follows.
The purpose of the bill is to: (a) require—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I do
not think anyone asked for an explanation of
this bill.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe
you indicated late in the last session— the
point has been covered in any case— but just
to refresh the hon. Prime Minister's memory,
Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Proceed with it.
Mr. Bryden: The purpose of the bill is:
First, to require disclosure of both campaign
contributions and expenditures by both indi-
vidual candidates and central party organiza-
tions; second, to fix a limit of permissible
expenditures at both levels in election cam-
paigns.
The limit proposed for central party
organizations is 15 cents per name on the
voters' lists in all of the constituencies in
which the party is running candidates. The
limitation for individual candidates is 15
cents per name for all names on the list in
urban subdivisions and 20 cents in rural sub-
divisions. The bill does not propose that
there should be any contributions from the
public Treasury to election campaigns of
either individual candidates or parties.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, it is with justi-
fiable pride that I rise to announce that Their
Excellencies the Rt. hon. Georges P. Vanier,
Governor General of Canada, and his gracious
lady, Madame Vanier, have honoured the
government of our province by lending their
distinguished name to a new Ontario institu-
tion.
98
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Their Excellencies have demonstrated their
vital concern for all members of our society.
The Canadian conference on the family in
June 1964 came into existence because of
their profound desire to develop a deeper
awareness and a better understanding of the
role of the family— its present conditions, its
strengths and weaknesses and its problems.
The incorporation of the Vanier institute
of the family was officially announced in
April, 1965. The institute is the result of a
resolution unanimously adopted at the con-
clusion of the Canadian conference on the
family, to create a permanent organization
to study and promote the spiritual and
material well-being of all Canadians.
As sociologists and others have pointed
out, persistent offenders usually come from
poor economic and social background. We
cannot isolate one single factor, even extreme
poverty or great emotional deprivation, as
being decisive. A social disorder as severe as
persistent criminality must be studied in all
its dimensions. The tendency towards de-
linquency starts early, therefore the institute,
through its special researches and projects
around the family, will assist in the work of
corrections, a work in which Their Excellen-
cies have shown great interest.
It is with a deep sense of gratitude I take
this privilege of announcing to the House
that an outstanding Canadian who has served
this nation as soldier, diplomat and Governor
General, and the lovely wife, mother and
social worker who has been his companion
through life— Their Excellencies— have agreed
to lend their illustrious name to the institu-
tion which will replace the present Mercer
reformatory. The new institution, construc-
tion of which it is expected will commence
this year, will be known as the Vanier in-
stitution for women.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree).
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
what steps are being taken to investigate
charges by foreign students attending the
University of Toronto that landlords are dis-
criminating against them?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, no formal complaints have been
received by the Ontario human rights com-
mission ,in this connection. Rooming and
boarding houses, including those generally
used by students, are not covered by the
human rights code.
However, a few years ago, the commission
worked closely with the University of Toronto
housing service to develop an anti-discrimina-
tory policy which was ultimately endorsed by
all prospective landlords using the housing
service. The commission was commended for
its assistance in this regard.
At that time, the housing service came
under the students administrative council.
Since then, it has been transferred to a hous-
ing director within the university itself. Ap-
parently a number of problems have arisen
under this new arrangement.
Once again, the human rights commission
would be more than willing to assist the
University of Toronto housing director in
overcoming some of these recent difficulties.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, a supplemen-
tary question. Can the human rights commis-
sion talk to a landlord who has less than
three rooms or three facilities? I understand
many students live in one room of a board-
ing house.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I did not hear part of
your question. Can the human rights com-
mission do what?
Mr. Thompson: Can it talk to a landlord
from the point of view of discriminating
towards people of coloured background when
there is a loophole by which a number of
students may live in one room in a home?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I made reference in
my answer to the steps taken by the commis-
sion in conjunction with the housing author-
ity, which then was under the direction of
the students administrative council. At that
time, a survey was made of all of the houses
or homes in the university area where students
might seek accommodation, and a very
healthy arrangement was arrived at by all
the landlords— if I could call them that— or the
operators of these boarding houses, with
respect to this particular matter. There is no
problem in dealing with people on this sub-
ject. I think in this part of the programme
and that part of the operation of the human
rights commission a good deal of the success
is found.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), of which notice
has been given.
Is anything being done to revise the hourly
wage rates of highways maintenance person-
nel in the Chatham area, as reported in a
recent news report as follows:
'JANUARY 31, 1966
Surveying personnel, $1.38 to $1.49; assis-
tant inspectors, $1.33 to $1.44; weighmen,
$1.44 to $1.55; checkers, $1.33 to $1.44.
. Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have any information re-
garding the detailed wages that are men-
tioned in the press report. I am able to
answer the first part of the question.
Perhaps I should endeavour to clarify the
question a bit. I am not certain whether this
applies to the public servants who are work-
ing in that area or whether it applies to casual
help. I rather think that it does not apply to
public servants. However, the one is related
to the other in the sense that once the salaries
have been negotiated and set for the public
servants, the salaries of those casual workers
throughout the whole province will be
brought in line with the public service.
As the hon. member is aware, I think, I did
answer this question on Thursday last and
pointed out that negotiations are still being
carried on between the civil service associa-
tion, which is the bargaining agent for the
public servants, and representatives of the
civil service commission. I understand that
the negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily
and that it is hoped that an agreement on
wages will be reached before long.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Davis) how many meetings have
been held by the hon. Minister's committee
on the teaching of religion in schools since its
appointment last session; and, second, has the
committee called for submissions from inter-
ested groups and individuals?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly accurate, the
committee was not appointed last session.
The chairman was indicated; and this chair-
man, of course, was the Hon. J. Keiller
Mackay, and he has been directing the
organization of the work of the committee.
A staff has been established and offices set up.
The committee itself has been provided
with materials on the Ontario programme and
with relevant information about programmes
in other jurisdictions outside Canada. The
committee has met and has agreed on pro-
cedures to be followed. Approval has been
given by the committee to a form of adver-
tisement soliciting briefs from various orga-
nizations and individuals. I am instructed
that this advertisement will appear in the
near future in the usual number of publica-
tions in the province so that it will come to
the attention of all interested parties.
I am also advised by the chairman that the
committee wishes a period of time to famili-
arize itself thoroughly with the i background
information with respect to the subject with
which they are dealing, and for this purpose
they have scheduled meetings on February
11, 18 and 25. It is after this date that they
expect they will be having submissions and I
understand there will be many of them from
other groups and the public at large.
For the information of the House, Mr.
Speaker, besides the Hon. J. Keiller Mackay,
the other members of the committee include
Mr. John W. Whiteside from Windsor, His
Honour Judge H. Waisberg, judge of the
county court of the county of York, William
S. Martin from Niagara Falls, Dr. Mary Q.
Innis, former dean of women at the University
college and Dr. F. C. A. Jeanneret, the former
chancellor of the University of Toronto.
Mr. Nixon: Supplementary to that I would
like to ask the hon. Minister how many of
the members that he has appointed to this
committee are actually separate school sup-
porters and of the Roman Catholic faith?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say
about separate school supporters but William
S. Martin is a member of the Roman Catholic
faith and is the past president of the Ontario
separate school trustees association.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker I would like to
direct the following question to the hon.
Prime Minister.
Are any steps contemplated to regularize
the position of the police force of the Niagara
parks commission by integrating it with the
Ontario provincial police, or in some other
way?
Hon. Mr. Rob arts: Mr. Speaker, the Nia-
gara Parks commission does not normally re-
quire or use the services of the Ontario pro-
vincial police. For the general routine of
patrols and related activity in the park, it does
have its own security and traffic officers and
their duties are very well defined and set
down by the commission itself.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker my specific
question, which for some reason the hon.
Prime Minister did not want to answer, is:
Are any steps being taken to integrate that
group into the regular police force or other-
wise to regularize its position?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think my answer
would make it obvious that there are no steps
being taken to integrate them with the On-
tario provincial police and I think their
activities are regularized at the present time.
100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this
debate I would like to pay my deepest re-
spects to you.
All hon. members expressed great confi-
dence in your impartiality when you were
elected to this high office. I think you have
demonstrated that you understand and appre-
ciate the noble tradition and the high esteem
of your office. I frankly concur wholeheart-
edly with your approach to giving greater
pomp and ceremony to the entrance of the
Speaker. From our side of the House we
recognize that you are the guardian of all the
power in the Legislature, of all its dignities,
of its liberties and of its privileges.
One of our concerns is not with your en-
trance, Mr. Speaker; it is with the manner in
which you leave the House. To be quite
frank, we have been disappointed in that
there have been occasions when you have
had to leave as though you were a common
messenger boy in this great assembly.
I am thinking of the alert eye of the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) who
noticed the new approach being taken by this
government, and its erosion of your prestige.
Let me say that with the erosion of your
prestige comes the erosion of all the rights of
the people of this province. We notice that
in the past— and I want to re-emphasize this—
a previous premier would move that the
Speaker do now leave the chair and the
House resolve itself into committee of
supply. Then on that dark day of December
7, 1961, very near an anniversary of another
occasion when freedom was threatened, we
saw a sly move in which you were dismissed
by the intonations of the Clerk of this House,
and I read for December 7, 1961: "Orders
of the day. House moved into committee of
supply, Mr. K. Brown in the chair."
Now, why do we place such stress on
your importance and the recognition that you
must be assured of your rights over pro-
cedure? We say this, sir, because in Britain
there are five motions which can be made
when they move into supply. This is the
time when, historically, an Opposition can
make grievances, motions of grievances, and
bring forward the problems which they have
in their constituencies or which they feel
concern the whole country. In Ottawa there
are six motions of grievance.
It is very important in this House that the
government does not always have the priority
of business. I want to stress that. The hon.
leader of the new party (Mr. MacDonald)
seemed to concur with the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) that the government must
always have priority of business. If that
situation arises—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): When
did that happen?
Mr. Thompson: If that situation arises then,
sir, we find we have a cowed and a beaten
Opposition. I was amazed— on listening to his
interjection— I was amazed to see on Friday,
when hat in hand, the hon. leader of the
socialist party asked the hon. Prime Minis-
ter: Would you put my motion ahead of the
other?
Well, I am not begging to the government
for the rights which we have as an Opposition.
According to the rules of procedure of this
House the Prime Minister is not in the
position to move the motion— the resolution—
as he wants. This is a pattern that has been
developed. They should come according to
their order of precedence, and this is what we
are going to insist on.
May I say, sir, as I look at the House and
I appreciate the interest with which the hon.
leader of the new party is now interjecting,
I only wish he had done it on Friday.
Mr. MacDonald: I did.
Mr. Thompson: May I say, sir, that one of
the areas in which we see an erosion of demo-
cratic right is the question period.
The question period of Parliament has been
referred to as the cocktails before the banquet
and it is at this point that the Ministers
of the Crown are tested for their knowledge
and their grasp of their department and their
quickness to answer questions. The hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury spoke of this last year. He
described having been at Westminster, having
heard the rumbling voice of Sir Winston
Churchill, felt the cut and thrust of debate
that took place and saw the masterful action
of Ministers of the Crown.
May I say, sir, in this session, in the ques-
tions that we have asked, I want to compli-
ment the hon. Ministers of the Crown on the
articulate way that they read their answers.
There are a couple of them who stand on
their feet and answer questions about their
department, but on the whole it is like a
heavy comic opera. At the end of last week
we saw hon. Ministers get up and read
prepared statements by civil servants. If this
is the situation, if they cannot answer on their
own, surely they are not being judged for
JANUARY 31, 1966
101
their grasp of their department. There are
only three conclusions one can come to: They
themselves do not know the policies of their
departments; or, second, they are apprehen-
sive and they want to hide from the scrutiny
of the public in answering the questions; or,
third, sir, and I hate to come to this con-
clusion, they are slow-witted.
We would not want any of those con-
clusions to be thought of by the people of
Ontario; therefore, I suggest that the hon.
Ministers stand on their own feet. I agree
there are times when they are going to have
to read an answer, but we have seen this
farce of them reading lengthy documents.
Indeed, the number of times they read in
the last session was extraordinary. He is not
here, but one of the greatest examples of
this was the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) who in answer to a question, took
up five pages of Hansard.
While I am on this matter of procedure,
I may say that we are going to watch care-
fully in this session. A number of practices
have taken place over past years which have
not meant that we have had good government,
alert government, in Ontario— or a vital, virile
forum in this Legislature.
One of the most apparent, of course, is
the matter of written questions. For too long
the government has hidden, in every way it
can, the answers to written questions. Until
this fall, frankly, I thought there might be
some validity in the kind of painful look
which the hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wis-
hart) had when he got 100 questions from
my colleague, the hon. member to my right
(Mr. Singer).
An hon. member: Your adviser.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I have a number of
advisers and they are very good.
May I say that in these questions we waited
for over 40 days to get replies, and we heard
of many man-hours being spent. Yet, as we
look at Britain, in one day they get 105
questions— 105. And even Macmillan, the
Conservative Prime Minister of Britain, said
"Six days is too long in a democracy for
answers to written questions. We will bring
it down to three". I would like to see a page
of that taken in this House by this Prime
Minister.
The question that comes to us is this: Is the
government purposely holding back answers
to questions because it is afraid of giving us
the answer before the department estimates?
Or is it because it has not got an efficient
administration and cannot get the answer; be-
cause certainly in Britain they get these
answers, as I say, in three days. We are going
to look at that one pretty hard.
I notice that the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan) is out. Perhaps I will go further
into a number of these areas at another time
in the Budget debate.
But we are tired of the subterfuge that
takes place in presenting the estimates— the
cover-up, the sugar coating, that is given when
they are presented to the House for the
scrutiny of the Legislature and the scrutiny
of the people. They get a far greater break-
down behind the secret doors of Treasury,
the department has to explain much more
fully than in the presentation we get.
We are concerned, sir, about this House
being a facade; about the rush at the end
of the session to get as much business through
as possible, rather than to have it geared
over the period of the session equally so that
there can be time and deliberation on esti-
mates.
One thing we are really concerned about
is this whole practice of Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor's warrants— the enormous amount of
money that is spent without parliamentary
approval.
We are also concerned, sir, with the whole
approach taken to analyzing each estimate
and the item in each estimate.
At the opening of the past session, the one
before this, I thought that the mover and
seconder set a particularly high tone for the
Legislature. I remember that the hon. mem-
ber for Russell (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence) gave
a real clarion call on the need for research
and looked to the day when there would be
an elimination of the means test. Then the
hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Demers)
gave a talk on French-Canadian relations,
particularly on the aspirations of the French-
speaking people in Ontario, towards Confed-
eration.
I wish to apologize, sir, that I was unable
to be present during the mover and seconder's
remarks on Friday. I apologize because I
know that— on Thursday, thank you— I know
that they put all their efforts, all their mental
powers, all their philosophical approaches into
this speech. It is a very great honour. It is
a great honour to be chosen by the hon.
Prime Minister to be the mover and seconder,
and I know that the content of both of their
speeches will reflect all of their ability and I
know that their constituents will look at that
and judge them accordingly. I have not read
them but I congratulate them on the very real
effort they put into them.
102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
May I say, sir, that I understand that
among the efforts put in by one of them—
either the mover or the seconder— was an
effort on my behalf. He thought he would
like to give me some advice. Since I first
entered the political field, I have been offered
advice. I remember in my first election, in
Dovercourt, I was walking through my riding
at the start of the election and someone came
up to me; his advice was that I should not
be in it, that I was going to be beaten. I
learned later that he was a candidate himself,
so I did not take his advice too strongly.
Rut I can honestly say that I have listened
to advice from armchair and newspaper pun-
dits, and others, and I find that really, when
you are fighting elections, the best thing pos-
sible is to have a sense of direction, a sense
of purpose yourself. Look at the advice, but
do not get too rattled by it.
I know that, when I mention elections, the
government and the socialist party will be
most disappointed if I did not say a few
words about the two by-elections. As I under-
stand it, these were a test for all of us, and at
the start I want to be charitable. I want to
be charitable because it may have happened
that the local Conservative associations in
Nipissing and Rracondale may have not, as
yet, formally thanked the hon. Prime Minis-
ter and the hon. Ministers who flew up to
Nipissing. Perhaps the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Roberts) has not been
thanked for his efforts in Rracondale. I saw
him one day, like a lean forest ranger, march-
ing up one of the streets there.
An hon. member: Was he in uniform?
Mr. Thompson: He seemed awfully lonely
and, from the vote, it looked as though he
was a bit lonely. Rut if he has not been
thanked formally; on behalf of the Liberal
associations of the two ridings, we want to
thank him for his participation.
There were some who were not there, but
I assure you they were very much remem-
bered. There was the hon. Minister from
Cochrane South (Mr. Spooner). I do not think
he came down to the riding in North Ray. It
is a long way from Timmins to North Ray, I
guess, and he did not think he would be there.
Rut I can assure him when the rain came
down, when I arrived in North Ray, their
thoughts were in connection with him.
Frankly, they were annoyed with him. He
comes forth with statements about rain
makers, saying as long as his preserve was all
right it did not matter and describes that the
rain-making machines around Timmins do not
affect his area. And they recalculated and it
seemed to affect the North Ray area. Actually,
I think his statements were wrong with re-
spect to that. I say the point is not where
the rain fell or how it fell; the point is, and
the hon. Minister missed this, the people of
the area were not asked to make any decision
over their environment or over the weather.
His concern when he was asked about it was
that it fell somewhere outside Timmins.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): The hon. leader of the Opposition
should have been in Timmins. It rained from
July and into the middle of November.
Mr. Thompson: And was it accountable to
that? No one was asked whether the machine
should be there or not. It is a principle of
yours, sir.
When we come to pensions, for example,
we have a similar situation. The hon. Min-
ister is not only all-wise about weather, but
he is also all-wise in connection with the
benefits a worker should have on retiring.
May I say that he is noticed by the people
of this province. He is asked a simple ques-
tion—and I come back to the question period
—he is asked a simple question about how
many meetings he has had with unions. He
may think he is showing a shrewd, quick
approach by first of all saying he will get the
answer tomorrow out of his files. He may
then think how clever he is, when he stands
up and gives us a long discourse about the
benefits of OMERS and refuses to answer
the question and sits down again.
De Gaulle, as hon. members know, did
not do so well in this last election with a
high-handed manner; and similarly he refuses
to answer the questions of the people of this
province. And he has not answered it yet.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: What question is the
hon. leader of the Opposition talking about?
Mr. Thompson: I am talking about the
question that the hon. Minister was asked two
days ago. He has not answered it as yet, and
he can be disdainful and say: "What do I
care, the public be dammed." There is a
day of accounting for my hon. friend and
that kind of attitude.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I wonder if my hon.
friend would tell this House what happened
to the 15,000 pamphlets that were sent up in
my riding in the last election to his candi-
date? That came out of his office.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
JANUARY 31, 1966
103
Mr. Thompson: As usual, the hon. Minis-
ter misses the point and wants to talk on
another subject. Some day he will be able
to answer the questions. I am sure in his
case it is not because he is slow-witted. I
have quite an admiration for his ability. He
fits into one of those other categories I
mentioned at the start.
What about the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile) in Nipissing? We re-
gretted we did not see him there, because I
am sure that he is a man of great compassion.
I walked around the riding with my colleague
from Ottawa, and as I walked around with
him, particularly amongst French-speaking
people living on farms there, we only wished
that the hon. Minister of Public Welfare
would get up and look at some of those con-
ditions. I think, then, he would question his
whole administrative approach to welfare.
The hon. Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management (Mr. Simonett), I noted,
was not up there; probably because he felt
he could not win any Indian votes or there
were not any Indians up there. May I say
that we appreciated your remarks.
Just while I am talking about the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare who came out
with a statement, I admit a little hastily,
about what was going to be done about
Indians, I could not help thinking: Could
there not be some conflict in Cabinet? After
all, here are the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare and the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis) talking about Moosonee, the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare talking about
community development; and what is the
attitude of that sterling 20th century re-
former, the hon. Minister of Energy and
Resources Management? Keep them in the
wigwam.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. leader of the Opposition
would like to look up the definition of wig-
wam. I would suggest that he do this and
then, perhaps, he would know what he is
talking about.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: Although he was not up
there I can assure hon. members that we put
his philosophy around. Then we come to
the hon. Prime Minister. The hon. Prime
Minister came up on two occasions and,
frankly, I was very impressed, Mr. Speaker.
They had an embroidered card, printed
beautifully, where one was invited to come
and have tea with the hon. Prime Minister.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Em-
broidered?
Mr. Thompson: It was embroidered around
the edges.
An hon. member: Embossed!
Mr. Thompson: I thought it was em-
broidered but one can say embellished.
An hon. member: A very nice looking card,
anyway.
Mr. Thompson: One had to go as to a sort
of head lord, like a serf going to see the land
owner. They tell me that when they got
there the hon. Prime Minister sensed the
mood. They say he was as bored as they
were with the whole thing, shaking hands
there in line, saying hello to them. They
came over to our meeting. We had an affair,
it was not quite as dignified as the hon.
Prime Minister's, a spaghetti dinner. I know
he went in for a more dignified approach, but
the people of the north are relaxed and a free
and easy group.
I am going to leave the hon. Prime Minis-
ter at this point, because I have a sense that
the socialist party feel left out.
An hon. member: Were they there at all?
Mr. Thompson: No, I want to say this
about them because I live in Bracondale— I
was going to say like an army, but when I
think of one of their hon. members I am
concerned about what that conjures up in
their minds. He has been declaring war for
Britain with Rhodesia, so I do not want to
use the term army. But I would say that
some of my neighbours told me that the
socialist fellows came around and banged
on the door. And in one case, the neighbour
said, "He was such a sincere and self-
righteous young fellow I had him come in.
And he came in five times." And she said,
"I did not know whether to ask him if I
should put him up for board and room."
Let me say that we were concerned about
the socialists in Bracondale. We were con-
cerned because in the last session they had
a make-work programme on their platform.
Hon. members may recall it. They tore up
sofas and we were concerned in case there
were not any upholsterers around.
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: They are harder to tear
up. m
104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: The thing that interests me
is that the socialist party, at least the hon.
leader— and I admire him— bounces back
with vim. He admitted they did not do so
well in the by-elections. "But look how we
did in the federal election," he says, and he
goes into his statistical approach about how
he moved up a couple of rungs.
I had some doleful Charlies come to me
from various arenas including the fourth
estate—
An hon. member: They had reason to be.
Mr. Thompson: One said to me: "Did you
see how the new party did in the provincial
election?" Yet the socialist leader is happy
again and he says they are going to do better
in the federal election; and they have done
better in the federal election and now they
will do better in the next provincial elec-
tion. And I said to him: "You think this is
really a serious threat? Did you see how we
—the Liberal party— did in the federal elec-
tion?" If that is any indication of confidence,
I would be sitting over in that seat tomorrow.
Let me say this: I was pleased to hear that
the socialist party has more organizers. I
want to mention to them the young fellow
who came around five times to my neighbour,
and spoke to her. She felt terrible that she
did not give him board and room, but she
has changed a bit; so if one of those
organizers is looking for board and room, I
can give him the address and then he can
stay in the riding.
I think, sir, that the party has taken a wise
approach. They have been called the CCF
party; they have been called the New Demo-
cratic Party; and we heard that in their press
conference they are going to put more hoopla
—whatever that is— since their election. From
now on I am going to call them the hoopla
party. It affords us a lot of laughs and I
think now they generally recognize their
role.
Mr. MacDonald: Scintillating brilliance.
An hon. member: He is getting to you now.
Mr. MacDonald: No wonder the govern-
ment is unconcerned in face of this feeble
attack.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): On a point
of something or other-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, one of the
terms that could be used for this session, and
for the last session, is that it is a session of
protest. Yet we have an age of affluence in
this province, yet we see that there are more
and more people who are coming down to
the Legislature, who are picketing, because
they are being pushed around in some way.
I noticed on television that the hon. Prime
Minister suggested that perhaps some kind
of a fad is taking place regarding this picket-
ing. I do not. I think it is something more
serious than that. I think there is a concern
and an uneasiness on the part of the people
that they are being pushed around by big
government. I think, sir that they are won-
dering where a politician stands, no matter
what party.
They are not sure that we do not make
promises and that we forget about people.
They are not sure whether we try to dodge
controversial issues and take stands. And I
think, in a way they are getting cynical about
it.
I appreciate that leadership in the 20th
century is agonizingly difficult; for modern
politicians, with big government and because
of big government, recognize that decisions
can provide both opportunity and great haz-
ards. I think the problem of government to-
day is to be able to discern what are the
wishes of the people; to be able to draw the
people in to helping decide the course and
the destiny of their province. It is too easy
to take automatic action, to think we know
what are the right answers for people and
not draw them into participating in making
decisions.
I think that one of the great opportunities
we have today is to encourage public dia-
logue and public participation about the role
of our province in Confederation. I urged the
hon. Prime Minister to establish an advisory
group to help this province in knowing both
the background of Confederation and also
where we should be going; but I had hoped
that the men and women he would draw
together in an advisory group would not be
shackled to government, that they would not
be preparing meetings for government alone.
I had hoped that they would be preparing
meetings, preparing papers for the Legis-
lature; that the hon. Prime Minister would
want to see public discussion taking place
across this province.
And yet, sir, I was bitterly disappointed to
find that this group, and they are very able
people, is being held very closely to advising
the hon. Prime Minister alone. Surely this is
the opportunity for us to have this expand
into an all-party committee, where we would
use the thinking of these people.
I see this particularly when we think of
JANUARY 31, 1966
105
the Fulton-Favreau amendment formula. The
hon. member for Sudbury and myself were
dismayed when the government came back
with this fait accompli, to use the word of
the hon. Attorney General. We were dis-
mayed that there had not been greater public
dialogue. The hon. member for Sudbury
talked of Sir John A. Macdonald; he pointed
out that the day after we were having
this debate on the Fulton-Favreau form-
ula, was one day after the date, 100 years
previously, when there had been the great
debate over the 72 resolutions in 1865. And
he pointed to the fact that, despite the
difficulties of travelling and communication,
the fathers of Confederation had gone by
horse and travelled to constituents to tell
them, and to get their opinions, and to draw
them into taking part in the framing of
Confederation. He described one occasion
of Sir John A. perhaps not being quite able
to discuss, as fluently as he usually could, the
advantages and the disadvantages of the 72
resolutions; at a luncheon, I think it was,
with the Lord Mayor of Montreal— however,
I am sure that was not a usual term.
I have the feeling that this government is
afraid of public dialogue. One of these
people who are on the advisory committee
does not see himself as a Conservative ad-
vising Conservatives; he has very provocative
ideas. He does not want to be shackled into
just whispering in the ear of Mr. Ian Mac-
Donald. He wants to be shouting out from
the rooftops, "Let us discuss these points
of view."
The problem with the Fulton-Favreau
formula was that when it came before us,
there had been a White Paper; we knew there
was some dissension to this. Bora Laskin, a
well-known constitutional lawyer, had raised
the scent on it and talked about rigidity; we
were concerned, but we voted for it, Mr.
Speaker, because for 40 years Canada has
been struggling to come to a consensus by
which we could repatriate the Constitution
and could have a system of amending it.
And the hon. member for Sudbury and
myself felt that, with the consensus of all the
governments of Canada, after 40 years there
has been an achievement. The hon. Attorney
General has said that this is a fait accompli;
and even though we raised objections and
apprehension, and we argued about the way
this was presented to us, we felt at that time
that we should be part of showing goodwill.
We were assured that there may be need for
further adjustments but, as we look at the
history of Canada, men of goodwill and reason
have never been held back because of some
constitutional rigidity and we felt there could
be further amendment if necessary.
Now, sir, we are concerned that the
Fulton-Favreau formula is going to be dis-
carded. And it is for that reason that we
feel-
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Who says that?
Mr. Thompson: I say we are concerned,
and it is for that reason that we would like
to share with the government in the delibera-
tions about our Confederation. I remember
the hon. Attorney General waxing into poetry;
he was ecstatic about his experience at
Charlottetown. And I can remember how
the hon. member for Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop)
said how he wished he could have been
more a part of this in participating in it.
I felt that; all the people of Ontario ought
to feel this; and it is for that reason that we
want to see a Confederation committee set up,
using the advisers the government has, be-
cause the government is going to lose some
of those advisers if it keeps them close to
working with just Mr. Ian MacDonald.
One of the aspects of the Fulton-Favreau
formula and the approach taken, I think, has
been that it was trying to do two things. It
was trying to both repatriate the Constitution
as well as to amend it. And I think a lot
of us were excited over the first aspect, with-
out having a harder look at the second.
Yet we know that it is not really such a
problem to repatriate the Constitution. This
can be done, as the hon. member for Forest
Hill in debate pointed out, without any
consultation with the provinces, simply by
changing English institutions to Canadian in-
stitutions. But the problem, and the concern
of the provinces, is in connection with the
amendment procedure afterwards.
We feel, because of the changed attitude
in Quebec itself, the fact that the separatists
are no longer a threat, they are dissipated, the
fact that there seems to be greater cordiality
and understanding, that therefore it is time for
us to have a committee that could look, not
only at amending procedure if we have to
have another procedure, but at the role of
Confederation.
There are important committees now, which
will be reporting shortly— tax committees—
both here and in Ottawa. And I feel that it
is vital today that we should have a strong
central government. I think it is also vital
that the provinces should recognize this and
not be going to Ottawa saying, "You can help
in certain areas if it is going to chip away
at your tax sources more."
106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am hoping that in this great deliberation
that will take place after we see the report
of the tax committee, we would have done
thinking ourselves about what the responsi-
bilities of the provinces and of the federal
government are. And it is for that reason that
I urge the hon. Prime Minister to widen
his approach towards getting advice from this
group of talented and able men, to bring
in the whole of the Legislature.
May I say that another point that concerned
me very much is when government members
go up to the Dominion-provincial conferences
— the hon. Minister of Health is at one right
now— the rest of us sit here, waiting to hear
what the decision is going to be. I presume
that one will be in secret. Sometimes it is
not quite clear, from the reports we get from
the Ontario representatives up there, just what
did take place.
In the medical insurance discussions at one
point, we thought that the federal govern-
ment was only to give $14 and then we
found that they would go as high as $20.
I think today because of the great importance
of these deliberations in Ottawa between the
provinces, that this should not be a secret,
closed meeting. We have to debate on the
decisions the government comes to.
The hon. Attorney General called the
Fulton-Favreau formula a fait accompli. This
is wrong. This is making a neuter of this
Legislature. And we, sir, want the discus-
sions in Ottawa more open to the people's
representatives. It is for that reason that we
urge that the hon. Prime Minister should
consider, with the Dominion-provincial con-
ferences, that there should be a delegation
made up of all parties from Ontario. We agree
that the discussion and the spokesman should
be the government but that our role should
be that of observers. I think that this should
be considered.
It has been done in the past in Ontario,
where we have had more than just the govern-
ment going up to discuss these questions.
There are many of us who feel that the
decisions are all made up there and that we
play an insignificant role. This becomes a
very dangerous situation, when the representa-
tives of the people are emasculated through
decisions being made behind closed doors in
Ottawa.
May I say it seems to me the goals we
have to look at today are the goals of an
abundant society, and we have to consider
a strategy towards that. There are some who
still look at the approach in politics as that
of the threat of depression, and they have a
depression philosophy; but it seems to me it
is a much tougher philosophy to be thinking
of what our approach and our strategy will
be when we have abundance, to see that we
can keep the economy moving, and also to
see that we can bring people, who are in
pockets of neglect, further into the flood of a
booming economy.
There are questions that we have to ask
ourselves in this Legislature and I look at
the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree).
How do we ensure adequate supply of
trained labour? I noticed applause when we
talked of the efforts that had been made to
get skilled labour from overseas and this is a
great advantage to us. But always there is a
question in our mind: If we are forced to be
getting skilled labour— we do want more
people— but is it because we are not doing
enough adequate training, or having enough
apprenticeship courses, to be able to meet
this? It is not necessarily so, but it raises that
question.
How do you make sure that automation is
a blessing for management and labour? You
have had an automation conference. How do
you involve the people in the increasing com-
plexity of co-operative planning for the
future? How do you counter the insidious
threat of inflation and set up fair wage and
price guide lines in a democratic society?
How do you balance the wage increases with
the gains in social security, with the gains in
the Canada pension plan, and the medical
insurance— these fringe benefits? How do you
encourage and promote Canadian-owned in-
dustry without cutting off foreign capital,
which we want and need? And how can you
better co-operate with Ottawa to act in a
quick and a concerted way to head off eco-
nomic dangers?
May I say that I believe that we have got
to have more co-ordination in our own gov-
ernment. I believe that the hon. Prime Min-
ister has got to chair an economic committee.
I know the way he has been doing this, and
I feel that there has been too much of a one-
department approach. Let me take the ex-
ample of the Indians, about whom we were
talking before. Last session, the hon. Minis-
ter of Lands and Forests stood up and
announced that he was interested in jobs for
the Indians, and that his department was
helping them to plant trees and he was going
to help them get walk-in freezers.
It seemed to me that this was very com-
mendable, and we appreciated his humanity
in developing this idea. I want to say that I
was in Kenora, and I heard words of com-
mendation about his department, and what it
was doing there for the Indians. But my con-
cern was, just as I saw him walking lonely
JANUARY 31, 1966
107
up the streets of Bracondale, is he walking
the same way in his fight for the Indians?
The hon. Minister would be concerned
about housing and economic development,
training education and welfare. Are they all
behind him and working with him? When
he puts those walk-in freezers in, and I com-
mend him for it, did the other hon. Ministers
know what he was doing?
Last year he told me that there was going
to be this co-operation, in fact when I asked
him about it last year he said they just had a
meeting three hours ago and I expected, be-
cause I sat on a committee which he chaired,
and I waited patiently and anxiously during
the session to hear him come out and say this
is what we achieved. It was not until this
year that we heard the hon. Minister of Pub-
lic Welfare come out with a statement, and it
seemed to me the initiative of making the
statement came from him but the initiative of
the policy came from the federal government.
I may be wrong about the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands
and Forests): Let me interrupt the hon.
leader of the Opposition for just a moment.
There has been a committee working with
the federal government on this for the last 12
months or more and I do not think my hon.
friend, in his criticism of this government,
wants to detract from that work by trying to
build the federal people up as though they
were the great white father in this matter. I
think that will not help them any, as he
knows from his own experience in Kenora.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I would say, sir, that
in any help that he can get in this province
in welfare and in other work, I am right
behind him. I am not trying to deter him at
all. I simply make the remark about the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare because I noticed
that he was up at a conference about a
month ago—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: The hon. Minister of
Public Welfare is chairman of the committee.
Mr. Thompson: It was a welfare conference
and I always seem to hear what Quebec is
saying. On this occasion the Quebec spokes-
man had come out about family allowances
and the hon. Minister of Public Welfare—
I think this describes his philosophy, I am
sure hon. members will agree with me— up
there with people bringing forth stimulating
ideas, with our Ontario representatives to the
fore, when one of the newspaper men asked:
"How do you feel about this?" said in reply,
and I think this is his philosophy and perhaps
that of most of the provinces: If you do not
say anything then you agree. It is rather a
passive approach, I think, but he was quoted
in that way.
May I say, sir, that the problem of co-
ordination is quite clear to us. I am going to
read an excerpt from Professor Ralph
Krueger's speech because I think it is worth
repeating every year until we see that some-
thing is done. This was the speech to the
regional conferences, and this is why I hope
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forest did not
think I had no reason to be alarmed. I was
concerned because this is what he says about
co-ordination by departments:
Generally, each department has limited
its administrative region for its own specific
purpose without regard to regions of other
departments.
This is Professor Krueger at a conference
called by the government at which a number
of us attended. He goes on:
The basis for delimiting administrative
regions has varied from department to de-
partment. In some cases the regions have
been delimited on the basis of physical
geography. The Department of Agriculture
has used the county as its basic adminis-
trative limit. Other regional boundar-
ies have been chosen arbitrarily in order
to divide the province into areas with ap-
proximately equal amounts of administra-
tive work.
For still others, there is a limitation of
regional units which seems to have been
made on an ad hoc basis, which is difficult
to explain. The situation produced by a
large number of different sized regions
whose boundaries do not coincide has been
further complicated by the introduction of
a multiplicity of sub-regions and districts
generally arrived at in the same haphazard
manner. The net result is an apparent
maze of administrative regions and districts
that often cut across basic statistical data
gathering units, such as counties and town-
ships, thus making it difficult to analyze
trends in resource use and economic de-
velopment and difficult to formulate and
implement planning and economic policy.
And he goes on:
After reviewing the provincial regional
administrative organization one is led to
the conclusion that when confronted with
an outmoded municipal structure the gov-
ernment of Ontario in the place of the
needed basic reorganization of that struc-
ture superimposed upon it a whole new
108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and complicated set of administrative
regions. This expedient has in turn created
a fundamental impediment to rational
planning of resource use and economic
development.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have
a real job on our hands to unravel the utter
administrative confusion which this govern-
ment has let pile up. Before I go into
regional development I would like to talk
briefly about one approach which I think
should be considered by the hon. Minister of
Labour and I am talking about the need for
a consensus.
I go back again to the difficulty in our
society today in getting a feeling by the
people that they can participate in making
decisions. That is my main point. I raised
the aspect of a Confederation committee
other than for one party, for the government
party, so that we can get dialogue and parti-
cipation.
Now I want to talk about a labour-manage-
ment forum. I know that this has been
brought to the hon. Minister before. I am
aware of the difficulty. A previous leader of
my party had often tried to push this idea to
the attention of the government. Of course,
there are difficulties in getting unions and
management to think on a province-wide
basis; the difficulty of representation, for
example. Can the Canadian chamber of
commerce representatives speak for the in-
dustries? Can the Ontario federation of
labour speak for individual unions? Yet, sir,
I think that we should try this. I am sure
the hon. Minister is aware that in Nova
Scotia, where there has been a start in some
way—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
I am away ahead of the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: May I say I would be in-
terested in knowing something further on
this, because as a result of what he is doing,
I think there are a number of questions that
have to be discussed. For example, Medi-
care, Canada pension plan. How do we relate
these programmes— and there will be more
—to wages and benefits?
It is not sufficient— let me take the Canada
pension plan— it is not sufficient for some
autocrat to be saying to unions, which have
been negotiating and feel they have the right
to be making decisions with management, for
some autocrat to come along and say, "You
integrate, you must integrate." That situa-
tion might not have happened if we had a
forum for management and labour called by
government.
I regret that almost at the deadline of
January 1, it appeared that the hon. Minister
responsible had not got around and talked to
the people who were involved in this situa-
tion. We have seen where the President of
the United States has also stepped on the
other side into the steel industry and told
them for the sake of the dangers of inflation
that they hold the line.
Yet instead of the big stick of government
being used, if you could have a forum with
representatives of labour and management,
you could call experts and academics, so that
at least they could discuss their challenges
and aspirations.
It would seem to me that Professor Arthurs
put it well when he said there are no occa-
sions beyond the crises produced by collec-
tive bargaining or controversial legisla-
tive proposals for the exchange of views.
Thus there is no accumulation of goodwill
that stems from familiarity and respect upon
which the parties may draw on difficult times.
I know it is not right to refer to Sweden
or to West Germany because the situation is
completely different, but I do say that in
Ontario we could show an example of the
type of co-operation which later, I think,
should be developed in Ottawa.
May I turn to another area in which I feel
that we have to draw people into taking part
in making decisions; and this is in the area
of agriculture. I have excellent advisers;
the hon. Prime Minister referred to one
adviser. May I say I have a team of advisers
behind me, and in the area of agriculture I
have a number of thoroughly capable men
who know how this province should develop
agricultural policies.
An hon. member: They are not advisers,
they are trying to get your job.
Mr. Thompson: One of the things in our
party is that we have areas that we can see
over the years that should be promoted. I
look back in agriculture to statements made
in the press several years ago, and I still think
that the same things hold true for today.
They were made by the former member for
Brant.
The Ontario agriculture marketing com-
mittee—and I am sorry the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) is not here, I un-
derstand he is in a snow storm— the Ontario
agricultural marketing committee in 1961
stated that the only significant and chronic
surplus being produced in Ontario agriculture
is farm people.
JANUARY 31, 1966
109
The farmer has been the first to sense the
bitterness and also the advantages of auto-
mation, and I spent last summer meeting with
representatives of agriculture and going out
to farms. I have been up in Nipissing and
gone out to the farm areas, and I feel that
when we have an agricultural revolution the
government has neither laid long-term plans
or thought of the aftermath which takes place
with the revolution in agriculture, the after-
math of people who are stranded.
I say this because in the 1961 census it
showed that there were 121,000 farms— and
I admit they included residential units and
part-time farmers— but 30,000 farms sold less
than $1,200 worth of produce annually and
20,000 sold less than $2,500.
I am aware that the farmers of Ontario
are prosperous on the whole. This province
leads all others in the value of farm products,
but in 1964 the sale of farm products was
$996 million; it may be $1 billion. So look-
ing at it from the sale of products one may
feel that the farmers are prosperous. But as
you look at it more fully you realize that
from 1952 to 1964 the income dipped $432
million to $345 million.
Operating costs as a percentage of cash
farm receipts in Ontario rose from 48 per
cent between 1951 to 1954, to 66 per cent be-
tween 1962 and 1964. And that is the cost-
price squeeze. Sure, we can say in one index
that the farmers are prosperous but as we
look at the cost-price squeeze, we realize that
this is just a facade.
Marketing changes are worrying the
farmer. An estimated 80 per cent of food sales
in Ontario are now controlled by super-
markets or by stores which go in for group-
buying. Economists say that this trend— and
it is narrowing the farmer's choice of
market— will continue.
Let me say that when we look at that
situation and we see what the government is
doing to help the farmer— with the threat of
marketing being narrowed into monopolies,
with the cost-price squeeze, with the cost of
equipment rising— we find that in Quebec—
and I think this is very significant— in Quebec
the agricultural budget for the current fiscal
year is about four times that of Ontario.
We find that in ARDA, a programme which
is helping communities to help themselves,
we find that Ontario spending has been about
one-fifth of that of Quebec.
I was interested in looking at the prelimin-
ary report of rural poverty in four selected
areas. And I thought to myself as I listened to
the hon. Minister of Agriculture that surely
they will not be able to pick out any areas
in Ontario; there will be no areas here where
there is stark poverty. And yet I find there is
a whole selected study in one area, Lanark.
It could have been the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's area— he woke up suddenly to
realize his constituents were not looked after
as well as he thought they were and they
could move into many other areas around
this province. This is the kind of case study
that they sketch. I will read this; it is called
Family A.
Mr. and Mrs. A. and their two sons live
in a hundred-year-old house that is in fair
condition. It has room heaters and a kitchen
stove. Water is brought in from an outdoor
hand pump; there is no bath or indoor
toilet; the family has no electricity, tele-
vision or refrigerator.
And it goes on to say that the nearest doctor
and hospital are 13 miles away, the high
school 13 miles, and the primary school one
mile. Another interviewer spoke to Mr. and
Mrs. B. and describes them in the same light:
The B's have twelve children at home
ranging from eight months to 15 years.
Five children are away from home. The
family live in a converted railway station
that is in fair condition. Heating is by
space heater and a kitchen stove supple-
mented by an electric cooker. Water is
taken from a hand pump outdoors and there
is an outdoor toilet. The parents have
always lived in the country. Their home
is on the second and third floors; they
have spent $1,400 on repairs.
Mr. B. said they needed $1,400 more.
I can go through a number of these, as you
can see, Mr. Speaker. There is a whole
documentation of poverty in Ontario.
Let me submit: I believe that the gov-
ernment should be taking a co-ordinated
approach towards agriculture. The hon. mem-
ber for Brant (Mr. Nixon) and others have
said that the hon. Minister of Agriculture
seems to get aroused only when a crisis takes
place, and then he has a kind of patchwork
approach. He has a bandage which he applies
to part of the problem, rather than looking at
the bloodstream which is out of order. The
government has to start talking with farmers.
Let me say one thing I noticed when we
were up in Nipissing. The hon. Minister of
Agriculture went up and the people were
delighted to see him. They thought it was
great that they had finally come face to face
with him. But, you know, they made a mis-
take. They thought that, having met him once,
after the election was over they could still
110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
come down to talk to him about their prob-
lems of crop insurance, and he would still
be the same accessible and friendly fellow.
Well, they came down; they came down
with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr.
Smith); drove down in the early morning,
excited that they were going to come into the
great presence of the hon. Minister af Agri-
culture. At noon we arranged to get some
sandwiches for them, and we tried to explain
to them that they should face a deflation of
spirit, that they were not going to see him.
As a practice he does not see farmers. I heard
of one group who have not seen him for six
months. He has got to start meeting the
farmers in order to know the problems of this
province.
I think there is a question of looking at the
marketing boards, a thorough examination,
to see what is needed, whether there is a
loophole for these marketing boards to work
more efficiently. I think we have to look at
alternatives to farm employment; we have
got to look at the various insurance and sub-
sidy programmes to be overhauled. We
know that at present there are farmers who
live on depreciation of capital, and we know
there are others who are victims of the so-
called cheap food policy.
I may say that when I was talking first,
and giving the example of the amount of
food that is produced, I heard the remarks
of the hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party. One thing I was interested in, when
reading about Tommy Douglas in one of the
weekly papers, was the description of a very
fine intellectual, Fred Young, who has now
moved out to BC. He had mentioned—
An hon. member: Fred Young?
Mr. Thompson: Fred Young.
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not confuse
us a bit more and—
Mr. Thompson: I will get the quote on it.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the hon. leader
of the Opposition actually means Walter
Young.
Mr. Thompson: All right, Walter Young,
then.
An hon. member: The Young boy.
Mr. Thompson: He had moved out to BC
and he was describing the new point of
approach to farmers and labour and he said,
"Forget the farmers"— I will paraphrase it a
bit but I will get the exact sense: Forget the
farmers, we will concentrate on the labour
unions.
Mr. MacDonald: That is what the Liberals
and Tories do— forget the farmers.
Mr. Thompson: I do not think it was Fred,
but it was certainly one of the higher echelon
of the New Democratic Party.
An hon. member: We will return to the
unions now. That is where the money is.
Mr. Thompson: I want to get back again
to the patchwork development across this
province. I have talked of the need for a
consensus of approach in labour; I have
pointed out that there are areas of poverty in
agricultural areas, and I come back to the
approach of regional development. I want
to say that 40 per cent of the families in the
counties of Bruce and Haliburton have
annual incomes of less than $3,000, and ten
per cent of the families in the counties of
Peel and Halton have incomes under that
figure. Last year I supplied figures; the
approach we have is of giving average statis-
tics, so that in this province we have got to
look at each region and examine it to see the
inequalities that exist.
Look at the birth rate. I want to hit at
this again. In Middlesex county there are
16 to 25 deaths per thousand; in Prescott-
Russell there are 26 to 35 deaths per thous-
and; in Glengarry there are 36 to 45 deaths
per thousand, in childbirth. And there is a
relationship here to services which govern-
ment should be providing. In Middlesex
there are 6.6 active treatment beds per
thousand; in Prescott-Russell it is 1.5 beds
per thousand. It is clear that there has got
to be a concerted approach on the part of
government in developing regions.
Our concern, and it is a very real concern,
is that you see only one department doing a
little bit on this. We read about the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs having nine
studies going for regional administration, and
then we hear that the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation has moved into the consolidated
schools, according to certain regions which
he has defined. We hear that the hon. Minis-
ter of Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman) has
started to get larger jail units. We see that
the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management has started to move about filling
land, and is moving into the sewerage area.
We see that the hon. Minister of Health is
off in his area setting up health units; and
the hon. Minister of Public Welfare has got
a couple of units set up, broader regional
JANUARY 31, 1966
111
units. The hon. Provincial Treasurer, the
man who would give substance to all these
services, so that the municipalities could be
developing them, you do not hear much of
him in the picture.
It is for these reasons that we feel— instead
of nibbling around the subject, hearing that
there is going to be a little bit more that one
department will do, or that another depart-
ment is going to do— that today this govern-
ment has got to take a concerted approach
towards regional development. They came
on Metro, but only when there was a crisis;
then the hon. Prime Minister stepped in and
we hear from the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs and from others that we will get a
decision from the people themselves— they
will be formulating voluntarily to see what
kind of regions they should have.
It is becoming more apparent that the gov-
ernment wants consultation from the people,
but I am sure that even though it has made
compromise upon compromise, I am sure that
if it had left this up to the local municipali-
ties around Metro, and told them, "Well, you
straighten this out yourselves," that it would
have got nowhere. I think, similarly, if we
talk of regional government, as we have these
regional conferences, that today the people
are asking for leadership from the govern-
ment, and co-ordinated leadership. It is
going to require tough decisions because
some small municipal reeve may be offended
but it is going to require decisions, and this
is what the people are wanting today.
One of the dreams, sir, which our party
has, when we speak of regional government,
is that we will see a pattern across this prov-
ince. We read of planners who envisage—
if action was only taken— concerted action on
the part of the government, planners who
envisage an approach that could be de-
veloped. What kind of benefits? We could
see the Bruce Trail, winding from Niagara
north, becoming a provincial park. We could
see the Niagara fruit area being used to its
best abilities, its best resources. We could
see the Muskoka area as a region there for
planning camping for tourists, hunters, as one
of the large areas in which to go out and
relax. Similarly in Bancroft, and Renfrew and
Madoc; these areas could be set aside for
tourists, for lumbering and for other busi-
nesses close to Montreal, to Toronto and to
Ottawa.
In our cities, if we could get more courage
on the part of this government, we could see
cities with treed walkways, great cultural
centres with an ethos; cities with under-
ground traffic.
I do not see these now. What I see is
drabness and really, in many ways, cheapness.
We see our rivers and our lakes polluted.
We see filth and open sewage in many of
the rivers where once they were catching
salmon.
And we see, sir, a sprawl spreading out from
cities. In areas where people could be
proud, if we had leadership, we see slums
which are sucking the vitality of these great
cities of which we should be proud. We see
suburbs that have been built without parks;
the only recreation is a commercial shopping
centre which closes down at night.
We look at our Great Lakes in Ontario
and we think of Niagara Falls through to
Oshawa. One Minister told us that we
would have beaches there, it would be like
the Riveria. Now it is littered and filthy and
we see the people on the weekends trying
to get out of this concrete suburbia in which
they live with car behind car pushing farther
north, trying to avoid the signs which say,
Water polluted.
We can do better than this, in Ontario
if there were planning and concerted action
and concern. And the people want this. The
people of Ontario today want to look up,
they want to have something bigger than the
humdrum existence they have.
I remember being out in the Red River
area and I talked to an old man who was
there. He lived in a small community and
there was a large cathedral in the community
that towered over all the small houses. I
asked him: "Did you play a part in that?"
He said: "I helped to pay for it and I worked
to build it." He said it meant there was some-
thing worthwhile in his life, something far
bigger than himself.
Now if this government could only catch
the feeling that people want; they want
something of that spirit in Ontario. And what
do we get? We get compromise and com-
promise. We get a little bit done here by one
Minister, a little bit done by another; and a
bit of nervousness when they are going to
move in towards some regional area. The
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions tells us
to keep quiet about this, he is going to sort
of negotiate the thing.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): All right, I did it.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, he did, but it was him
alone doing it. Why not be bold and imagina-
tive and say we will all work together under
the leadership of the hon. Prime Minister to
get this job over, and tear down those old
buildings we have?
112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. Prime Minister talks about evolu-
tion rather than revolution and I would sug-
gest to him that he should recognize that
with this great social revolution taking place
today, this agricultural revolution, then this
term evolution really is not terribly dynamic,
it is not terribly challenging. It describes
to me a kind of boredom or caution, over-
caution, with the changes that are taking
place in our society.
Another challenge we have is in the field
of health. I talk again about a consensus by
people and people working together.
I have been reading this summer about the
background of Ontario. I just finished reading
The Tiger, which I commend to hon. mem-
bers. I mentioned this before. It is about a
member for the Bruce peninsula, a very
glamorous and dynamic person. We have
an hon. member ourselves who is carrying
on in this tradition.
Let me say that the tradition in Ontario
has been that men and women in carving out
their frontier homes have worked together
to help each other. Where something was too
much for one individual then the whole com-
munity got together in a bee to give him a
hand. I think that is a great tradition which
we have.
In a sense we still have this. The hon. mem-
ber for Forest Hill emphasized that freedom
is not absolute, that there is an interdepend-
ence amongst men and women. Well, there
is an interdependence about health. There
has developed a tradition that in the building
of hospitals, no one man or woman can build
a hospital today, a modern hospital, alone.
We get the community together; we work
together to provide help.
Let me say no one man or woman can pay
for a university to train a doctor with the
skills that are needed and the modern research
that has to be brought forward. In that same
tradition of frontier days, Mr. Speaker, we
work together to develop the means of teach-
ing doctors.
In many cases in society there are those
who cannot afford— although taxes are paid
for the hospital facilities and after taxes
have paid for the training of doctors— they
cannot afford to use those services, they find
that this is prohibitive. It is for that reason
that the hon. Minister of Health has been
so proud of hospital insurance in which a
group of 15 or more have to belong to the
hospital insurance of the province, so that a
group helps to pay for the individual who is
weak, or sick, or infirm. Groups working in
industry on the whole are healthy, they are
better risks.
What has this government done now? It
destroyed this collective approach to respon-
sibility. It destroyed a pride which most of
the people of Ontario have in wanting to
band together to do their share of helping
each other.
What is the government saying with its
government approach to medical insurance?
It is saying we will take individuals, and if
you look at the record of PSI, individuals in
many cases are the dangerously ill people, the
poor risks. They are not in a group, they are
not working with General Electric or some-
where. They are going to be taken over by
the government and the healthy and the good
risks are going to be free for the insurance
company, the commercial efforts, to handle.
Well, we fight against that! I am not going
to develop this much further because we have
a bill coming before the House, but I want to
say very firmly and strongly that my party is
for a universal, government-sponsored system
of medical insurance throughout this province.
While I am on it I would like to talk about
the foreign doctors for a moment. The hon.
Minister of Health is on the board of directors
of the college of physicians and surgeons.
This government gives the charter to the
college of physicians and surgeons, and yet for
some reason we feel we cannot ask explana-
tions of the college of physicians and sur-
geons. I am looking forward to getting an
answer from the hon. Minister of Health on
why there are certain foreign doctors who
have been barred from practising in Ontario.
The only answer that we have had so far
from the hon. Minister of Health, who has
been in touch with the college of physicians
and surgeons, the only answer is they did not
have adequate undergraduate training, even
though they are recognized in the United
States and in great universities such as Edin-
burgh and others, even though they teach in
our universities, doctors who are going to
move out and practise themselves cannot
practise even though, in some cases, they are
actually chief interns in a hospital.
And then the question is asked: With this
shifting decision that is made by the college
of physicians and surgeons, has it always
been from this particular undergraduate
school that you would not accept people to
practise in this province? And we find out
that for a number of years there have been
doctors who have graduated from these uni-
versities' undergraduate schools who have
come over here, and who are now prominent
men and women in the field of medicine here;
but for some reason the college of physicians
and surgeons has decided now that the
JANUARY 31, 1966
113
undergraduate training of these new people
■coming in is not satisfactory.
There is a variety of the most weak and
fatuous excuses being made, and this is when
a government should step in and not be afraid
•of big institutions. They should step into the
area and demand from the college of physi-
cians and surgeons what their reasons for this
are. And we ask the hon. Minister of Health
to start assuming some of his responsibilities.
AVe demand of him an answer on this
I question.
So I look at the need for collective ap-
proaches in this province. I realize that there
are a number of areas where, if we can stir
up excitement in recognizing the dynamic
development of our province, we would then
get after some of these services, and an under-
standing of what is needed in order to con-
tinue these years of abundance.
One of the concerns is, of course, with
labour. The hon. Minister of Labour is not
here, but I notice that in the Speech from the
Throne there was mention made of counsel-
lors. This is something— as there are in other
parts in that Speech from the Throne— that we
push for; there has been a need for a bureau
of statistics. We are not narrow in this thing;
we are glad that we brought forward ideas
and that the government is taking them.
There certainly has been a need to get
counsellors who are going to advise young
people and others concerning vocational train-
ing, concerning job opportunities. More and
more today, with the mobility that we have,
we need to get fast information, we need to
get help in moving workers, we need to get
counselling. And I want to talk of the work-
ing man for a moment in this period of
abundance.
I have a little office, Mr. Speaker, in my
riding, which I still maintain. One thing that
Teally irritates me in this great abundant
province is when I see a man come into my
office, a family man, a man who wants to
work, but a man who, because of some tra-
gedy at work has suffered some kind of
infirmity and is given some compensation;
and he is told, "You can go out and do light
work." I have a number who come to the
office; they may have a wife and a couple of
children, and I see them come there, asking,
""Can you help me to get some work? I want
to do anything but I can't do heavy work."
I ask them, "Well, is there any opportunity
of light work? What about retraining for
you?" But he cannot get anything in this
day and age. In this wealthy province there
are too many rejects who are not being given
opportunities, and I am looking forward to
the debate on workmen's compensation for
we will come forward with very strong criti-
cism and very clear ideas. Because we are
dealing with the dignity of people; and I,
personally, have looked in the eyes of too
many of them whom I have seen crushed and
defeated because of the lack of a proper
interpretation of retraining men who have
suffered injuries at their work.
The hon. Minister of Labour has talked of
the blueprint for labour and I want to, in
this area, say that there is again overlapping
and confusion. The hon. Minister of Labour
looks after apprenticeship; the hon. Minister
of Education looks after vocational centres,
institutes of trade, technological schools,
community colleges; and the hon. Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) looks after COSTI.
Men and women are wanting to get re-
training; they recognize the need for it in
this abundant society; and yet, in an exam-
ination of Ontario and the Ontario working
force, we find that people do not know, that
there is a general lack of public knowledge,
about training programmes available. That,
by the way, is stated in the economic coun-
cil's review on sustained and balanced eco-
nomic growth.
What is needed, with the mobility of
labour today in this great industrial province,
is a manpower agency which is more than
a placement service, important as that func-
tion is; it should be a key operation agency
for implementing manpower policies and it
should be the sole co-ordinating agency for
all policies and programmes relating to the
labour market.
I am afraid that year after year we have
pushed on this, and we will in this one as
well, and we will in some more until we get
this government out of office.
Let me now turn to religion and educa-
tion. It interests me, in this whole education
field, that the hon. Minister, whom we
thought was so dynamic and driving, when
you look more closely into it you find he is
contaminated with the same disease as many
others. He believes in evolution rather than
revolution, social revolution, in this fast-
moving economy of ours.
What about community colleges? I have
travelled around this province and I realize
that many communities are looking to these
colleges as the hope for their young people.
They have looked to the hon. Minister of
Education to give some new thrusts to the
lives of these young people by setting up
these colleges, and yet we find that despite
all the plans for an announcement, and the
seeming haste in which a development was
114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
going to take place, the board of regents
were only appointed a few weeks ago. May
I say this council or board— the point is they
were only appointed a few weeks ago— is a
terminal approach. I know the hon. Minister
hates that term, but there is terminal educa-
tion for a number of our young people unless
something is done very quickly about these
community colleges.
There are fourth year arts and science
students who are fooled, who have been
misled. They are not sure where they are
going to go, and it is all because they were
assured there would be community colleges
which would be developed and that they
would advance into these.
Oh, we will probably get a crash pro-
gramme. That has been the situation in edu-
cation for teachers, training and so on; and
yet if a government had the idea of looking
at methods of forecasting needs, I cannot
think of anything more simple that can be
forecast than the needs of our young popula-
tion in education— knowing there is a certain
age group that will go into certain institu-
tions and so on, and to plan for that. But,
as far as community colleges go, this council
of regents are going to have to work with
greater haste or else we are going to have
a disappointment for many young people.
What about educational TV? Last year
we heard how we were going to have a
private television station on UHF. We have
heard nothing of this— although we have
been looking for it. I understand they put a
programme on at some unseemly hour in the
morning and that is all that it is.
What about teachers' training? We badly
need to get teachers' training upgraded. We
look at BC, we look at Alberta. What do we
find? A committee has been set up.
What do we find about grade 13? I asked
the hon. Minister what was the situation
about grade 13. We have seen this has been
before a committee and then before an im-
plementation committee. There is confusion
throughout this province about it and we
ask whether in the province's estimates we
will have a decision and we are not even
assured of that.
A competent educator, and one whom I
respect greatly, has said that in the first six
years of schooling in this province children
are only working 40 per cent of the time.
Surely that would be something that would
cause concern and be worthy of examination.
In this situation we have again a committee;
we do not know when it is going to report
to us and so on. ......
We do not know what the community
college portends, what its purpose is going to-
be, but we have a very strong suspicion from
the name schools of applied arts and tech-
nology.
I say, sir, that if the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation has weakened because of the pressure
of some people who are trying to advise him,
who call themselves intellectual aristocrats, if
he is being flattered by them and being
weakened by them, he is going to make these
colleges into really a glorified trade school.
If he is doing that it is going to mean that he
believes in terminal education, because even
industry is saying that. What is needed by
young people moving into industry is a broad
background. They are going to have to re-
train probably three times in their lifetime
and they need a broad background in order
that they can adjust to particular training and
industry wants to do the training itself.
The other reason, of course, is more a
spiritual one. It is really more a reflection of
what one thinks the purpose of education is.
Do hon. members think education is just the
learning of some narrow skill or do they think
it is the learning of values, of the nature of
our society, to have a philosophy?
I would suggest that if the hon. Minister
of Education is going to make the community
colleges trade colleges, then, sir, he is indi-
cating to us once again where we differ from
the Conservatives. He is thinking of an
aristocrat or an elite group in society. We
like to fight for an egalitarian approach to
education.
There are many other areas in education
which will be developed, because we are
concerned that there is not equal opportunity.
This is just a nice fancy slogan that is thrown
around the place.
We are concerned about opportunity
classes. We are concerned about the cultur-
ally deprived children. With the Robarts
scheme grade 8, at age 14, is going to be
singled out and shuffled one way or the other.
Yet we see that there are many children from
poor homes who will take a number of years
to catch up to the background which other
children have. There are many children from
new Canadian homes who have language
difficulty and if we have a cut-off period that
is too soon we might just be continuing a
class structure. God forbid we have that in
this society, but hon. members opposite may
be doing that, for they really have not had
the chance, by grade 8, to develop them-
selves fully. It is to help them in this, so
they get a firm, equal start with the others,
JANUARY 31, 1966
115
that there should be a hard look at having
junior kindergartens.
Another area, of course, is in Toronto. I
must congratulate the Toronto board of
education for the programme they have de-
veloped for the physically handicapped and
emotionally handicapped. They have moved
into word blindness and a number of other
areas. Yet we have to expand this equality
throughout the province.
When I was in the north this summer I
went into a home where there was a young
citizen of Ontario who has a problem of co-
ordination in seeing. I have heard he could
get help in Toronto. There are facilities for
helping to teach such a young person in
Toronto. But his lot, because he lives out-
side of Toronto and in the north, is that
he just sits in a rocking chair on the verandah
and becomes more like a vegetable in this
society.
There is no question that the poor child—
and I come back again to the aspect of
the need for opportunity classes— there is
no question that the poor child does not
have the same advantages and the same
incentives to carry on in education. One
out of every two young people aged 19 to
25 whose parents earn $7,000 or more are
attending day school or university; and one
out of every five or six children of 19 to 25
of those who earn $4,000 or less are still
studying. In other words, two young people
in the 19 to 25 group, if their parents are
$7,000 or over, and only one out of every
five or six of the same group with $4,000 a
year— 30 per cent of the labour force.
The reason I am mentioning this is to indi-
cate the fact that the unskilled worker's
children obviously have less chance or less
incentive to take education, and I just point to
statistics on this. Thirty per cent of the labour
force is skilled or unskilled and only 15 per
cent of their children are in the final year of
high school. An educator estimates that of
the 50,000 to 61,000 teen-age pupils who
were dropouts between 1963 and 1964, that
of that large number, those thousands, were
born of parents with incomes below $5,000.
In short, what he is saying is that 80 per
cent of teen-age education leavers— people
who drop out-80 per cent of them, in 1963
to 1964, belonged to a lower income group.
The children of the poor income group are
not getting the same satisfaction, the same
incentive, the same thrust, to go on in educa-
tion as the richer group. Our concern in this
is because we could perpetuate an economic
class structure unless we open the opportu-
nity for education to everyone.
Let me come back to the new Canadian
child, the child who has come over with his
parents in the hope that this will be a new
world of opportunity for him. Here we find
in the area of school children— and this is
from the international institute of Metro-
politan Toronto— in the area of school chil-
dren under 16 there is an urgent necessity
for the newcomer to learn English as quickly
as possible to get skills for the new society.
Yet we find that the international institute
says that there is a real difficulty for many of
these people to get such English teaching.
The programmes now available for this age
group are very lean, says the international
institute, and many newcomers are suffering
from this neglect in terms of their educational
prospects.
We go on down the line to the emotionally
disturbed child, to the handicapped child, and
we find again that there is not an equality of
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. There are great
gaps in this whole area. We thought the hon.
Minister of Education would give a new drive
to education in this province. Frankly, as we
read the papers, we realize that he is provid-
ing a muddying of the waters and a confusion
for many of the young people.
What is the future? Mr. Speaker, you have
a background in education and I ask you this
rhetorically. What would you do if you were
teaching a group of young people who had
taken— and let me tell you there are 5,000 of
these young people who have taken four
years of arts and science courses— and then
they are told that it is going to be very diffi-
cult for them to transfer into a fifth-year
course and that there will not be community
colleges for them? The five-year students had
to take new maths. The fourth-year students
did not and because of this it is virtually
impossible for them to proceed further. They
have been told that there would be new
avenues for them and they are feeling that
someone is misdirecting them.
I suggest that there is a muddle in grade
13. We asked the hon. Minister about this
when we read that two universities were now
permitting students, admittedly a small and
sample number of them, to move into their
universities with grade 12. But there is some-
thing wrong in the administration here. Last
year there were 12,000 appeals from the final
examinations— 12,000!
There is muddle and confusion. I know
some young people who are thinking: "Well,
next year we will not have any grade 13; we
will stay out of school for a year, it is a tough
and hard exam."
It is up to the hon. Minister of Education
116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to come forward and to come forward soon
with a declaration of what is going to be
done, and that is why we are pressing him
on this.
We often listen to representatives from the
other side tell us that education in this prov-
ince is ahead in Canada and ahead in the
world. I only wish I could say that. The
Economic Council of Canada's report says
that Ontario is lagging behind B.C. and
Alberta, and is far behind the U.S. Within
our boundaries, equality of education is
meaningless. I refer to Helen Lang, who is
senior economic adviser to The Department
of Economics and Development— and I am
sure she is a very capable lady if she works
with the hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment (Mr. Randall) and we can take
her words as being sound and knowledgeable.
An hon. member: I would require—
Mr. Thompson: Well, perhaps we should at
that. I have this quote from her; it says:
If we are to ensure a high level of edu-
cation we must improve the availability in
remote areas of our province.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We are now.
Mr. Thompson: Well, when are they going
to go about it?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have been doing it
for years.
Mr. Thompson: Then why does she say
this, of this year, in her report?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: She is looking for
more improvements.
Mr. Thompson: In the northwest part of
this province and in the northeast section of
the province, to give a breakdown on this,
13.5 per cent and 10.8 per cent of the popu-
lation have less than elementary education.
Yet when we take the area around London,
the figure is 3.4 per cent of the population; in
comparison with 13.5 and 10.8 in the north-
west and the northeast area.
Now I know that London has many great
advantages— there are educated people— but
we would hope that this could spread
throughout the province. What are they
doing in order to help outside areas? Let me
just take Frontenac county. In Frontenac
county there are no kindergartens, there are
no special classes for the slow learner or for
the exceptional child, there is no guidance in
the school system, there is no library or
bookmobiles. The rural child is very clearly
neglected.
Mr. Singer: And the government has been
doing it for years, as the hon. Prime Minister
says.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I could take
the area of welfare. This is in this land of
abundance. I am showing these cracks that
take place, and frankly the only conclusion I
can come to is that, first, there is not a co-
ordinated approach, a concerted approach;
and, secondly, there is rather a bored attitude
about it; as you look at the area of educa-
tion, a satisfaction.
I noticed you all cheered when I said
that Ontario leads in the world— as the gov-
ernment usually says, and yet when it is
pointed out to you that there are serious
gaps, serious lacks of opportunity in areas of
this province, the hon. Prime Minister tells
me, Well, we have been doing this for years.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I said that
we have been improving the situation for
years and any examination of the record will
prove what I say to be correct.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I am sorry I did not
catch that the hon. Prime Minister said they
had been improving for years, but I would
say that they have got to make much greater
improvements. We are coming up each year
to point out that there are still great gaps
in regional development in this province.
I want to list these areas which we push
for. I picked them out because of the debate
in the last session and I want now to move
into the welfare area.
We find there, for example, that there is a
real need for supervised day-care centres in
order that working mothers will be able
to have their children looked after. And I
remember in the debate last year on this,
people said the mother's place is in the home
and so on. Well, I spent the summer meeting
a number who very definitely feel that they
ought to be at home but they have to have
day-care centres for their children because
they have to work.
There is a need for the Indians and I come
back to this, there is a need for an aggressive,
hard approach on the part of this govern-
ment to help the Indians to help themselves.
I was glad to hear in the Throne speech that
the hon. Minister of Health is now moving
into the area of nursing homes, to set certain
standards for provincial nursing homes.
Last year we raised this; I visited nursing
homes and we read in the paper of old people
being shuffled off into nursing homes. I
spoke to an association of nursing homes
JANUARY 31, 1966
117
and as I was speaking, a newspaper reporter
said he was being called out because of the
maltreatment of some old man in a nursing
home and he wanted to cover this case.
The hon. Prime Minister would say, Well,
we are improving. I would say when we think
of some of the situations which we permit
our people to endure, that we are far too lax
and indifferent about getting on with the
improving.
In mental health there are states which
are showing a new forward approach. I
was glad to read in the Globe and Mail this
morning of the approach towards mental
retardation, and the cottage atmosphere and
the development within a neighbourhood.
But I have seen, far too often I have seen,
people who are mentally ill; and I have seen
what facilities are open to them. I have
talked to men in the United States where
they have developed neighbourhood clinics,
and I have told them about the approach
on the part of this government where we
have people huddled into mental institutions
—and this has been a practice year after
year— and they are frankly shocked at our
treatment of people who are mentally ill.
I would suggest that, in this area— we
have talked about retardation— we start look-
ing with a far harder look at our whole ap-
proach towards mental health. There can be
preventive work done, there is no need for
large numbers to be placed in mental homes.
In the very first speech I made in this House
I had statistics from the welfare council of
Ontario describing the large number of old
people who were ending their twilight years
in the mental hospitals of this province be-
cause they had nowhere else to go.
Apart from this area of lack of concern
towards people, I think of the disinterest
of this province towards environment, which
again reflects on people. Air pollution: In the
area in which I live there are 740 tons of
grime falling annually. In Metropolitan To-
ronto, they are doing studies where they see
that people can no longer live, where they
say that it is a danger for the people to be
in the area.
Regarding our rivers— the hon. Minister of
Energy Resources and Management is not
here— we raise the serious problem of polluted
rivers, of polluted lakes. I know it is an
international question about Lake Erie. It
is a real cesspool. There are 2,000 square
miles of dead water in Lake Erie.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That description be-
longs to the hon. member for Bracondale.
Mr. Thompson: I am afraid it belongs to
Lake Erie; not only Lake Erie, but Lake
Ontario, and there are too many of these
areas. I remember that we asked the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment—and I appreciate he is back again-
last year about research. Perhaps I was
moved to do this, because of the hon. mem-
ber for Russell, who had told us that, in this
age, this government should find out what its
resources are, what the problem is, and then
it should be able to negotiate, either on a
national level or an international level, know-
ing what it has to do itself and knowing what
its problems are.
So I brought this up in the debate when
the hon. Minister was presenting his esti-
mates. And I recall him saying, "The trouble
with the leader of the Opposition is that
he goes after research, he is always after re-
search". And when we asked him about the
problems, the extent of pollution in this
province— believe me, it is going to be a
very real problem, unless something is done
about it— he told us, "I drive around," he said,
"and I see what is going on, there is no
need to worry."
Hon. Mr. Simonett: How about the re-
port; did the hon. leader of the Opposition
read it? If he did so, I think he would admit
that there has been a considerable amount
of work done on pollution throughout the
province.
Mr. Thompson: And we read the report
and that is why we were concerned. In the
report it said that there was a need for viral
studies and the report said that unfortu-
nately we do not have a virologist. I under-
stand you have now. The report said that
there was a very intensive study to be done
by a bacteriologist but unfortunately he left
and they had to wait for six months to get
another one. And we would hope that that
department is going to be much more aggres-
sive about getting facts of our water resources
and, secondly, at the extent of the problem.
And then you decide how you can deal with
the problem?
Last year the hon. Minister said that one
industry had been fined. One industry. And
yet we know of the extent of pollution that
is spewed out into the rivers and the lakes
around here. He had a study, in which, I
think, 344 industries were named offenders,
and yet we do not know up to this date how
far they are going in checking this. And may
I say that the people of Ontario are becoming
more and more concerned.
118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
: I was out in Peel on Saturday, talking
about this. They have a real problem. You
go out to Orleans, a small town outside
Ottawa— situated in this country which is
rich in its natural resources, in its water— and
what have they been doing for four years?
They have had to take water by truck, or
else they have to boil the water, while the
OWRC has been negotiating for four years.
In Peel, I talked to the people there, they
do not know how extensive the problem is
going to be, getting sewage facilities for their
people. The Credit River— one person in
Peel described it as an open sewer— could
be the most beautiful river.
Fines have to be brought into line with
the social cost. I think you have to move
further on this, on water pollution. I think
you have to go to the federal government
and tell them of this problem, and ask that
the federal sales tax should be taken off anti-
pollution equipment. Similarly, the provin-
cial government should be taking sales tax
off, and should be offering guaranteed low
interest rates.
This is a problem that demands a con-
certed approach by this government, by the
government in Ottawa, and by the munici-
palities. What I have been saying, Mr.
Speaker, is that we are enjoying today in
this province a period of abundance and that
this creates greater responsibility on govern-
ment. It creates great responsibilities on
government because, in a period of abund-
ance, there is all the more reason why gov-
ernment should be concerned that there are
not gaps— gaps of poverty and gaps of
neglect.
I am suggesting, sir, that this government
is permitting such gaps, whether with people
or regions, because we are not getting to-
gether in a concerted approach to analyze
our resources and go after the problem, Mr.
Speaker.
I am suggesting that this government has
become somewhat lax and bored in its gov-
erning, and I think that they have approached
the rights of the people with a feeling of
disregard and, in some cases, contempt. We
have seen, sir, in the last session, too many
times, the rights of the individual being
pushed around by the government.
At the opening of the session we were
talking about expropriation problems; men
who lived on their land and who had their
farms, and hoped they could go to their
member in order that they could argue
against an expropriation authority. Some
people may say that is a small point. To us
it is a vital point that people do not get
pushed around.
In the last session we read, and were
concerned about, a man who was put in a
mental institution, and who was fighting for
his freedom. Finally he achieved it, but it
was the principle that a free man could be
put there by the inactivity of government, and
left there, that worries us. And certainly we
see situations where there is a disregard to-
wards the investments of the people. We saw
Windfall; a crisis developed there and we
hear that the government is going to move
in in some area now.
What about Atlantic Acceptance? A crisis
development— so government is going to
move in somewhere. There is bankruptcy in
this province. I was interested to talk to the
hon. member for Sudbury and my hon.
colleague to my right about how active this
government was in pursuing and administrat-
ing its bankruptcy laws. I found that in com-
parison with the Vigorous approach taken by
Mr. Wagner we had only part-time staff on
this problem, and this is what concerns the
people. We have a government that seems
indifferent to governing and indifferent to
the rights of the people.
I could go on down the line. On work-
men's compensation in my own riding: This
is what gets people mad, when they see men
who want to work in order to keep a family,
who want some more retraining. People get
mad when we stand up before the hon.
Minister of Health and we ask him about the
need for hospital beds; and at times he tells
us there is no need for hospital beds and
yet we hear of people in this metropolitan
area who are desperate to get into hospital.
People get mad, Mr. Speaker, when they
think that there are Ministers of the Crown
who have got so far out of touch with
reality that they do not realize that they are
answerable to the people and that they think
it is cute to come in with great long epistles
and smother us with their verbosity. They
think this is cute.
May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the
people of Ontario are getting fed up—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: So are we.
Mr. Thompson: We are fed up with their
cuteness. It is for those reasons, because of
their neglect of vital areas and failure to give
an equality of opportunity to all the people
of the province, and because of their neglect
of the rights of the people that I move, sec-
onded by Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South), that
the motion moved by the hon. member for
JANUARY 31, 1966
119
Lambton West (Mr. Knox), be amended by
adding thereto the following words:
But that this House
1. Regrets the failure of the government
to protect the rights of the individual citi-
zen of the province of Ontario against the
ever-growing encroachment of the bureau-
cratic process;
2. Regrets that the government has de-
clined to co-operate with the federal gov-
ernment in the field of medical care and
has failed to provide a universal, compre-
hensive medical plan for all citizens of
Ontario;
3. Regrets the failure of the government
to provide equal educational opportunity
for all citizens of Ontario;
4. Deplores the attitude of the govern-
ment towards the rights of those who con-
tribute to the greatness of the province
through their labour and deprives them of
using the collective bargaining process to
improve their pension plans;
.5. Regrets the failure of the govern-
ment to ensure that the farmer receives his
equitable share of the fruits of the abun-
dant economy;
6. Regrets the government's neglect in
having failed to take the necessary steps
to bring into existence effective regional
government;
7. Deplores the neglect of the govern-
ment toward the pressing needs of the
northern part of our province and its failure
to take positive action to develop a varied
economy in that important area;
8. Recommends that in view of the
failure of the Fulton-Favreau formula for
the amendment of The British North
America Act to win universal acceptance in
Canada, that the government place in the
hands of an all-party committee the prob-
lem of devising a scheme of repatriation
and amendment of our Constitution, which
committee would avail itself of the assis-
tance of the Ontario advisory committee.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I feel a
little overwhelmed at the moment. The
sweep of that amendment is so great that I
feel that I should take an overnight period
to examine what, if anything, is left out of it.
Mr. MacDonald moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Rob arts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will proceed with this debate. p
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.45 o'clock, p.m.
No. 6
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 1, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Trice per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 1, 1966
Liability on parents for damages caused by the tortious acts of their children, bill to
impose, Mr. Peck, first reading 123
Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Renwick, first reading 123
Tabling report No. 3, Ontario law reform commission on personal property security
legislation, Mr. Wishart 123
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. MacDonald 129
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Walker, agreed to 153
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 153
123
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 1, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests, in the east gallery,
students from Dr. F. J. Donevan collegiate
institute, Oshawa, and in the west gallery,
students from Clarkson public school, Clark-
son.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
LIABILITY ON PARENTS
Mr. G. H. Peck (Scarborough Centre)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
impose liability on parents for damages
caused by the tortious acts of their children.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. G. R. Carton (Armourdale): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. member be kind
enough to favour us with an explanation?
Mr. G. H. Peck (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for
Armourdale asked this question.
This bill is designed to eliminate the in-
creasing incidence of vandalism that is plagu-
ing school boards, councils, recreation and
parks commissions, and other public bodies
and commissions throughout the province. The
glass bills alone of our larger boards of edu-
cation are running into hundred of thousands
every year. School trustee councils and other
public bodies have requested that parents
should have some responsibility when their
children deliberately break windows, destroy
school and park property. If this bill passes
in the Legislature— and I hope the hon. mem-
bers will be favourable to this— parents will
be liable for an amount up to $100 for wilful
damage to public property by their children.
This will go a long way toward cutting down
the cost to our municipal taxpayers for this
type of vandalism.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS
CODE, 1961-1962
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. member favour us
with an explanation of this bill?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I would be delighted to do so.
The amendment prohibits bodies govern-
ing the admission to professions or callings
within the province from refusing or suspend-
ing memberships because of race, creed,
colour, nationality, ancestry or place of
origin, and ensures that these bodies are
removed from the present exclusions.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to table herewith
report No. 3 of the Ontario law reform com-
mission on personal property security legisla-
tion.
The presentation of this report to the
Legislature gives me some satisfaction for
several reasons.
One of the most significant features of the
report is that it reflects so deeply the very
generous and altruistic work that was done
on this project by many dedicated members
of the legal profession.
The draft bill, which forms part of this
report, was prepared in its original form by
a committee of the Ontario section of the
Canadian Bar association, made up of Mr.
F. M. Catzman, QC of Toronto as chairman,
with Messrs. D. E. MacKenzie, J. H. Corri-
gan, QC, T. A. Wardrop, J. T. Torrance, Pro-
fessor A. S. Abel and Professor Ian F. G.
Baxter. These gentlemen formed the com-
mittee that worked for several years to
produce a draft bill generally referred to as
the Catzman bill, which would make uniform
in Ontario the laws relating to security
interest in personal property and fixtures.
The work done by this committee is
significant because it will assist in bringing
124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to this province not only a modern and effi-
cient method of securing interest in property,
that is, personal property, but it will also
greatly facilitate commerce between this
province and other jurisdictions. In a time
when the financing of our development is so
significant I think we must all realize the
importance of the legislation which was first
proposed as a result of the study by Mr.
Catzman and his committee and which,
having been further developed, now forms
part of the report which I have just tabled.
The principles represented in the draft bill
are of great significance to the people of the
province, particularly those who are engaged
in our financial and commercial community.
For this reason we have considered it most
desirable that the draft proposal receive the
closest possible scrutiny from all sources. A
draft bill has been approved in principle by a
committee of the Canadian Bar association
under the chairmanship of the hon. R. L.
Kellock, QC, and the bill was also the sub-
ject of a very close scrutiny by a special con-
ference that was convened at Osgoode Hall
law school last spring. All of the recom-
mendations and comments that have been
received in these various deliberations have
been brought forward and in many cases have
been utilized to improve upon the original
draft statute. And most recently the Ontario
law reform commission has taken the mat-
ter under advisement and ultimately it pro-
duced the report.
Over the past summer, I caused the report
to be reproduced in quantity and we distri-
buted the report as widely as possible to all
associations and persons who are interested in
this matter. As a result of this wide distribu-
tion we have received many comments that
have been constructive, and these have all
been referred to the Ontario law reform
commission for further consideration.
I believe that the hon. members of this
House will realize that we have done every-
thing possible to obtain the most constructive
criticism upon the proposed bill. We are now
in the process of preparing a bill, a modifica-
tion of, and we think an improvement upon,
that contained in the report. We propose
introducing it to this Legislature just as soon
as it has been developed to the point that we
are satisfied it is ready for your consideration.
We are directing our efforts to have that
legislation before you at the present sitting of
this Legislature. I am sure you will recognize
the value of having it most thoroughly re-
viewed by the various persons working in this
area before taking the time of this House in
the consideration of this legislation. I would
commend the report to the consideration of
all the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, since it
will place before them the most significant
features of a proposal which merits consid-
eration of all of us.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral will permit a question?
In the report there is reproduced the draft
bill which is the Catzman bill in essence, is it?
Presuming that it is, do I gather from his
accompanying remarks that there are going to
be further substantial changes? I was not
quite too clear. We have the Catzman studies,
we have had the Bar association studies, we
have had the law reform commission studies,
and now we are going to have the department
studies; to what extent is what we have here
going to be similar to what the hon. Attorney
General is going to introduce?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, answering
the inquiry from the hon. member, if he will
observe the report, he will note that it is
dated May 28, 1965. It was received shortly
after that date. We did not, however, at that
time see fit to table it in the House, which
was then in session.
The draft bill which forms part of the
report is in large part an extension from the
Catzman bill, which was produced by the
committee referred to in my remarks. Having
received the Catzman bill, having studied the
representations made, the matter was referred
to the law reform commission, perhaps
some two years ago. The law reform com-
mission had the benefit of discussions with
Mr. Catzman and members of his committee
and ultimately produced this report which
contains the draft bill. But that was not all
we did.
While we were not able to table this report
in the last session, it was reproduced in large
quantity— I think 2,500 copies. We sent it
out to organizations, not only in this province,
but all across the country, to law professors,
law schools and some jurisdictions outside, for
their comment. Mr. Catzman's own commit-
tee convened upon it and studied it further.
In many areas, the bill in the report does not
coincide exactly with the Catzman proposals.
Therefore, Mr. Catzman brought forward
certain comments and quite a number of con-
structive criticisms. There were other criti-
cisms received from other bodies.
You will note from the remarks I made
that the committee of the Canadian Bar
studied this bill and then Catzman met with
me on two occasions in recent months. The
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
125
suggestions, which were made again and
which were in writing, have again been re-
ferred to the law reform commission. Mr.
McRuer and his commission have been very-
glad to have those, and have assured me they
are most interested in studying them in com-
parison with the draft bill contained therein.
We are expecting comments from the Ontario
law reform commission and we have our
own commentaries to make in the drafting of
legislation.
I realize, of course, that it is for this
House in the final analysis to approve the
type of legislation which will be enacted in
this field. But what I am in effect saying to
the House is that since the draft bill which
accompanies and forms part of this report
was prepared a year ago, considerable study
has been carried on since that time. I would
anticipate that from the studies of the law
reform commission, and from our own
studies, we will present a bill which— I think
the words I used were "will perhaps be a
modification of and we would hope an
improvement upon." I say that with great
respect to the law reform commission, but we
think an improvement is needed upon the
draft bill which is here. But those changes
perhaps will not be major; there will be minor
amendments, additions and things that have
come to light in our discussions and studies
since this report was received.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to
that, perhaps—
Mr. Speaker: Order! I will have to inform
the members that on statements before
the orders of the day, it is not the practice to
have a discussion on the statement. I have
allowed a question; I might even allow a
supplementary, for the Minister to elaborate
on this very complex report. But I must warn
the members that they are not to take it as a
precedent that such questions and supplemen-
taries will be followed on other statements
before the orders of the day.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, without establish-
ing any precedent whatsoever, might I ask
the hon. Attorney General as a supplementary
question, would it be possible to bring before
the Legislature reasonably quickly, the gov-
ernment's idea of what the bill should be,
so that it could sit for four or five weeks and
again have the benefit of a review of the
profession and others interested? It is a
complex matter, and that additional period
of review of what the government thinks
should be its final form, could be very
helpful.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think we can do this
within what I would consider reasonable
time. We expect to have it ready, as I men-
tioned in my statement, for this session, and
I think soon. I feel this legislation, this whole
matter, is of such importance that it does
need full and perhaps lengthy study in this
Legislature. It would even be better to con-
template—if that became necessary— passing
the bill through this Legislature without its
being finally enacted, rather than to arrive at
something that would not serve the purpose.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Attorney General permit a further question?
Mr. Speaker, why would it take The De-
partment of the Attorney General this length
of time to introduce into the province of
Ontario a system for securing personal prop-
erty interests which is in force in the state
of New York and which has been the subject
of an independent initiative having nothing to
do with his department for a period of nearly
six years? It seems to me to be an undue
length of time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Will the
member just pursue his question, but not
state an opinion?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, first of
all, the Attorney General has not been
here for six years; something less than two.
Secondly, I do not think it follows that we
adopt, holusbolus, legislation from the state
of New York.
Thirdly, if the hon. member will look at
the report which contains the bill, he will
see that in section 70— and there are 72 sec-
tions in this draft bill, which takes consider-
able drafting— some six very important Acts
now on our statute books are completely re-
pealed. To write into one bill the legislation
contained in six important Acts takes some
little time and study.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree), a copy of
which he has had in advance.
Can the hon. Minister give the House a
report of the strike situation at the Oshawa
Times, particularly what role the government
is playing in it?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, the first connection that my
department had with this matter goes back
to July 27, 1965, at which time the services of
the conciliation branch in the dispute were
126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
requested and granted. Subsequently there
were various meetings at the instigation of
the conciliation branch which did not lead
to a conclusion or a resolution of the matter
and it led to the appointment of a conciliation
board on— I think it was— September 14.
The conciliation board had various meet-
ings, and indeed attempted mediation in the
course of its proceedings without result. The
result is that the dispute was unresolved and
the time for strike or lock-out action became
available to either of the parties.
Yesterday morning officials of the depart-
ment met first with the representatives of the
union involved and later yesterday were in
touch with representatives of the employers,
and as a result a meeting was called for today.
I believe the meeting is under way at this
moment.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Davis).
In view of a statement made by Dr. J.
Wendell MacLeod, executive secretary of the
association of medical colleges, that four of
Canada's 12 medical college schools have
been warned at times during the past ten
years that unless their methods were brought
up to standards, their graduates would be
limited in the kind of work they could per-
form in the United States— and may I add I
hope they do not go to the United States-
would the hon. Minister assure this House
that none of the four schools referred to by
Dr. MacLeod are located in Ontario?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the hon.
leader of the Opposition has read his ques-
tion, I wonder if it would be possible for me
to read my answer, although, Mr. Speaker, in
this case, I do not need to.
I am anxious to give as much information
to the hon. members as I can. The only infor-
mation I have is from the same press report.
We have endeavoured to contact Dr. Mac-
Leod; we understand he is somewhere outside
New York city at the present time, so I am
not in a position to indicate to the House
what he had in mind. We shall endeavour
to get some further information.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) that was put to
him yesterday. The hon. Minister, unfor-
tunately, was lost in the wilds of Middlesex
county. I am glad that he is back today and
I hope will be able to give us a satisfactory
answer.
Does the hon, Minister consider that the
government, through its present or former
milk control agency, has any responsibility
for payments to milk producers from manu-
facturing plants that go into receivership or
make an assignment?
Hon, W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): The answer is "no", Mr. Speaker.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner), notice of which has been
given him. What action is the hon. Minister
contemplating regarding the Jones report on
the reorganization of the Ottawa area, par-
ticularly in view of the turn down of the
report last night by the city council?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon.
member would read again the last part of
the question, because I do not know what
he is talking about.
Mr. Young: I said: particularly in view of
the turn down.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member repeated
words at the conclusion that were not in the
question. Would he mind reading the ques-
tion again, please, as it was submitted to the
Speaker?
Mr. Young: The question then, Mr.
Speaker, is a simple one. What action is the
hon. Minister contemplating regarding the
Jones report on the reorganization of the
Ottawa area?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to that part of the question, I may say I am
not in a position at the moment to make a
recommendation to the Legislature concern-
ing this matter.
The report of the Ottawa-Eastview-Carletpn
county local government review was pre-
sented by myself to the representatives of
the concerned municipalities on August 9,
1965. At that time I asked that the muni-
cipalities and concerned organizations, local
boards, commissions and ratepayers groups,
and any persons, groups or organizations
with an interest in local government, could
feel free to make presentations to us in
the department so that we would have the
benefit of their examination of this report. I
suggested that the date of November 30,
1965, might provide sufficient time for these
submissions to be forwarded to the depart-
ment.
It subsequently became quite apparent
that that date was too early and so I extended
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
127
the date to January 31, 1966, and I under-
stand that some organizations and some
municipalities have not yet submitted their
critique, if I may use that term, of the Jones
report. That being the case, if submissions
come in after this date, we necessarily must
examine all of the submissions. I would hope
that, before too long, we will be in a position
to feel that we have received all of the
critiques of the report that are to be sent to
us.
We will then, in the department, be in a
position to assess these submissions. I expect
that I will, myself, meet and consult with
the representatives of the municipalities and
local boards and those whose submissions
would appear to have perhaps more weight
than others. Under these circumstances, I
do not anticipate that I would be in a posi-
tion to make an announcement in this
connection within the next short while.
Mr. Young: I wonder if the hon. Minister
would permit a supplementary question? I
would like to ask if he feels that it is possible
that legislation might come down during this
session in this respect?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I would
doubt it very much. There are only 24 hours
in the day for me, the same as for everyone
else, and being busy in the House and trying
to maintain operations in the department
makes it a little difficult. I doubt very much
if we would have the time to properly assess
the report itself— all of the submissions— for
this session.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan). I read it because I respect the
rigidity with which you demand that we
follow every word. I would prefer it if I
could just ask a free-wheeling question, but
I will follow the advice of Mr. Speaker.
Does the hon. Provincial Treasurer know
the identity of the U.S. -controlled firms in
Ontario which have been affected by the
request of Washington that U.S. companies
with foreign subsidies report quarterly on
their contributions to easing the U.S. balance
of payments problem by way of increased
exports, lowered investment, and dividends
repatriated to the U.S.?
. Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, I regret I do not have the in-
formation requested by the hon. leader of
the Opposition, and so my answer to his
question must be no.
I have discussed this matter with the con-
troller of revenue of The Treasury Depart-
ment who informs me that no returns that
are made to our department furnish that
information.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask a supple-
mentary question? In view of the reaction
by Mr. Kierans in Quebec, who showed
considerable alarm, is it the intention of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer to study the extent
to which this will affect the economy of
Ontario? Does the hon. Provincial Treasurer
have the same approach to the problem as
Mr. Kierans?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Let me say, Mr. Speaker,
that I may have greater confidence in the
government at Ottawa than Mr. Kierans has.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development
(Mr. Randall), a copy of which has been
submitted to him. What is the scale of
rentals on the Ontario housing corporation
units now in the process of completion on
Central avenue in Windsor?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to
the hon. member, the scale as it applies to
Central avenue includes heat and domestic
hot water, and the minimum rental for these
units including the services referred to above
is $45 per month and is applicable to families
with incomes ranging up to $189 a month.
Rentals then increase progressively in relation
to family income, reaching a maximum pro-
portion of 30.2 per cent, when the tenant's
family income reaches $479 per month. And
that rental scale used for these units is the
same scale which is applicable to all units
developed by the Ontario housing corporation.
This scale, as I am sure the hon. member
knows, was introduced as a national applica-
tion in Ontario in 1965.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
a supplementary question of the hon. Minis-
ter: Is there a reason for such a great spread
between 23.9 and 30.2 per cent in the rentals
of these units?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, there is a reason.
The scale was set up between the central
mortgage and housing authority and the other
housing authorities across Canada and it does
range from an income of $189 up to $479;
the percentage increases roughly $1 more on
every $4 worth of income. One of the things
we are investigating now, along with the
federal authorities, is the hardships that may
be imposed by the 30.2 per cent on the
marginal income.
128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think in Windsor there is a peculiar
problem, where there is a shortage of avail-
able private accommodation; these are the
people, we feel, who are facing a hardship
if we continue with the 30.2. As I say, in
talking to the federal authorities, to the On-
tario housing corporation, we are now taking
a look at that to see if there is any solution.
But I must keep in mind, and I think the
hon. member must keep in mind, that we
must find some way to encourage these people
once their income increases to find private
accommodation. That is the reason for the
increasing scale.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
another supplementary question. Does the
hon. Minister not think that 30.2 per cent is
just a little too much to ask people in a sub-
sidized housing accommodation to pay— up to
$145 a month on a $479 income?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would say that may
be a penalty, if there is no private accommo-
dation available, but if there is private
accommodation available the reason for the 30
per cent is to encourage them to find accom-
modation for themselves, because we certainly
do not want to accommodate people who
have an income that will permit them to
buy from the private developer. We are not
in the business to compete against the private
developer.
I think the hon. member has a situation
in Windsor— and we had one in Hamilton not
too long ago— where private accommodation,
as I said earlier, is not available. If we do
not find accommodation for these people it
means they move from perhaps something
they enjoy, with a good living standard, into
something far less at a higher rent. As their
income increases, we think it is our responsi-
bility to encourage them to do business with
a private developer. I do not think the scale
of income is something that we are going
to worry too much about. When they get to
that point I think they can look after them-
selves and we should encourage them to look
to the private developer for accommodation.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Speaker, I have three questions for the hon.
Minister of Tourism and Information (Mr.
Auld), notice of which I trust has been given
to him.
1. Does the government interpret The
Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection
Act to mean that historic buildings— and I
emphasize the word "buildings" — may be
designated under the Act?
2. If the answer to question 1 is "no," has
the government given consideration to widen-
ing the provisions of the Act to afford such
protection to historic buildings?
3. If the answer to question 1 is "yes,"
what historic buildings have been designated
under the said Act?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, in two words
the answers to the first two questions are "no"
and "no."
However, I might expand that a little bit
for the information of the hon. member and
the House. Actually, The Archaeological and
Historic Sites Protection Act has nothing to
do with assistance towards acquiring and pre-
serving historic buildings. I am informed that
it was originally passed in the early 1950s as
a result of considerable publicity arising from
the discovery of a very early Indian quarry
site on Manitoulin Island.
This site was being excavated by the
National Museum, and as sometimes happens,
amateur diggers swarmed to the site and were
apparently interfering with the exploration
and also taking away valuable artifacts. With
the aim of preventing this, the Act was
passed so that the Minister could designate a
piece of land in surveyor's terms as an archeo-
logical site of significance. This designation
would remain as long as archaeological exca-
vations were taking place.
I think that a total of seven sites have been
designated under the Act and perhaps if I
give the House the descriptions of them, the
meaning would be clearer. They include the
Indian quarry site on Manitoulin Island, to
which I referred; Cahiague, a Huron village
near Orillia; the Forget Indian village site
near Wyebridge; Willow Fort near Barrie;
the South Burleigh Township Petroglyph site;
Tabor Hill site, and the Penetanguishene mili-
tary and naval establishment site.
Technically, as I say, no consideration is
being given to extend the provisions of The
Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection
Act, but at the moment we are studying the
matter of historic buildings around the prov-
ince. As my hon. friend will perhaps recall,
in conjunction with the department of archi-
tecture of the University of Toronto, and the
archaeological and historic sites board, we
have done some surveys in this connection
this past year.
An hon. member: What about my site in
Moosonee?
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management (Mr. Simonett), notice of which
has been given.
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
129
In the recent sale of the Ontario Northland
Boat Line at Timagami, was it a condition of
sale that the present service be continued and
that service by the new owner be expanded
as the permanent population and tourist pop-
ulation expands on the lake?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
am informed that one of the conditions of the
sale of the Ontario Northland Boat Line at
Timagami was that service be continued. I
would think that the new owner would ex-
pand it to take care of increased business if
necessary.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: First order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment to
the motion for an address in reply to the
speech of the Honourable, the Lieutenant-
Governor at the opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, it is traditional in rising to partici-
pate in this debate that members extend
to you words of commendation and apprecia-
ation for the manner in which you are con-
ducting your very difficult office. I want to
say that I join in that tradition, not in any
routine sense but with enthusiasm.
I was a little disturbed a week before the
session opened to read in one of the articles
which was discussing the procedures in this
House and some of the rather deplorable
features of those procedures, where it indi-
cated that the Speaker of the House was
still under the thumb of the government. Mr.
Speaker, I will be frank and say that I think
there have been occasions in the past, within
my memory, when there appeared to be
rather conclusive evidence that that was the
case. I personally do not think it is the case
now, partly because I think the present hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) takes a some-
what different approach than has been the
case sometimes in the past, but more im-
portant because I think you are exercising
your responsibilities in an independent
fashion.
I trust that if anything more were needed
to make certain that you do that, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, the kind of comment that
was made in that article would be all that
would be required. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I
will say this, that I feel this year for the
first time since I came into this Legislature,
that a combination of you in your position
and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly)
as the Deputy Speaker and chairman of the
committee, gives us promise that we are
going to be able to achieve those heights that
I think everybody hoped we might be able to
achieve in the conduct of this House. I will
say that without prejudice, just in case before
the end of the week you and I get into a
difference of opinion— which I assure you,
Mr. Speaker, if we do, I will know is an
honest difference of opinion on your part and
I hope you will believe it is an honest differ-
ence of opinion on mine.
I turn very briefly to the mover and sec-
onder of the motion in reply to the Speech
from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, I think these
were about as fanciful a pair of speeches as
I have heard in this Legislature in that
capacity, since I came into the House in
1955. In fact, I found myself so transported
by the poetic flights of fancy on the part of
the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr.
Knox) that for a time it was almost as
though one were out in a twilight zone, out
of touch from reality altogether. The hon.
member was presenting such an idyllic pic-
ture of Lambton county that there was posi-
tively an other-worldly quality about it. Is
it possible that the hon. gentleman was
gilding the lily a bit?
It is not for me to say, and I am the last
person in the world to dispute his enthusiasm
for Lambton county, but I will tell him that
when I did get back to earth again after that
poetic flight of fancy, the thing that intrigued
me most was that nugget of history that he
had dug out with regard to the fact that a
predecessor of his, as member in Lambton
West, Timothy Blair Pardee, had been the
seconder of the motion in reply to the Speech
from the Throne— and I repeat it just for the
hon. members of the House to ponder— in
1874, 1877, 1878, 1882 and then for four
consecutive years, 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1887.
My question is, why? Well, this was back
in the days of the Liberal regime under
Mowat. Is it possible that there was such a
family compact within the Liberal regime
under Mowat that the goodies, these honours,
these traditions, were shared among so very
few? I just do not know.
The other question that intrigues me, Mr.
Speaker, is, why would one so often be a
seconder of the motion and never the mover?
Always a bridesmaid and never a bride. I
have been delighted with the production of
Canadian biography in recent years with re-
gard to the great figures of Canadian history.
I think it is one of the delights of those who
are interested in Canadian history, but there
130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is one major gap in terms of a definitive
biography of an undoubtedly outstanding
figure in Canadian history, and that is a
definitive biography of Oliver Mowat and I
hope—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Macaulay had one under way but I think he
has become too busy to finish it.
Mr. MacDonald: You mean he was doing
that as well as his favourite topic of radio-
activity?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Maybe I should not
make this comment without rising, but I do
believe he had a complete framework of a
two-volume work on Mowat which we out-
lined back in the distant days when he and I
were back-benchers, but I have not seen any-
thing of it recently.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, how even that
dynamic and energetic person was fitting in
a biography of Mowat, with his 30 years as
premier— just think of the tomes one would
have to go through— between the chapters he
was writing on the evolution of the atom, I
just cannot understand. However, there it
is. But I trust when somebody— Robert
Macaulay or somebody else— gets at the life
of Mowat they will dig out the explanation
of Pardee as a repeated seconder. In the
meantime, I do not think I am going to have
the opportunity or the pleasure of doing it
for myself.
I turn now to the hon. member for
Armourdale (Mr. Carton). Mr. Speaker, I
tried hard to follow the course of the good
ship Robarts, as he had it meandering across
the landscape of the province of Ontario. He
described it once again, Mr. Speaker, with
such an air of unreality, that quite honestly
he did not expect anybody to believe it, even
some of his fellow Tories.
Can it be that the hon. member for Arm-
ourdale has forgotten, for example, that the
good ship Robarts, on one occasion less than
two years ago, almost foundered on the rocks
of Cass? Indeed, foundered so badly that
there were two or three of his shipmates
who were threatening to desert the ship on
that occasion. Has he forgotten that? Or
has the hon. gentleman forgotten that last
year the skipper of the good ship Robarts
went overseas, and when he came back he
discovered that the pension orders had be-
come so mixed that his first mate of the day
was sending out conflicting signals; and the
first mate and the skipper had to get together
on the intercom one afternoon, in order to
get the signals straightened out again?
These are parts of the story of the good
ship Robarts, but we did not get any of it. I
come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that
the mover and the seconder this year gave us
—and I welcome it— a lighter touch to the
Throne debate, but I think it is time for us
to get back to reality and I want to con-
gratulate the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Thompson), because he certainly got us
back to reality.
Here he gave us once again a display of
the Liberal party in mock battle, storming
the bastions of Toryism. Amid a cacophony
of muted sound and fury, the hon. leader of
the Opposition tilted his wooden sword at
the government and he charged. He charged
for two-hours-and-a-half; his toy guns were
blazing and his pea shooters were popping.
Is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, through-
out the whole performance, that the govern-
ment hon. members sat there— to the extent
that they could survive the boredom and
stayed in the House— and they smiled and
smiled. They knew that they were not going
to be hurt and neither they were.
To the extent that there was any solid
content, I could think of no better adjective
to describe it than to borrow that favourite
adjective of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion's predecessor, Mr. Wintermeyer, when
he used to refer so often to "platitudinous".
Well, we got the platitudes.
Mr. Speaker, the whole attack of the hon.
leader of the Opposition had all of the con-
viction and fight of a personal credo that had
been ghost-written, and then notes had been
prepared on the ghost-written text.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that,
in this Throne debate, hon. members on
both sides of the House, instead of spinning
fanciful tales about the good ship Robarts,
hummed to the tune of "The Good Ship
Lollipop", that we should get down to some
of the true facts of life regarding this gov-
ernment.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this govern-
ment in the last two years, has been shaken
each year by a major crisis. In 1964, we had
a storm that broke over the police bill, which
led to Cabinet resignations, and threats of
resignations from back-benchers. The
Cabinet did not know what it was doing,
what it was authorizing. It was playing with
fire and it did not even know it. The gov-
ernment caucus was equally lax in its
scrutiny; most of the hon. members had not
even considered the bill before it reached the
floor of the House. The Attorney General't
handling of the whole issue was so indes-
cribably inept that he became the obvious
FEBRUARY I, 1966
131
scapegoat for the government's whole failure,
and so he went.
But the fact of the matter is that, in one
evening in this House, this government
teetered on the brink of defeat and was
shaken to its foundations. Now, one would
have thought, Mr. Speaker, that all that
would have taught the government a lesson
but it did not. In 1965, we had a repeat
performance on the pension issue. The hon.
Prime Minister announced in September what
this government's policy was with regard to
pensions and their integration. Then he went
overseas, and he returned to find a public
storm raging. I quote, for example, from
the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 10,
when it states that:
Mr. Robarts had earlier told reporters
that, as far as he knew, municipalities that
operate pension plans outside the provin-
cial scheme would be free to integrate or
stack the Canada pension plan as they saw
fit.
The simple fact of the matter is that this
was not government policy. It was in contra-
diction to the policy which he himself had
enunciated two months before. But he appar-
ently had forgotten about it.
So we had columns and headlines in the
paper: "Spooner sticks to his guns on inte-
grating pension plan. Defies uproar. Briefs
Robarts."
What an unseemingly spectacle, that the
first mate of the day should be bringing the
hon. Prime Minister up to date on a policy
which he had enunciated two months before.
I quote again from the news story:
Mr. Spooner called the reporters to his
office after a telephone conversation of
nearly 30 minutes with Mr. Robarts.
Later in the afternoon, after the dis-
cussion had taken place, Mr. Spooner
repeated the same policy he had expressed
two days earlier. Asked if Mr. Robarts now
agreed he said, "That's a very complicated
field".
That's fielding the curves.
"I might tell you I suggest you call the
Prime Minister again."
That is the kind of situation we have had
from this government, Mr. Speaker. And
back-benchers were equally in the dark.
Hon. members in Metro were invited— last
November, if I recall correctly— to a meet-
ing sponsored by a committee of CUPE, and
the police and the firemen's association, in
the community hall in North York. One of the
hon. members on the government side of
the House, who appeared to be acting as the
spokesman, at one point intervened and
said that surely there was nothing wrong with
the government altering the pension plan
which they themselves had set up, but they
were not going to interfere with the private
pension plans; and of course we in the
Opposition have to say that that is precisely
the problem.
All private pension plans have to be ap-
proved by the department of the Minister;
and if they become approved by the Minis-
ter, they become "approved pension plans"
and they too are subject to the dictates of
this government. So I assured the hon. mem-
ber that if he felt a little embarrassed by
discovering that he simply did not know
what the government policy was, he should
not be too embarrassed because the hon.
Prime Minister the day before had revealed
the same ignorance of the government policy,
though he, himself, had announced it two
months earlier in September.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive of anything
more confused and bemuddled than that kind
of situation. I thought that Judy LaMarsh
had made about as big a jumble, a mess, of
the pension issue in Ottawa as any human
being might possibly do, but I must concede
the palm to this government— they outdid
Judy. Their confusion last fall was certainly
greater.
But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker,
is this:
These are only two dramatic public
revelations of the confusion and contradiction
which characterizes so much of the policy of
this government and its administration.
Last spring, Professor Krueger of Waterloo
University spoke to a conference on regional
development in the Royal York hotel. He
delivered a speech that was based on a
private report which this government had had
and which it never yet has had the courage to
make public. Hundreds of people at that
convention listened to Professor Krueger as
he gave an account of overlapping responsi-
bilities, of inefficient, and therefore costly,
administration of departments warring against
each other like rival empires. I heard one
person who had listened to Professor Krueger
say that it had a positive Gilbert and Sullivan
touch. It is the kind of thing you wanted to
laugh at if it were not so serious.
This kind of situation can be resolved. As
I said last year in discussion of the estimates
of The Department of Economics and Devel-
opment, it can be resolved only when the
Prime Minister of the province, at the Cabinet
level, knocks a few heads together and
132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
resolves the conflicts among Ministers who are
in the warring departments that operate as
though they were competing empires. Until
the hon. Prime Minister of this government
does that they can continue on the govern-
ment side to talk about such major objectives
as effective regional government, they can
continue to talk about moving towards
regional economic development, but they will
never be able to achieve it. As Professor
Krueger said, it is impossible to achieve these
major objectives until you resolve the chaos
which exists at the provincial level at the
present time.
The simple fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker,
is that we have got a horse-and-buggy admin-
istration under a Tory government that has
been here for 22 years. We have moved into
the jet age and the horse-and-buggy admin-
istration is not good enough.
Is it surprising, therefore, that loyal friends
of the government have begun to refer to the
Robarts Cabinet as "weary and old"? That is
a quote from a Globe and Mail editorial—
not my observation. The fact of the matter
is that there is more dead wood in this
Cabinet than there is lying around behind the
barns of the abandoned farms in rural On-
tario. Is it surprising that even friends of
this government refer to it as solid— yes, it is
as solid as a block of cement— but dull and
unimaginative? Is it any wonder that the
Throne speech reads with about as much
inspiration as a laundry list of unfinished
business?
I suggest that when the people of Ontario
awaken to just how poor a government they
have got, and bury it at the polls, as one day
they will do, the appropriate plaque for the
grave of this government will be, "In the full-
ness of time they got around to studying—
studying the problems of the people but the
people could not wait any longer".
The simple fact is that this government is
not meeting the challenge of our day. It is not
meeting the challenge in two areas that I
want to pick by way of illustration— not in
any sense as an exhaustive review; there will
be opportunities later in the session.
The government is doing something. I will
be fair and say it is doing more, in some
instances, than was being done before. But
the adequacy of public policies cannot be
measured simply by the fact that something
more is being done, even something more
than in the past. It has to be measured in
terms of whether enough is being done to
cope with, and to solve, the problems of
today, and develop fully the potential of our
human and our natural resources. We are
failing to do that— tragically, in some in-
stances.
Let me illustrate my point by referring
to two areas— first in the scandalous preva-
lence of poverty amid our affluence, and
secondly in the field of education and man-
power training.
Mr. Speaker, the public of Canada today
are slowly but surely becoming aware of
the stark reality of widespread poverty affect-
ing one quarter of our population. Who are
the people who do not share equitably in the
affluence of modern-day North America?
I think first of the hundreds of thousands
of people who live on various kinds of cate-
gorical assistance— the old, the sick, the dis-
abled, the widowed. Theirs is a subsistence
existence. Often it involves the indignity of
the means test. Even where rehabilitation is
possible, rarely does it assist people to regain
the dignity of self-supporting, gainful employ-
ment.
The Canada assistance plan will put this
patchwork of categorical assistance on a
more efficient basis. Conceivably it will
humanize it in some degree by substituting
a needs test rather than the means test. But
Mr. Speaker, the Canada assistance plan will
do nothing to reach beyond the present patch-
work and maintain family incomes for those
who do not fit into any of the present cate-
gories.
We have no sickness and accident benefit
programme to cover those who are ill, who
are hurt off the job. Professor Linden's study
reveals that one of the greatest hardships
faced by those victimized by car accidents
arises from the fact that families receive little
or nothing in the most vital area of concern-
loss of family income when the breadwinner
of the family is off work for some time.
Let me turn to another area of widespread
poverty— our rural communities. Consider the
results, for example, of the rural research
study completed in eastern Ontario by the
ARDA branch of the federal Department of
Forestry. Here is an area where one-third of
the income levels are such that no income
tax is paid; where the per-capita welfare
payments are twice the provincial average;
where a survey of marginal farms revealed
that 24 per cent in Lanark county are ready
for abandonment or absorption— the figure in
Leeds is 30 per cent and the figure in Glen-
garry is 63 per cent— where educational levels
are such that 30,000 people over 15 years of
age have no more than four years of formal
schooling. This is Ontario, Mr. Speaker—
indeed your part of Ontario, eastern Ontario
-^where, in summary, 30,000 to 40,000 people
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
13&
and 2.5 million acres of land are urgently in
need of being rescued.
The point is that the federal study revealed
these conditions, but the responsibility for
doing something about it rests with this prov-
ince. I am informed by our ARDA branch
that it is the intention to put four or five
rural development officers into the field in
eastern Ontario. Fine; but obviously, Mr.
Speaker, much more is needed than a few
rural development officers. If we are serious,
the situation demands a massive effort of
regional economic development along the
general lines of TVA in the United States or
along the lines of the current Gaspe project
in eastern Quebec. Our regional development
associations have never been geared to do this
job. The government has been toying with
them. When are they going to make them
effective organizations— they or some other
body? Speaking to a conference on poverty
and planning, sponsored by the Woodsworth
memorial foundation just a week ago here
in Toronto, Professor John Morgan empha-
sized that the war on poverty involved two
different objectives. One is the long term, the
kind of economic and social development
which will assure us that we are not recreat-
ing the next generation of poor while pre-
tending to do something for this generation,
that we must rescue these people from a
culture of poverty which reproduces itself
with the result that the children of today's
poor are doomed to become tomorrow's poor.
But the first step to avoiding that tragic
possibility is to make certain that this gen-
eration of poor is rescued from its poverty
and given an opportunity to share equitably
in the wealth of this province and this nation.
Instead of talking about this or that pro-
gramme which might help, has the time not
come to recognize the fact that this quarter
of our population is mired in poverty for the
simple reason that the people have not got
enough money? Instead of talking about this
or that programme, perhaps we should get
down to the point that they need money.
I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that money is
not the only answer to the problems created
by poverty, but it is the first and the basic
answer. Why do we not recognize that fact
and shape public policies to meet it, instead
of skirting around all the issues with this pro-
posal or that palliative?
We must face the fact, Mr. Speaker, despite
any impression to the contrary, that our tax
structure in Canada is so regressive that it
has not resulted in any significant redistribu-
tion of income, and this basically is what is
required.
I was not surprised, at this conference a
week or so ago, to hear Finance Minister
Mitchell Sharp, with his well-known right-
wing philosophy, dismiss this contention as
irrelevant, and not get down to anything so
basic as making certain that we establish a
genuine redistribution of income. Not for
Mr. Sharp. He urged that we should con-
centrate on devising programmes to meet
the needs of the poor, a sort of state-operated,
community chest approach— this palliative,
that kind of programme.
Repeatedly throughout that conference,
Mr. Speaker, what caught my attention was
that we were urged to face up to this basic
solution, and it was interesting to note the
frequency with which representatives of the
academic world— such as Professor Morgan
of the school of social work, whom this gov-
ernment has used on many occasions as a
consultant, or Professor Melville Watkins of
the department of political science at the
University of Toronto— suggested that the
answer may well lie in the new proposal of a
negative income tax, something which is be-
ing actively considered in Great Britain today.
This is the technique, Mr. Speaker, where-
by everybody files an income return. If their
income is above the level deemed adequate
in the face of our cost of living to maintain a
family, then they pay an income tax; and I
trust it will be on a more progressive basis
than the one we have got at the moment.
But if anybody's income return indicates that
they are living below the designated level,
then they do not pay any tax; instead they
receive whatever amount is needed to bring
them up to that designated level.
In one fell swoop, Mr. Speaker, this kind
of technique, this kind of proposal, would
wipe out the patchwork of categorical aid
that we have at the present time. It would
meet the needs of those who are missed be-
cause they do not fit into this or that category.
It would maintain family incomes which drop
because of health or accident, or the failure
of car insurance to meet income needs when
the breadwinner is idled. It would lift areas,
like the widespread rural poverty of eastern
Ontario, above the poverty level. Indeed, it
would provide, in advance, an answer to how
we maintain family incomes and distribute
the collectively produced wealth of a tech-
nological age in which, we are now told, all
of our needs can be met by the production of
a small fraction of our workers in the very
foreseeable future.
Mr. Speaker, I do not advance the negative
income tax at the moment as a definitive pro-
posal. The technical difficulties in applying
134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it will have to be examined carefully. Further-
more, in a federal state like Canada, where
welfare is a provincial responsibility, and
income tax has been for the most part cen-
tralized with the federal government, there
are constitutional problems that will have to
be faced. But, Mr. Speaker, this proposal
provides a fundamental solution to the prob-
lem of poverty, not simply a palliative. This
or some other technique must be devised to
achieve an effective redistribution of income,
which is the first and the basic answer to the
question of poverty if we are going to be
serious in our efforts to eliminate it and not
just toy with the problem.
But whatever be the technique for achiev-
ing it, the objective in our war on poverty,
the objective which public policies must
meet, is to provide a guaranteed annual in-
come below which no family will be able
to slip into poverty. I want to remind this
House, Mr. Speaker, that this has been the
stated objective of the New Democratic Party
ever since it was founded in 1961; indeed of
the CCF before that.
I suggest that when the Carter report on
taxation becomes available at the federal
level, when the Smith report becomes avail-
able in Ontario, we should enunciate this
objective and reshape our taxation structure
and related social policies to be able to
achieve something approaching a guaranteed
annual income for people.
Let us not kid ourselves for one moment.
So far the so-called war on poverty is noth-
ing more than a few skirmishes that have
verbally been escalated into a war. Mr.
Speaker, a verbal war is not going to meet
the needs of the poor. Our needs, if we are
going to meet the challenge of our day, is for
a fundamental solution which will assure us
that this generation of poor does not help-
lessly recreate itself, and so far this govern-
ment has hardly got into the skirmishes, let
alone getting into the total efforts to solve
that problem.
I turn to a second area, Mr. Speaker, in
which I want to discuss problems related to
another example of how this government is
simply not facing up to the challenge of our
age, and that is in the field of education and
manpower training. I recognize that all
those who hum along on the good ship
Robarts will find it a little unbelievable to
attack the educational programme of this
government; they might even think it is
unfair; but I think the time has come to
point to its weaknesses and its inadequacies
and I am prepared to attempt to document
them.
First, Mr. Speaker, let us get our achieve-
ments in the educational field into perspec-
tive. About a year ago, Dr. R. W. B. Jackson,
who is now head of Ontario's institute of
educational research, and one of the most
thoroughly knowledgeable people in this
field, made the startling statement that
Ontario's educational system is 50 years be-
hind the times. Faced with this statement
in cold print, I imagine Dr. Jackson was
mildly embarrassed; but, to his credit, when
queried, he stuck to his guns. Five years
ago, he explained, we were 100 years behind
the times.
Now, what I want to suggest to hon.
members on the other side of the House is,
instead of dwelling so much on the point
that we have caught up significantly in the
last five years, I would suggest that the time
has come when this House should concen-
trate on the fact that educationally we are
still 50 years behind the times. As I sugges-
ted earlier, the adequacy of public policies
must be judged not in terms of how much
more we are doing now than what we did
five years ago, but to what extent our efforts
are meeting the needs of this day.
John Porter has made the same point in
The Vertical Mosaic, his brilliant analysis
of social classes and power in Canada:
Both the quantity and quality of educa-
tion will determine a society's creative
potential.
—Professor Porter suggests. And then he adds
this:
No society can move into an industrial
epoch with so much of its creative poten-
tial incarcerated in ignorance.
Then he points to the root of our problem.
I suggest that Tories, and the Liberals who
think that we have not had a class structure
up until now, just reflect on this: Tradition-
ally, Ontario has had a class-bound educa-
tional system, as exemplified by the academic
collegiate system in Ontario parallelling the
classical college system in Quebec.
While any child, whatever his family
status, might get through our academic
system, and if somehow or other he is able
to cope with the financial problem, could
proceed to university, the whole system was
nevertheless designed to meet the needs of
only the professional classes. In short, our
collegiate system has met the needs of a
small percentage, the six per cent, maybe
now eight or ten per cent, of those who are
seeking a professional career, while tradi-
tionally ignoring the needs of the more than
90 per cent who have pursued a trade or
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
ft*
gone directly to the labour market. Only
recently have we faced this fact, and it is
inevitable that in attempting to catch up on
50 years in five that we should have fallen
far short of our goal.
Let me say right at the outset, Mr. Speaker,
that I think the time has come when The
Department of Education and The Depart-
ment of University Affairs should each have
its own Minister, a separate Minister, a
different Minister. Both departments are
big, and growing. It is impossible for one
man to handle both, even a man of the
kinetic energy and dedication to the task of
the present hon. Minister (Mr. Davis). The
consequences of this kind of impossible
burden are becoming more and more appar-
ent. Let me deal with a few of them.
First, we are taking too long to come to
grips with problems that cry out for imme-
diate solution. Second, there is a revival of
smug unconcern for mediocre achievement, a
tendency to hide the real problems with
optimistic statements that are not justified
by the fact.
For example, in the first category, this
government finally indicated a willingness to
grapple with the controversial issue of
religious education in our schools. It estab-
lished a committee and it chose as its head
the man who may well be the best suited of
any man in the province of Ontario in my
view, Keiller Mackay; but it has taken this
government a year— we are into another
session— before it appointed the committee.
Indeed, the committee was formally an-
nounced only yesterday by the hon. Minister
in this Legislature.
Mr. M. V. Singer (Downsview): What is
the NDP position on that subject?
Mr. MacDonald: Our position has been
well known for a long time.
Mr. Singer: Not once in this House, not
once, has the hon. member said it.
Mr. MacDonald: There is no justification
for this kind of procrastination, once the gov-
ernment decided to grasp the nettle.
Another example, Mr. Speaker: There is
a growing concern today about the aims of
education in our day. Once again the gov-
ernment set up a committee, headed by Mr.
Justice Emmett Hall. It is no reflection on
this distinguished Canadian, who has real
achievements to his credit in the line of
public service, apart from those as a jurist, to
remind the House that he is not an expert in
the field of education. All the more serious,
therefore, that the committee has not a full-
time staff to assist with the work. It is not
good enough to have departmental personnel
carry the committee's staff work as an added
responsibility to their regular duties.
Many of the public representations which
have been made to the committee in its
recent hearings are, at best, peripheral con-
cern in assessing the aims of education. I do
not want to prejudge the work of this com-
mittee, Mr. Speaker, but the time has come,
I feel, to express a growing public concern
as to how effectively this important question
can be answered by this committee, given its
present limited resources and the manner in
which it is operating.
But the classic case, Mr. Speaker, of this
government's failure to grapple with a prob-
lem, after years of growing public concern, is
the whole range of questions relating to
grade 13. The hon. Minister may make a
virtue of necessity by welcoming each uni-
versity that establishes its own entrance quali-
fications on some basis other than a grade 13
certificate but that does not hide the fact that
the situation is fast becoming chaotic. In the
absence of government leadership, everybody
is going his own way.
One news story the other day carried a
rather plaintive note, that the hon. Minister
was worried about those universities which
have decided to take students from grade 12
—because, said the hon. Minister, if the
students should drop out of university at a
later date, they would have no high school
certificate. Well, Mr. Speaker, what about a
junior matriculation certificate for graduates
of grade 12, something that you have in
every other province across this country?
The public outcry with regard to grade 13
results this past year has only underlined the
need for clarifying without delay the transi-
tion from secondary school to the post-sec-
ondary institutions. We cannot afford to have
a protracted, year-to-year consideration of
the report of the grade 13 committee. The
transition to post-secondary educational insti-
tutions is difficult enough for many young
people; it should not be made more difficult
by a lack of government initiative to clarify it.
Prolonged delay is creating a mood of
exasperation which I suggest is getting a little
dangerous. I was interested in an editorial
in the Toronto Daily Star which suggested
this yesterday. The new chairman of the
Toronto board of education, Barry G. Lowes,
captured some of that feeling in his inaugural
speech to the board when he said, of grade
13, "It is vestigial. It is an anachronism.
The sooner we stop peeking at its carcass
m
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with committees and give it a swift burial,
the better." In other words we are getting
to the point, Mr. Speaker, where whatever
good there exists in grade 13— and there is
some— is going to be thrown out with the
bad, because this government has not given
the kind of leadership that is necessary to
clarify the situation.
, But let me turn now to a second serious
consequence that flows from the overburden
of work upon one Minister in these two
important departments. There is a most dis-
turbing revival of the past practice of burying
serious problems under pronouncements of
qomplacent unconcern.
For example, the Throne Speech contains
the statement that "the necessary supply of
elementary and secondary school teachers
continues to be recruited." Well, Mr.
Speaker, that statement is reminiscent of years
ago when the then Minister of Education
used to defend the crash programmes to fill
the teacher ranks with graduates from sum-
mer courses, and even argue that some of
the province's best teachers were these rela-
tively untrained recruits. I stood in this House
and listened to that very statement being
made.
What is the situation at the moment?
Metropolitan Toronto has long been in the
best position to "cream the crop," so to
speak, of the province's teacher supply. Yet
in this best-off area, Gertrude Fatt, assistant
superintendent of secondary schools in To-
ronto, recently stated that 25 per cent of
Toronto's secondary school teachers were
new to the profession last September. That
25 per cent comprises graduates of the crash
summer training programme. Therefore, Miss
Fatt emphasized, "one sixteenth of our sec-
ondary school teachers have virtually no ex-
perience and are virtually untrained." She
added that the problem will be worse next
year because there are not enough qualifying
as secondary school teachers.
According to the Don Mills Mirror, Decem-
ber 8, 1965, there are in North York this
year 20 teachers who began their career with
no professional training, and 99 with only
eight weeks' training. The curriculum com-
mittee of the North York board reported that
altogether there are 306 teachers with less
than two years' experience teaching in junior
high schools and collegiates.
, At the holiday meetings of the Ontario
secondary school teachers federation, a survey
report was presented which revealed that
last year 5,000 teachers joined the ranks
of the secondary school teachers in the prov-
ince of Ontario, and at the same time 3,000
left. The teaching profession apparently has.
developed a drop-out problem which is as
great as that in the secondary school classes
today.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was very interested
to notice in yesterday's Globe and Mail a
letter to the editor from Tom McCusker, of
the public relations committee of the Toronto
district of the Ontario school teachers fed-
eration, in which he was commenting on the
editorial based on Miss Fatt's comments in
this connection. He added a couple of sig-
nificant points.
Of the 3,000 people who left the profes-
sion, 1,200 gave excessive work load as their
prime reason for leaving. "The profession
therefore is proving itself unable to keep its
experienced teachers", said Mr. McCusker.
And he added a second point. "Large num-
bers of highly experienced teachers have been
leaving the Toronto system." Just consider
this, Mr. Speaker, as a former school teacher:
"In 1950, the median experience of Toronto
teachers was 25 years; in 1965 the median
experience of Toronto teachers was three
years." That gives you some idea of what is
happening to the teaching profession.
All this comes at a time when the develop-
ment of our community colleges will draw
from the already inadequate ranks of second-
ary school teachers. At both the university
and secondary school levels our teacher sup-
ply situation is obviously one that should not
be slurred over with such disarming state-
ments as the words put in the mouth of the
Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor that
"the necessary supply continues to be re-
cruited." It simply is not being recruited.
There are a number of other areas in edu-
cation where developments have been slow
and— even worse— of a disturbing nature as
far as they have gone. For example, com-
munity colleges. There is an urgent need for
establishing these institutions by the fall of
1966. This year the first graduates of the
four-year course which was launched in 1962
will be seeking an opportunity for further
education. As yet, no community college has
been designated anywhere in the province of
Ontario. I discovered, and I checked earlier
this morning, that there will be a meeting
later this month, at which conceivably the
first one will be designated. Already gradu-
ates from the four-year course in Metro have
found that they have graduated from grade 12
and have reached a dead end. Ryerson has
raised its standards and they have nowhere
to go.
Even more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is
another feature of the proposed community
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
137
colleges. I do not think I am misrepresenting
the situation. Certainly it is a reaction that is
increasingly and widely accepted, and if I
am wrong, it is time that this government
corrected it.
Last winter there was a major public debate
on whether the community college should be
restricted to the technological field or whether
there would be a core of basic academic
courses which might ease the overcrowding
of our universities by providing an opportu-
nity for talcing the first two years of arts closer
to home with later transfer to a university.
The hon. Minister appeared to take a middle
course last year and even now he will un-
doubtedly argue that transfers can be made
on an individual basis. But these transfer
arrangements are so very vague, and com-
bined with them there is growing evidence
that the community colleges are being down-
graded to an almost strictly technically ori-
ented education.
The most conclusive proof of this, I suggest
to you, Mr. Speaker, is to be found in the
recent announcement of the personnel of the
council of regents for the community colleges.
In the face of the urgent need for these insti-
tutions, once again the government took
almost a year to establish the council of
regents, which presumably is going to guide
the destinies of this whole new development.
Quite apart from that delay, there is only one
academic person of any stature among them.
It is no personal reflection on the remainder
of that council to say that they are relative
nonentities in the educational world.
In an article in the current issues of the
Canadian Forum, David Stager, dean of men
at New College in the University of Toronto,
put the point succinctly in his outline of the
objective of these new institutions:
The community college overcomes the
geographic and cultural barrier of distance
from an educational institution. The unique
feature of the community college is that it
puts two years of vocational, general and
transfer courses at the post-secondary level
within daily commuting distance.
If the Ontario community colleges, this im-
portant new development in our educa--
tional system, are to be restricted as much to
the vocational and technical field as develop-
ments suggest— and this is certainly a matter
which we are going to have to pursue later
in this session— we are in danger of losing the
kind of balance in educational opportunities
which the community colleges originally
offered, certainly when they were given the
name of applied arts and technology. The
word "arts" in is there.
But nowhere, Mr. Speaker, has our pro-
gress in the educational field been more
tentative and uncertain than in the vitally
important role of providing the necessary
skills to maintain our economic development.
The second annual report of the Economic
Council of Canada speaks in emergency terms
of the situation that this nation faces. De-
tailed studies, such as that of Metropolitan
Windsor, confirm the general problem, that
48 per cent of the unemployed have no educa-
tion beyond elementary school.
The Ontario economic council has sounded
the same alarm, Mr. Speaker. But what is
being done about it?
Nearly two years ago, for example, this
government dangled a bit of election bait
in the Riverdale byelection— which the voters
of that riding rather intelligently brushed
aside when they sent an NDP member to this
House— by announcing that it was going to
build a new adult training centre which
would serve the needs of this great metro-
politan area of Toronto. Inevitably it would
also serve as a pilot project in the relatively
uncharted field of adult training and up-
grading of skills. This government, character-
istically, is still bogged down in trying to find
a site for the new building. How long is this
inexcusable delay going to go on, in face of
such urgent needs?
At the recent federal-provincial conference,
held in Ottawa on poverty and opportunity,
The Ontario Department of Economics and
Development presented a rather illuminating
paper. I read it with great interest. I quote:
The most immediate task for govern-
ment-
says a department of this government:
—if it intends to promote the full utilization
of manpower resources, both actual and
potential, is that of undertaking a skill
inventory of the current labour supply and
demand situation. Thereafter—
in other words, only when that has been done:
—an assessment of the future will be
possible. It also will then be possible to
start on a manpower programme on a
sufficiently planned basis.
Mr. Speaker, what has this government done
on a skill inventory of the current labour
supply and demand? What has the federal
counterpart done at Ottawa? Let us face it,
we are drifting around like a rudderless ship,
even in face of the emergency cry of the
Economic Council of Canada at Ottawa and
here in Ontario, about the restrictions being
placed on our economic development by a
shortage of skilled manpower. We have not
138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
even got the course charted so that we can
tackle this problem.
Nowhere is this government, and the
Liberal government in Ottawa, failing so com-
pletely to meet the challenge of our day as
it is in this field. When are we going to
take it seriously? At this point we are not
even in a position to start, as The Depart-
ment of Economics paper stresses, because
we do not know what we have and what we
need by way of skills. We have taken no
inventory of our skills — the absolute pre-
requisite of developing a manpower pro-
gramme.
The Department of Labour is now turning
out what appears to be, Mr. Speaker, a
veritable flood of new publications on what it
describes as OJT — on-the-job training. But
the amount of on-the-job training is patheti-
cally inadequate. The kind of programme that
emerged in LEAP, that Leaside education
assistance programme, is outstanding, not
only for its content, but more important and
significant, for its rarity. Industry may gener-
ally be aware of the need, just as much as
this group of industries in Leaside, but it is
unwilling to pay the price or take the lead.
I suggest the time has come when the
demands of our economy are so urgent that
management must accept its responsibility in
this field, and we cannot hope to meet it by
importing our skills and robbing other coun-
tries of their needs, while we are failing to
develop our own.
I suggest the time has come when industry
must be faced with its responsibility. I sug-
gest that industry should be taxed specifically
for manpower training. Wherever industry
accepts its responsibility to train workers, it
should be given a rebate on that tax. When it
does no training, nothing should be returned.
It is better that the training should be done
on the job, with industry meeting its own
needs, but experience has proved conclusively
that there must be an economic incentive to
encourage acceptance of that responsibility,
except in a few sporadic cases across the prov-
ince of Ontario.
There is a final area in the field of educa-
tion where the attitude and policies of this
government stand in the way of making
opportunities more fully available, and that
is the question of university fees. Some years
ago, the hon. Prime Minister told a student
group at Toronto campus that he was
opposed to free education at the university
level, because it did not jibe with his party's
concept of free enterprise. The latest version
of that outmoded philosophy was when the
hon. Prime Minister repeated assertions last
fall that higher education is a privilege, not
a right, and presumably, therefore, a privi-
lege whose availability bears a direct rela-
tionship to the wealth of the family.
The New Democratic Party rejects this
philosophy. It is as false today in opposing
the removal of financial barriers to higher
education as it was 100 years ago when it
was used to oppose the establishment of
public education, first at the elementary, and
later at the secondary level.
But for the moment, I am not going to
review all the arguments pro and con. I want
to point out to this House how manageable
is the financial burden involved in abolishing
university fees.
This year, student fees across the whole of
Canada represented an outlay of $90 million
to $100 million. Now that the federal gov-
ernment has begun to accept its respon-
sibilities for financing higher education, at
least to some degree, I would suggest it is a
fair proposition that half of that cost should
be accepted by Ottawa. That would leave
$50 million to be met by the provinces. The
share for Ontario of such a provincial com-
mitment would be in the range of one-third,
roughly $17 million. Last year, the outlay
for Ontario in capital and operational grants
to the universities was $163 million. This
year, it undoubtedly will be higher.
Does anybody really believe that with an
expenditure of that amount— $163 million—
this province could not afford $17 million
more, particularly when abolition of fees
would remove the last dollar sign from
higher educational opportunities at the uni-
versity level?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): The
analysis is completely false.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. gentleman
thinks my analysis is completely false, I in-
vite him to get up on his own time in the
Throne debate and deal with the issue, be-
cause perhaps he can-
Mr. White: That is what you are saying.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps he can say where
he stands and whether or not he agrees with
his hon. leader, his co-partner from the city
of London, that higher levels of education
are a privilege and not a right.
No one can deny that in this province
there are thousands of people who never seek
entrance to university because they know
far in advance that it is financially out of the
question.
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Oh,
nonsense.
FEBRUARY . 1, 1966
,139
Mr. MacDonald: This province cannot
afford to leave so much of its human potential
undeveloped. Some years ago, in a book
entitled Canada's Crisis in Higher Education,
by Dr. R. W. B. Jackson and W. G. Flem-
ing, these two authors concluded, and I am
quoting:
We seem to do an admirable job of
squandering the priceless human resources
available to us. In fact it can be argued
on the basis of information at hand that
we are utilizing to the full the talents of
no more than one-third of our academically
gifted young men and women.
If we have failed to utilize the two-thirds,
of the academically gifted young men, how
much more tragic has been the squandering
of our priceless human resources when we
recall that it is only in the past few years
that we have seriously attempted to make
technical education available to the majority
of our young people whose inclinations may
lie in that direction.
This province simply cannot afford the
roadblock of an outmoded Tory philosophy.
[Any government which considers something
as important as higher education to be a
privilege, and not a right, is living in the
past, and with it we can never adequately
meet the challenge of our day.
I turn, in the concluding portion of my
remarks, to discuss a number of topical issues.
I want to discuss them within the framework
of a common theme. At this moment, Ontario
along with the whole of the North American
continent, is enjoying a period of economic
expansion; our unemployment levels are low.
When one has said that, I do not think one
should forget that within the low unemploy-
ment figures you have a hard core of the un-
skilled who have in fact become derelicts
cast up in the labour market, and this govern-
ment is doing pathetically little to rescue
them from that position of a derelict.
There is a growing shortage of skilled
labour; in some sectors we now have more
jobs than there are workers. For the majority
of our people the problem is not a job. They
have that. Their problem is how to make
their income meet their family needs arid
they are facing a losing battle with rising
costs of living. Every time they get a wage
raise, it achieves little more than to catch
up on the cost of living increases they have
experienced in the last year or two. Very
little gain has taken place in income.
As a consumer, Mr. Speaker, the average
person is relatively defenceless to protect
his budget from the pillaging of unnecessary
middlemen, the fast buck artist and the un-
necessarily high cost of vital services such
as medical insurance and car insurance.
Traditionally the government has not
accepted an obligation to protect the con-
sumer. Need I remind this House, Mr.
Speaker, that no more than a couple of
years ago this government was faced with
a situation with regard to the used car field
and it had to be blasted by headlines out of
its lethargy and disinterest before it finally
faced up to it and did something about it?
Up until then they said it was the respon-
sibility of the individual to protect himself
by going to court.
We have set up a consumer credit com-
mittee. I had the honour to be a member of
that committee, one of the most enjoyable
and I think, effective committees that I have
ever sat on during my time in this Legisla-
ture. This committee has presented a report
which the Throne speech says is going to be
translated into legislation. I look forward
with almost bated breath to see how much
of that report this government will have the
courage to implement. But even if it imple-
mented all, Mr. Speaker, it is only a begin-
ning. In this field, this Tory government is
just living in the past.
Let me try to make the point that I am
going to present to all of the hon. members
here by first reminding them of the cost of
living index in Canada today and its com-
ponents. Between the month of October,
1964, and October, 1965, the cost of living
in Canada rose by 2.7 per cent, but the
breakdown of the various components in that
is even more interesting. Here they are:
Transportation 5.2 per cent; health and
personal care 4.1 per cent; food 3.6 per cent;
clothing 2.1 per cent; recreation and reading
2.1 per cent; housing 1.7 per cent; tobacco
and alcohol 1 per cent. The two largest
components of that rise in the cost of living,
I would remind the House, were transporta-
tion and health care. Let us take a look at
each of those.
In the instance of transportation we find
a further breakdown reveals that taxi fares
went up 9 per cent; street car and urban bus
fares went up 9 per cent; gasoline prices
went up 4.2 per cent, but the major source
of the pressure in this highest contributing
factor to our rise in the cost of living in the
past year came from car insurance which
rose 26.5 per cent during the past year.
I do not propose to deal at length with
this issue here. There will be plenty of
opportunity later in the session and I can
assure you we in this group are going to
140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
avail ourselves of it. But if further proof
were needed both of the cost and the shock-
ing inadequacy of private car insurance, it
is now available in the Linden report. Pro-
fessor Linden took the county of York in
1961 and did a sampling of about 1,200
accidents in which there was personal injury.
The total economic loss of all those acci-
dents in the county of York in 1961 was
estimated conservatively at some $15 million.
What happened in face of that $15 million
economic loss? Thirty-seven per cent of it,
Mr. Speaker, was compensated by insurance
companies or from the accident benefit fund
—only 37 per cent. Twenty-three per cent
of it was compensated by other third-party
compensation on a non-fault basis, such as
hospital insurance or workmen's compensa-
tion or life insurance or accident insurance.
For the remaining 40 per cent, there was no
compensation at all.
In short, Mr. Speaker, from this detailed
study that gets down to the guts of the
matter as to exactly what happens with the
economic loss that the person sustains,
private insurance meets only a little more
than one-third of the loss, and 40 per cent
of the loss is not compensated at all.
I will concede immediately that there are
many factors involved in the high cost of
car insurance and some of these are not the
responsibilities of the insurance companies,
but I suggest that most of them can be
made the responsibility, in part if not wholly,
of this government— in terms of safety pre-
cautions and the construction of cars and
things of that nature.
Two or three years ago— or was it four or
five years ago? I have lost count— even this
government became persuaded of the in-
adequacy of private automobile insurance in
this province and our unsatisfied judgment
fund. The government set up a committee,
and that committee brought in a report. The
recommendations of that committee have
been gathering dust for years while this gov-
ernment does nothing to protect the con-
sumers of this province in this particular
area.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): The hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) was chairman.
Mr. MacDonald: Right, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer was chairman.
I was very interested in the hon. member
for Lambton West who went off in that
idyllic little outburst of his in which he de-
scribes select committees as grass roots de-
mocracy, as the government going down to the
people to find out what their views or prob-
lems are and helping to shape the answers.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if this
government continues a practice which they
have done to such an extent up to now, this
exercise of grass roots democracy through
select committees, with the expenditure of
tens of thousands of dollars, and then come in
with recommendations on which they do
nothing at all—
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
That is not correct at all.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, what has the hon.
Provincial Treasurer done, for example then,
on the car insurance one? Nothing at all of
any substance on the things that really count.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The whole report of the
committee.
Mr. MacDonald: This government is doing
nothing, virtually nothing, to protect the
consumer in this field with respect to car
insurance.
Let me turn to another and related field.
The second highest component in the rise of
cost of living last year was health care, and
this brings us back to this issue of medical
insurance. I do not need to remind this
House, Mr. Speaker, that governments have
been forced to intervene because the cost of
private insurance became too high; that is
why governments have gotten into this field.
Too many people were inadequately covered
or had no coverage at all, and society as a
whole, indeed all political parties now, con-
sider that this kind of situation is intolerable
and governments must intervene with some
kind of programme.
Well, this government has acted. Now we
have their revisions in the medical insurance
bill. When it introduced the bill last spring,
Mr. Speaker, it was widely described in the
province of Ontario as a fraud because it was
designed more to benefit the insurance com-
panies than it was to benefit the people. I
submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that what this
government has presented once again to this
House is no less a fraud than it was last year.
True, this government provides coverage
for categorical aid recipients, for low income
groups, either wholly or partially, but these
represent only a small proportion of our
people. Sixty per cent of our people, the
majority of our people, have group coverage
which, even where their incomes are low, if
they are involved in group coverage they are
going to be left completely the victims of the
high-cost private insurance at the moment.
FEBRUARY' 1, 1966
141
The public has been left, for example, with
the impression that private carriers are ex-
cluded from this because the government
intervened in this area of categorical aid in
lower income groups. It is simply not true,
Mr. Speaker. Private insurance companies still
dominate the field. Moreover, this government
has assumed all of the high risk coverage
leaving the private carriers to make even
more profit out of the low risk coverage.
For example, this spring there was a great
public outcry with regard to the differential
in the standard policy that the government
was going to impose upon every private
carrier to make available. There was a
public outcry because it was discovered that
the highest rate in that differential for stan-
dard policies was going to be charged to
those who were least in a position to be able
to sustain it— our aged citizens and our sick
people. Why, even the Toronto Telegram,
which is capable of such a sycophantic re-
action to this government's actions, even they
became critical of the government when they
realized this was in the government's Medi-
care bill.
The New Democratic Party, for example,
introduced an amendment last year, saying
that anybody seeking coverage individually,
after he had canvassed the private insurance
companies, should be able to buy it, if he
desired, from the government through the
branch that was going to be established in
The Department of Health.
The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is
that the government has conceded on both
of these points, but they did not do so— I
have no illusions— because we were urging
it. They did so because the private carriers
could not and would not provide insurance
at what this government knew to be a toler-
able and acceptable premium level. So this
government has moved in and taken over
the high risks from the private carriers, leav-
ing them with the low risks.
What does this result in, Mr. Speaker? We
will have an opportunity on later occasions
to go into this in greater depth, but the
government is contending, for example, that
the per capita cost of those for whom they
are going to provide coverage is something
over $40.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the national average
that was worked out by the Hall commission
—and if I may just interject here I am
getting a little weary of these people who
would spend about five minutes with a pencil
to figure out the cost of Medicare, of medical
insurance, and then toss the Hall commission
conclusions out the window, when they were
the product of the most detailed, authoritative
and careful study of costs on the basis of
experience in Saskatchewan. The Hall com-
mission report has indicated that, in the year
1966, the average per capita cost for provid-
ing complete comprehensive coverage on a
universal basis would be in the range of
some $26.
Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, Ontario's costs
are higher than the national average, but if
one gives a fair margin and takes the figure
to $30 per capita as a province-wide average,
I am confident, on the basis of the authorita-
tive studies of the Hall commission, that that
is not an exaggeration.
What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? It means
that if this government is going to take
responsibility for all of the high risks at
something more than $40 per capita, since the
province-wide average is no more than $30
per capita, it simply means that they are
leaving to the private insurance companies
the low risk coverage, which may range down
in many instances to as low as $20 or $22
per capita. In other words, we immediately
get some, indication of the greater profits the
insurance companies are going to be able to
make. Sixty per cent of our people in group
coverage are going to be forced to continue
to pay the high cost of private carriers; and
in addition, through taxes, they are going to
have to subsidize, because of this govern-
ment's programme, the high risk coverage
which the government is taking over, and
relieve the private carriers.
That is a magnificent set-up, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a magnificent set-up— for the
insurance companies. And when I listened
to the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
on a CFRB programme on Sunday night,
when one of those sharpshooters on that round
table— that I have been the victim of on one
or two occasions— said to the hon. Minister of
Health, "Do you think that this is going to
affect the private insurance companies?", in
the most disingenuous way the hon. Minister
of Health said, "I've never considered the
private insurance company; I've never thought
about this. You may be right. In fact, I have
only talked to one of their representatives
since last spring."
This is the hon. Minister who called the
private insurance companies and the private
carriers together in a secret meeting in the
Westbury hotel in November, 1962, and said,
"This is the kind of programme we want to
put into effect. Now you build it. You thrash
it out." And the government's Bill 163 in
1963 and the government's Bill 136 in 1965
were nothing more than minor revisions of
what the private carriers worked out in
142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
November, 1962. And why the hon. Minister
of Health and the hon. Prime Minister, or
anybody else, should try to kid the public
of this province that the private carriers have
not in effect shaped this policy, shaped this
programme, to protect their interests, and we
the people of the province of Ontario are
going to have to pay the shot—
An hon. member: The hon. member cannot
prove it.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we will prove it
before this session is over, to all those who
are open-minded and can face the facts
objectively.
An hon. member: In other words, all
those who agree with the hon. member?
Mr. MacDonald: You know, I am interested,
Mr. Speaker, in the interjection of my hon.
friend over here: "all those who agree with
me". Every single one of the amendments
that the government brought into its bill here
last week were amendments that we put in
the House last spring and these same back-
benchers, like automated rubber stamps, de-
feated them; and now the government brings
them in—
Interjections by several hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes
wonder whether or not it is possible for a
Tory back-bencher to switch his policy line
with any more or less intellectual integrity
than the Commies switch their party line;
because there was nobody on that side of the
House who had the intestinal fortitude to get
up and fight last spring for what we fought.
And what you voted down, the government
now introduces.
And another point, Mr. Speaker, since we
have gotten into this issue, last Saturday's
Toronto Telegram carried a story in which
the hon. Minister of Health stated that they
are already producing the literature which,
on the 15th of this month, is going to go out
to the whole of the people of the province of
Ontario with regard to the details of this
plan. Mr. Speaker, can you think of a more
calculated piece of arrogance? This govern-
ment introduces a bill, a bill which, because
of our amendments last spring, has con-
siderably changed in this session, and yet
they come in with a bill which is still open to
criticism and are going to ram it through
without any change; and the hon. Minister of
Health, in full arrogance, is producing the
literature before the House has a chance to
discuss it; and it is going to be sent out on
February 15.
While we are on the issue, Mr. Speaker,
I think if the hon. Prime Minister has any
appreciation or respect for the function of
this Legislature, other than being a group of
rubber stamps who immediately do what the
government dictates, he should call that bill
quickly so that we will have some opportunity
to suggest to him where he may improve it
again, before he gets this literature distributed
across to the province of Ontario.
Rut, Mr. Speaker, this is not the whole
story. Regarding the $150 a month coverage
that is now going to be made available to
people who want to buy from the govern-
ment, I predict, Mr. Speaker that, just as
experience in the province of Alberta proved,
many people are simply not going to be able
to buy it at $150 a month, even with the sub-
sidies which the government is offering. I
remind this government that they are provid-
ing, roughly speaking, the same kind of sub-
sidies that were available in the province of
Alberta. And yet, in the province of Alberta,
we discovered that there were 15 per cent of
the people who refused to buy this insurance
on a voluntary basis; and the largest group in
that 15 per cent were those who were entitled
to a subsidy. They simply could not pay even
the remaining amount and they did not buy
it; and these were the people who were going
to have the greatest need if poor health
should ever strike. In other words, this gov-
ernment is simply not meeting the need of
universal coverage which is the basic justifi-
cation for government intervention in the
medical health insurance field.
Rut, Mr. Speaker, in the category of this
government's failure to protect the consumers,
let me turn to another point.
Three years ago— no, it was in 1960, six
years ago now— a select committee report was
brought in on drugs in the province of
Ontario. This committee was established be-
cause the people of this province, as well as
people across the whole of the North Ameri-
can continent, were shocked at the increasing
amount of evidence that was coming out from
American Senate committees with regard to
the high profit levels in drugs. And, in typical
Tory fashion, the Prime Minister of the
day established a committee to look into this
problem. And it came forth with a report in
1960.
Now I will concede, Mr. Speaker, that this
report basically is made up of recommenda-
tions that will have to be carried out at the
federal level. So my first question is: On all
of these issues that have to be carried on on
the federal level, what has this government
done to see that the federal government has
FEBRUARY 1, 1966 -
143
done anything about it? There was a Tory
government at Ottawa for three years before
it collapsed in 1963. What did this govern-
ment do to try to get the Diefenbaker regime
to do something about this problem? I will
tell you what it did.
Mr. Bryden: Nothing!
Mr. MacDonald: Nothing. The hon. mem-
ber for Woodbine is right— nothing. But some
of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, are
within provincial jurisdiction. For example,
recommendation 4:
That a better method of disseminating
information between manufacturers, phar-
macists and the medical profession with
[special emphasis on a reference to price be
devised to enable the medical practitioner
to prescribe the most economical drugs of
good quality.
That could be handled at the provincial level.
Nothing has been done.
Take recommendation 9— a small one that
was made by the pharmacists themselves by
way of a proposal to the committee:
That legislation be introduced to permit
a pharmacy when a licensed pharmacist is
not in attendance to close the prescription
department without closing the store.
In other words, to be able to cut down their
overhead when many of these pharmacies are
going out of business because of their costs.
What has this government done? Nothing.
That a system of central drug purchas-
ing for all Ontario institutions should be
established.
We have had it for years in our mental hos-
pitals; has it been done for all the other hos-
pitals of the province of Ontario? I do not
think so.
13. Chronic and needy patients who use
large quantities of expensive drugs should
be able to obtain them more readily and at
a lower cost.
14. That retail druggists be encouraged
to establish and develop a central mail
order outlet whereby chronic and needy
patients who use large quantities of ex-
pensive drugs can obtain them more read-
ily and at a lower cost, having in mind
that such an outlet would be a convenience
to the patient, and prescription costs would
be based on bulk purchasing.
In other words, here is another proposal that
this government could have done something
about. The fact of the matter is it brings in
the Medicare plan which does nothing about
drugs; it has been sitting for five years ort
these recommendations, a product of— what
was it?— grass roots democracy, to quote the
hon. member for Lambton West, and it has
done nothing about them. This is another
classic proof of the fact that this government
simply has not accepted its responsibility to
protect the consumer in this province from
the pillaging that goes on.
Mr. Speaker, I turn to a third area that is
related, and I am glad to see that the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) has got-
ten out of the snowdrifts and is with us,
because it is in the field of agriculture. No-
where are there greater pockets of poverty
than out in rural agricultural Ontario. And
this government has done nothing effective to
help the farmers bolster farm income through
more effective marketing plans. In fact in
many instances they have frustrated the
efforts of the farmers to have effective market-
ing, or to carry through from the marketing
point to processing. Farmers have tradition-
ally faced the problem of a cost-price squeeze.
During the last year, to this traditional
problem there have been added weather con-
ditions, almost without parallel in living
memory— first drought, and then wet weather.
I was interested, for example, to note the
comment of George MacLaughlin, who is a
confidant of this government— he has been
appointed to high positions— in which he
pointed to the complete failure of the farmers
to bolster their income over the years. And he
suggested that, in compensation for the cheap
food policy which agriculture is sustaining
today, the farmers are entitled to capital
assistance for development of individual farms
and, more particularly, capital assistance for
developing their marketing schemes and the
processing requirements that flow from the
marketing schemes.
Mr. Speaker, the frustrating nature of this
government's policies for the farmer have
been magnificently illustrated— and I take, as
just one instance— during the past year, by
the actions of this government with regard
to the bean board. The hon. Minister went
to Great Britain last spring and, overnight, he
became an expert on the marketing of beans.
He came back and immediately started
launching public attacks against the bean
board because of their marketing and pricing
procedures.
He used the Ontario farm products market-
ing board as an instrument of government
policies, with all their vagaries, to dictate to
the bean board that they should separate
their marketing board from the company
which controlled and operated the processing
144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
end. The bean board refused and we had a
most interesting confrontation.
This government then took its next step.
They brought in Price Waterhouse, pre-
sumably a reputable business management
firm, and the remarkable thing is that Price
Waterhouse came out with a report which
documented every conceivable point that this
government was trying to make against the
bean board. It was like the government's
proposal for negotiation on pensions. The
government indicated what the answer would
be, and it had every appearance of Price
Waterhouse going back and writing a report
which provided the answers that the govern-
ment wanted.
Mr. Speaker, I am not just presenting my
conception of this because one of the fascinat-
ing things of the past few months is that the
bean board has brought forth its counter-
report in which they have demolished the
Price Waterhouse report. They pointed to
inaccuracies, to bad judgment; to sum it up,
they demolished it. Just let me quote their
conclusion:
In conclusion, in our opinion, the Price
Waterhouse and Company report appears
to be poorly organized. It contains arbitrary
assumptions and unsupported opinions.
There is virtually no evidence that alter-
natives were considered before the actions
were recommended. The report gives the
impression-
note this, Mr. Speaker:
—of having been written to support pre-
conceived conclusions.
I wonder who they got the conclusions from?
I will suggest who they got them from— the
hon. Minister of Agriculture of this govern-
ment.
Much of the analysis and interpretation
of the facts presented is open to consider-
able question. The report contains many
inconsistent comments. Many of the con-
clusions reached do not fall logically from
the evidence and the analysis.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you read
through the report, the documentation of
those rather general conclusions is a solid
and impressive one.
However, in spite of such a reaction, this
fall the hon. Minister of Agriculture was
still adamant. He was still going to impose
his will on the bean board and he summoned
to Queen's Park these little boys who have
got to come and get their advice from Big
Daddy. He reiterated his dictate, and then
something interesting happened. Within a day
or two—
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): That is not right.
Mr. MacDonald: —the hon. Minister
changed his mind and called the bean board
representatives in and said he had changed
his mind. They could go back, they could
make plans for the plebiscite to get authori-
zation for a check-off so they could continue
to expand their processing facilities. In other
words, on this, as on the Medicare bill, the
government completely reversed itself. The
interesting question, Mr. Speaker, is why,
and since the hon. Minister thinks I am
being fanciful, I will leave him with that
question and we will come back to it later
in the session.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will have an answer
for the hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: I will give him the oppor-
tunity at any time he chooses, other than
now—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now—
Mr. MacDonald: I said "other than now",.
to give his side of the story. But, Mr. Speaker,
what I want to draw to the attention of this
House, is that the fat now is really in the
fire, because apparently there were two men
on the Ontario farm products marketing board
who had sufficient integrity that they were
not going to be used any longer by this gov-
ernment for its political purposes and they
resigned— Alden MacLean and Gordon Hill.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of High-
ways): For their political purposes.
Mr. MacDonald: Not for their political
purposes, as the hon. Minister of Highways
interjects. All they were doing was pushing
what this government pushed last spring
through to this fall, but the government
switched its line and changed.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: How does the
hon. member know, he was not there?
Mr. MacDonald: And having been used
by the government for six or eight months
to suit its purposes, they were not going to
let their integrity be abused for a complete
switch in policy. I respect them for their
integrity, though quite frankly I disagree
with what they were fighting for.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member
agrees with what is being done now, then?
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with what is being
done now, right. You bet your life I agree
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
145
with what is being, done now and I will be
interested to know why it is being done.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: But, Mr. Speaker, why
did it take-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: But, Mr. Speaker, why
did it take this government some six or eight
months to be badgered into doing what is the
right thing? And why did it have to use and
abuse honourable men on the marketing
board for six or eight months, until it
happened to switch its policy?
An hon. member: Did the hon. member's
party force them into that, too?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: No, we did not force
them into that.
Mr. Speaker, I will leave that particular
aspect with you and come back to it later
in the year, because it is another example
of the extent to which this government does
not protect the consumer. In the instance of
the farmer, who happens to be producing
many of the things that the consumer needs,
this government has done a very poor job in
assisting him to help himself towards effective
marketing, and even more important, in face
of vertical integration, to secure the neces-
sary credit to move into the processing field
so that the farmer has some control of his
product. This government has not done a
job, in this connection and in the context of
a number of issues, including the bean board;
we will get back to that later in the session.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to my final item
in the context of this government's failure
to protect the interests of the consumer, and
it happens to be an item which has been
ignored— I think I am correct— almost com-
pletely for 40 years in this House, though I
submit it is an obligation of this government.
Down through the years, this government
has sat idly by each time the Bell Telephone
Company has sought a rate increase. It has
never raised its voice to champion the cause
of the home owner or the businessman, who,
as an individual, is powerless to counter the
marshalled resources of this giant corpora-
tion when it goes before the board of trans-
port commissioners to bolster its already
strong financial position. This government
has left the task to the federation of mayors
and municipalities, which has to pass the hat
among the already financially strapped muni-
cipalities to raise enough money to present a
case on behalf of the telephone users.
It is interesting to note that governments
in this province have not always shirked their
responsibilities. In this connection, I have
here, for example, Mr. Speaker— and to any
hon. member, who might like to take a look
at it at any greater length, I shall make it
available— a bound volume of a brief pre-
sented on behalf of the Ferguson government
in 1926, when it opposed Bell's application
for a rate increase in that year. Let me give
the House a few quotations from that Fer-
guson government brief to the 1926 hearings,
so that hon. members may savour the flavour
of a Tory attack in those days, when Tories
still accepted an obligation to protect the
public interests in this field. The brief
pointed out that Bell began preparations for
the 1926 applications just four days after the
last date on which it had been turned down
for a rate application in 1922.
This new attempt to place a new burden
of taxation upon the telephone users and
subscribers of Ontario and Quebec has
been a long time in the course of prepara-
tion—
the brief said, and then it continued:
The telephone users and subscribers of
Ontario and Quebec are now nearly taxed
to death by the already high taxes in the
form of extortionate long-distance and
other telephone rates in addition to the
depreciation-reserve extortion.
The brief points out that these reserves have
been built up to more than $38 million:
—deducted from the net earnings of the
company and wrung out of the telephone
users and subscribers of Ontario and
Quebec within the last few years under
the pretence of being used for deprecia-
tion.
In fact, the brief states only one-third of that
amount has been spent for depreciation,
while the remaining two-thirds was not spent.
It charged:
Not one dollar of this latter amount has
been spent or used for the purpose for
which it was squeezed out of and extracted
from the unsuspecting telephone users and
subscribers of these two great provinces.
It has been diverted and converted to
other uses by the company.
Later, the brief dealt with another matter
which is still very relevant today, namely,
146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Bell's relationship with its subsidiaries. This
is what it had to say:
Reference in this connection might also
be made to the covering up and the
scurrying-to-cover tactics in connection
with the disclosure of all relations and
dealings of the Bell Telephone Company
of Canada and its subsidiary the Northern
Electric Manufacturing Company, which
latter company is merely the directors of
the Bell Telephone Company of Canada,
and the Bell Telephone Company itself
manufacturing apparatus and selling it to
themselves under another name at high
monopoly prices, fixed and agreed upon
between each company and its directors
thereby making it possible to empty the
Bell treasury and create a deficit when a
rate case is coming, or at any time it sees
fit to do so.
That, Mr. Speaker, in case some back-
bencher becomes puzzled, is still a quote
from a Tory government's brief.
The Ferguson government brief returned
once again to the burden of depreciation
reserves placed on the telephone user. I
quote:
On the 21st of December, 1925, the
money supposed to be in the depreciation
reserves of the Bell Telephone Company
of Canada and unused and unspent for de-
preciation amounting to $23,295,000 and
the surplus amounted to $6.8 million. The
depreciation reserve and surplus has all
been built up out of earnings, and repre-
sents no direct investment of the security
holders. It was and is the result of a de-
duction from earnings and is all invested
in property, plant and equipment of the
company.
In other words the telephone users and
subscribers of the two provinces of Ontario
and Quebec paid and are still paying the
high and excessive rates and charges under
which this enormous fund and these
reserves have been built up.
The Ferguson government brief therefore
came to this stinging conclusion:
This is the most barefaced piece of vil-
lainy and imposition ever attempted upon a
free people-
Mr. Bryden: The Tories were red-blooded
in those days.
Mr. MacDonald:
—and its exposure before this honourable
board will not be the last this corporate
monopoly will hear about it.
The Ferguson government brief pointed the
way out, and I quote again:
The only way that the public will ever
be saved from this ever-growing financial
snowball is for the board to lay down the
principle that the Bell Telephone Company
of Canada is not entitled to collect interest,
return and increase rates from the tele-
phone users on the reserves which are
invested in the telephone plant, for the
simple reason that the public have contri-
buted that money and has nothing to show
for it.
Mr. Speaker, dealing with the question of
rights for new shares, extended exclusively to
existing shareholders, another issue that is
still of lively concern today, the Ferguson
government brief stated bluntly:
The granting of subscription privileges
for new issues of stock is simply a covert
method of distributing a surplus.
The Ferguson brief therefore urged that Bell
rates should be reduced by 25 per cent and,
further:
—that the sum of $10 million overcharges
and excessive depreciation charges be either
refunded to the telephone users and sub-
scribers or that they be given the benefit
thereof by a corresponding reduction in
telephone rates forthwith.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the end of my refer-
ences to the 1926 brief. But I gave them at
some length to the House just in case— it is
just a possibility, you know— just in case some
of the back-benchers should begin to react
instinctively that this is an unwarranted attack
on a public utility.
We have had a succession of Liberal and
Conservative administrations in this province
since 1926. Indeed, since 1943, we have had
23 years of uninterrupted Tory rule, and not
once has Ontario raised its voice in opposition
to Bell's repeated and usually successful
efforts to get a rate increase.
In 1957, for example, Bell sought a rate
increase. There was a concerted outcry, so
great that the board of transport commis-
sioners refused to grant it, but this govern-
ment did nothing to protect the consumer
interest. The very next year, though there
had been no appreciable change in Bell's
financial position, the corporation was back
with a further application for a rate increase.
This time it was granted but once again this
government was silent.
But consider for a moment what has hap-
pened since then, Mr. Speaker. The general
financial position of Bell, as it is widely recog-
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
147
nized, has been a very strong one. Its annual
reports in the 18 postwar years, 1946-63,
reveal that Bell's operating revenues increased
from $77 million to $503 million, its profits
after taxes from $8 million to $68 million, and
its dividends from $7 million to $58 million.
The Bell's real profit position has always
been hidden from the public in a number of
ways. One per cent is taken off the top of
Bell's gross telephone revenues, amounting to
some $4.7 million, for payment to American
Telephone and Telegraph, its largest single
shareholder, under the terms of a manage-
ment contract and patent pool. Considerable
amounts of Bell's profits are drained off into
unregulated profits of subsidiaries and affili-
ates, notably Northern Electric, from which
Bell buys most of its equipment. Bell main-
tains a non-contributory funded pension plan
which is excessively expensive, with payments
almost three times as great as would be
necessary under a pay-as-you-go plan.
Despite these many questionable tech-
niques for keeping Bell's profit position
within limits, this corporation has regularly,
for more than six years now, made more profit
than is authorized by the board of transport
commissioners. The situation is this: In its
judgments of 1950, 1952 and 1958, the board
of transport commissioners fixed a ceiling of
$2.43 per share on Bell's earnings, equivalent
to 5.9 per cent on overall capital and 6.6
per cent on common equity. Notwithstanding
that ceiling of $2.43, Bell's earnings have
been the following, Mr. Speaker: In 1959,
$2.48; in 1960, $2.52; in 1961, $2.50; in 1962,
$2.66; in? 1963, $2.58; in 1964, $2.71. In
1964 Bell's overall capital earnings were 6.3
per cent, though the permissive level was
fixed at 5.9, and its common equity earnings
were 7.3 per cent though the permissive total
was fixed at 6.6.
In short, Mr. Speaker, through all of these
years, Bell has been extracting from the
Ontario telephone subscribers more money
than it is legally entitled to and not once has
this provincial government protested this ex-
ploitation of the consumer.
When this situation had gone on for year
after year for six years, apparently the board
of transport commissioners finally became a
little concerned. With its regulations being
openly violated, this sleeping watchdog de-
cided to bestir itself. A new hearing was
launched by the board last year. More than
six months have passed since that public
hearing concluded and as yet no judgment
has been handed down. The purpose of this
hearing— and I find this most interesting, Mr.
Speaker— was not to inquire into Bell's viola-
tion of profit levels fixed in 1951, but was
rather a general inquiry into the permissive
levels of earnings for Bell in the future. With
millions of dollars of telephone users' money
illegally pocketed, Bell never even blushed.
Instead this giant corporation seized the
opportunity of the new board hearings to
argue that its permissive level of earnings
on overall capital should be increased to seven
per cent.
Now, what does this really mean, Mr.
Speaker? Forty per cent of Bell's capital is in
bonds on which the interest averages 4.8 per
cent. Therefore, if it is permitted to earn
seven per cent on overall capital, its earnings
on the 60 per cent of its capital which is
in common equity could rise to 8.5 per cent.
This, sir, is what Bell is seeking before the
board.
In short, Bell is going for even higher profit
levels in spite of its excessive and illegal level
of earnings since 1958, and the board of
transport commissioners, believe it or not,
has been pondering since last June how
much, if any, of this larger slice of the con-
sumer dollar it is going to grant to Bell.
Even in face of this bid for higher profits
this government left the battle once again to
the Canadian federation of mayors and muni-
cipalities. The federation represented some
90 municipal corporations from Ontario and
Quebec before the board as they attempted
to match the unlimited resources of this big
corporation in 24 days of public hearings.
The role of the board of transport com-
missioners is a passive one. It does not dig
on behalf of the telephone users. For the
most part it accepts the weight of the evi-
dence presented to it and renders its decision
in the face of that evidence. Inevitably the
battle is an uneven one unless the weight of
presentation on behalf of the consumers'
interest is strengthened by some organization
as powerful and influential as the government
of Ontario. It is inexcusable that this govern-
ment should have shirked its responsibilities
in this way. Forty years ago Howard Fer-
guson had a far greater appreciation of the
responsibilities of a government, even a Tory
government, to protect the consumer from
the exploitation by a public monopoly.
There were hours of evidence, Mr. Speaker,
submitted to the board of transport commis-
sioners during those 24 days of public hear-
ings last June which I think this House should
consider. For the moment, I would like to
present to the hon. members just one aspect
of Bell's financing— how it raises its capital.
This is vitally important because Bell esti-
mates that in its expansion programme it
148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will require $1,250 million additional capital
in the next five years. Indeed, in talking to
one of its top officials just last week I was
told that its capital requirements this coming
year are in the range of $250 million.
In 1958 the board of transport commis-
sioners reaffirmed a debt ratio of 40 per
cent for Bell; that is, 40 per cent bonds and
60 per cent shares. A strong submission
was made by the federation of mayors and
municipalities that this debt ratio should be
raised to at least 50 per cent so that savings
could be effected. As I have already indi-
cated, debt capital cost the telephone sub-
scriber much less than equity capital. Most
privately owned electrical utilities operate
on a 50 per cent debt ratio and government-
owned public utilities are financed 100 per
cent by bonds, thereby reducing the burden
to the subscribers through a lower interest
load.
But even more incredible, Mr. Speaker, is
the manner in which Bell raises the 60 per
cent share capital. The corporation has con-
fined itself solely to disposing of new issues
in two ways: first, through its employee stock
option plan at a maximum of $36 per share,
in spite of the fact that the average market
value of Bell's shares in 1964 was $54.23;
secondly, by rights offered to shareholders to
purchase shares far below the market price.
In 1964 those rights were offered at $38.
In other words, employees were given a
tax-free capital gain of $18 on every share
they bought; shareholders who purchased
rights received a $16 tax-free capital gain
on every share they bought, and Bell itself
netted millions of dollars less in capital than
if the shares had been marketed to the
public at the going rate.
Furthermore, in spite of Bell's extensive
propaganda which alleges that it is a Cana-
dian-owned company, with its stock widely
distributed among the so-called little people
of Canada, the largest single shareholder in
Bell is American Telephone and Telegraph,
which drew $1 million in Bell dividends last
year, and more than one-third— the latest
figure is 37 per cent— of its shares are held by
financial institutions. Furthermore, Bell's 15
directors are bankers, and trust and insur-
ance-company directors who speak for the
financial institutions who own the more than
one-third of the corporation's shares.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the capital financing
of Bell is done in a costly way, providing the
maximum of benefit to those who now own
its shares, with the subscriber paying the
shot.
It is only fair to acknowledge that a cor-
poration which has to go to the capital
market as often as Bell, faces the problem
of depressing the market values of its stocks
by new issues. Sales of new issues at some
discount is a normal practice. But the
proposition of new issues being made avail-
able at a discount of approximately 30 per
cent reduces the amount of capital that Bell
does raise, and forces the corporation to
resort to new issues even more frequently,
so that there is even greater "watering" of
its stock than is necessary.
Furthermore, Bell's new issues are re-
stricted to an exclusive group— the present
shareholders and employees. The public is
given no opportunity to purchase Bell's new
shares except insofar as the "rights" holders
immediately market them. As they say in
the United States utility field, "rights"
should be granted to the consumer, too, by
permitting some of them to purchase Bell's
new issues at the market value, or at a
modest discount. This normal practice would
net a greater flow of capital to the corpora-
tion in face of its admittedly heavy needs
for expansion purposes.
However, Mr. Speaker, I come now to my
major point: Even if this government has
neglected its responsibilities to protect the
interests of the telephone subscriber from
excessive exploitation by a monopoly utility
in the past, it simply cannot shirk those re-
sponsibilities any longer, and I want to docu-
ment the reasons why.
Bell is now starting to reap unprecedented
profits arising from extensive expansion in the
past few years, combined with technological
progress. On every major factor in Bell's
financial statement, its position grows more
favourable every year. For example, operat-
ing expenses, exclusive of taxes, dropped
from 68.04 per cent of total operating
revenues in 1959 to 63.26 per cent in 1964.
Net operating revenues, therefore, rose from
31.96 per cent in 1959 to 36.74 per cent in
1964. And operating profits, before depre-
ciation and income tax, rose from 45.33 per
cent in 1959 to 52.05 per cent in 1964.
Automation is constantly and increasingly
reducing manpower needs, so that total pay-
roll in relation to operating revenues dropped
from 41.2 per cent in 1959 to 34.47 per cent
in 1964.
Mr. Speaker, the real key to the future
earnings of Bell is found in another set of
statistics. Operating revenues per phone rose
from $116.63 in 1959 to $129.46 in 1964.
Operating expenses per phone, during the
same period, rose relatively little— from
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
149
$79.35 to $81.90. Therefore, the net oper-
ating revenue per phone rose from $37.28 in
1959 to $47.56 in 1964, an increase of $10
per phone.
This trend of increase in net operating
revenues is certain to continue, and it is
possibly going to reach $60 per phone by
1970. Only a major economic slump might
disrupt it.
In short, revenues are going up and costs,
relatively speaking, are going down. The
increase in revenue is a combination of more
phones; a higher tariff per phone as urban
areas grow into larger group-rate areas with
higher rates, and extra services, not neces-
sarily controlled by the board of transport
commissioners— for example, Princess phones,
business intercom systems and space telem-
etry. Costs, while fairly level, have declined
relatively and in constant dollars, due to the
advanced technology and automation. Em-
ployees per thousand phones have declined
from 12.52 in 1958 to 8.32 in 1964, a decline
of more than 33 per cent.
The board of transport commissioners
lieard arguments that unit costs of telephone
service will continue to drop. I have given
you the picture up until now; the trend will
•continue and accelerate. For example, Bell
says a manual operator used to make 4.8
million connections in a lifetime while the
crossbar switching system now used in
Canada makes the same number of connec-
tions in three hours and 20 minutes. More-
over, electronic switching now used in the
United States and coming to Canada in 1967,
does the same job in 12 seconds.
The board was therefore urged to make
sure that enormous cost savings due to
modern technology are passed on to the
public through lower rates. Instead, what is
happening, Mr. Speaker, is that Bell is seek-
ing higher permissive levels for earnings
which would make it possible that all these
savings will go to the owner-investor, and
none to the public. What is worse, Bell could
seek a rate increase on a higher permissive
level of earnings. The official proclamation
of the board prior to last year's hearings
stated, and I am quoting:
Existing rates, or any revision thereof,
that may be requested in consequence of
the board's findings, will be reviewed later
if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention
what the experts in the investment field are
predicting for Bell? I would not expect the
hon. members from that side of the House to
accept my assessment of this, so let us go to
the experts. For example, the research de-
partment of one reputable firm, Bongard &
Company Limited, has made the following
appraisal of Bell's future earnings.
First, assuming that the board makes no
change at all following last year's hearing, it
estimates that Bell's earnings per share by
1969 will be $3.03 and that the market value
of the shares will range from $52 to $61.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as an indication of just
how conservative was this estimate, Bell's
shares already— not 1969, but 1966— have
reached the peak of that range without any
change by the board of transport commis-
sioners by breaking $60 within the past few
weeks, three years ahead of Bongard's fore-
cast. You might bear that in mind if you
think some of their later forecasts are exag-
gerated for they may be just as conservative.
Second, assuming more debt only— up, for
example, to the suggested 50 per cent debt
—Bongard estimates that Bell's earnings per
share will be $3.26 per share and the market
value to range from $62 to $75 by 1969.
Third, assuming a seven per cent return on
overall capital— this is what Bell has requested
—Bongard estimates that Bell's earnings per
share will rise to $3.74 per share by 1969,
with market values in the range of $75 to
$86.
Finally, assuming that Bell is granted a
permissive level of seven per cent on overall
capital, plus a higher debt ratio, then Bon-
gard estimates that Bell shares will reach
$3.93 per share by 1969, with market values
ranging from $86 to $102.
Mr. Speaker, if you want a more up-to-date
estimate, because quite frankly that one was
made in November or December of 1964— we
therefore have had an opportunity to see how
conservative it is on the one where no change
is made— but if you want a more up-to-date
estimate, I was interested to note in the
Toronto Globe and Mail column "An Invest-
ment I Like", carried on January 19 this year,
by Gurston Rosenfeld of R. A. Daly & Com-
pany, the following. These are Mr. Rosen-
f eld's observations:
Common sense points to the elimination
of the straitjacket of fixed profits per share.
Bell's 1965 profit is estimated to be $2.95
per share. If common sense prevails and
the board of transport commissioners rules
in favour of a seven per cent return on
capital, Bell's 1966 permissive profit would
be in the order of $3.30 per share.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): What time does the market
open?
150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: That is the kind of com-
ment I would expect from the hon. Minister,
rather than recognizing his obligation to get
out and protect the consumers who have been
gouged for what I am trying to spell out
for him.
And that, Mr. Speaker— just let me digress
for one moment. Let us accept this proposal,
this suggestion of Mr. Rosenfeld, that this
year's Bell earnings are going to be $2.95—
and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this
is likely fairly accurate because their nine-
months announcement of earnings was $2.18
which, if projected, comes to $2.92 for the
whole year, so it will likely be in the range
of $2.90. That means that Bell this year is
going to be illegally distributing more than
50 cents per share beyond the $2.43 limit that
was set by the board of transport commis-
sioners in 1958.
It is interesting to note at the moment that
Bell has 29,628,543 outstanding shares. With
50 cents excess distribution of earnings, illegal
distribution of earnings, that means that Bell
is going to be distributing approximately $15
million that it has extracted from the con-
sumers of this province and the province of
Quebec in excess of the legal limit granted to
it by the board of transport commissioners.
In fact that is not the whole story, Mr.
Speaker. It is not the whole story for this
reason. Earnings are distributed after they
have paid their corporation tax, and the
corporation tax is approximately 50 per cent.
Therefore if they are distributing $15 million,
this means that Bell this year has extracted
$30 million illegally from the consumers of
this province of Ontario— $30 million beyond
what they are legally entitled to for the serv-
ice they are providing according to the law
of the land.
An hon. member: Nonsense!
Mr. MacDonald: Not nonsense at all. That,
sir, happens to be the fact.
In short, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly,
the investment world considers that Bell's
permissive level of earnings is going to be
raised by the board of transport commis-
sioners and a forecast earnings of $4 per share
by Bell in 1970, with market values soaring
over $100, all of which is going to be paid for
by the almost defenceless telephone sub-
scriber.
Now traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the in-
vestor-owner interests have been paramount
in the operation of Bell. I suggest to you the
time has come to give the subscriber's interest
a real place in Bell's operations. After a fair
return to the investor— and I would say to the
hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) and I
emphasize it, after a fair return adjudicated
by the board of transport commissioners, not
illegal excess returns— and returns in the past
have been such that Bell has always been a
favourite blue chip stock; after competitive
remuneration to its staff, all increases in net
revenue, I submit to this House, should be
logically passed back to the subscriber in the
form of lower rates. Who is going to cham-
pion the interests of the telephone subscriber?
I suggest that this government should, and I
do so along two lines.
First, this government should press for a
change in the rule of the board of transport
commissioners. If hon. members of this
House think that I have been too harsh in my
criticism of our federal regulatory body, and
the sympathetic treatment which it has ac-
corded to Bell, let me briefly give them some
idea of the role played by a comparable regu-
latory body in the United States.
I have here, for example, records of a
case that went before the supreme court of
California when the public utilities commis-
sion of that state moved in because of exces-
sive earnings. And listen to this: The PUC
investigated the rates of Pacific Telephone
and Telegraph, an affiliate of the American
Bell Telephone system, because the PUC had
a suspicion that Pacific may have exceeded
its permissive level of earnings by 16/100ths
of one per cent. They not only ruled against
Pacific when they found this to be the case,
they ordered them— after they brought down
their order some two years later— to return
$80 million in excess earnings to the sub-
scribers.
Pacific took the issue to court, and while
the court ruled that the PUC may have ex-
ceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the rebate,
it did not interfere with the PUC's vigorous
regulatory action— and an appeal on the re-
fund order case is still before the higher
courts.
But, Mr. Speaker, listen to the PUC in Cali-
fornia, a real regulatory body, not a sleeping
watchdog. Listen to its explanation of the
role of a regulatory body:
The telephone company is a privately
owned utility, created and operated to
make money for the owners. The com-
mission takes the place of competition,
protecting the consumer against charges
imposed by a lawful monopoly which has
virtually the power to tax. The company
conceives its role as comparable to govern-
ment; this has led it to believe that the
company must be permitted in effect to
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
151
determine its own earnings, with the com-
mission approving as a matter of law, the
company's proposals.
Referring there, of course, to the Pacific's
attitude. If you think that is a rather tough
attitude, saying to Pacific, "You think you
are government and can do as you please,"
consider this added comment of the Cali-
fornia PUC:
Pride in one's work and a feeling that
one is the best outfit— esprit de corps— are
admirable in either military or civilian life.
One should, however, retain a sense of pro-
portion. And when a private institution
occupies a position of unchallenged super-
iority, when it is widely regarded and
popularly acclaimed as the biggest and
the best, the growth of esprit de corps
without proper perspective may lead to a
sort of institutional paranoia. Petitioner
[that is, Pacific Telephone] displays a
number of symptoms. Its confidence in its
own superior rectitude results in a con-
viction that the Bell system should prevail
over everyone who offers disagreement on
any point.
There is a regulatory system with some iron
in its soul.
In comparing that kind of vigorous defence
of the rights of the public with the role of
our board of transport commissioners in
Ottawa, our board1, I repeat, is nothing more
than a sleeping watchdog, with emphasis on
the "sleeping."
Later in its statement, the California PUC
outlined its approach to rate fixing. Mr.
Speaker, listen to this:
To determine rates, the commission usu-
ally works from the date recorded by the
company* making adjustments and allow-
ances as necessary to protect the consumer
from unfair or unreasonable charges, in
order to establish rates that are fair and
reasonable to both the public and the
utility.
Rate regulation is one part of the direct,
comprehensive, and continuous regulation
to which utilities are subject. If profits are
too high, rates are reduced; if profits are
too low, rates are increased; it is unlawful
to charge more, or less, than the rate fixed
by the commission. If a utility pays ex-
cessive salaries to its officers, or if it pays
unreasonable high prices for materials [to
a wholly owned subsidiary, for example]
or if it overbuilds its distribution system in
relation to the number of customers, such
excess expenditure may be disallowed. On
the other hand, if its facilities are not
adequate, the utility may be ordered to
build the necessary additions.
Later, the PUC was even more explicit with
regard to its right to disallow excessively high
salaries to top officials of the company:
The commission did not exceed its juris-
diction or otherwise fail to regularly pursue
its authority when it refused to burden the
consumers with all of the petitioner's in-
creased salaries; it appeared that in a six-
year period executive salaries—
this is of Pacific Telephone Company:
—increased 131 per cent, the number of
executives increased 66 per cent, while
the number of employees decreased 6 per
cent.
Has anyone ever heard of the board of
transport commissioners raising questions like
that in a Bell application for rate increase?
And why has it not?
Despite the supreme court's ruling against
the PUC right to order a refund of $80
million in California, the commission has
argued-and it has argued brilliantly and
with a verbal vigour in this statement that
was rather delicious to read, instead of the
gobbledygook of the normal legal document
-that:
The refund is (a) constitutional; (b)
supported by judicial precedent; (c) author-
ized by statute; and (d) consistent with
commission precedents.
So the decision of the court in refusing re-
fund has been appealed.
Mr. Speaker, who in Canada is protecting
the public interest by seeking a refund to
telephone subscribers of earnings in excess
of the authorized limit that Bell has? Who?
On the basis of 1965 alone, if it pays $2.95
per share, that means an illegal distribution
of earnings of $15 million, and since that
distribution is made after a 50 per cent cor-
poration tax, that means that it illegally
extracted from the telephone user $30
million. Who is going to defend the con-
sumers against this kind of thing? Nobody.
Certainly not this government.
The role of the board of transport com-
missioners is a passive one. Clearly the time
has come to press for a change in the role
of the transport commissioners, to make it
an inquisitive and truly regulatory body so
that the public can be protected from the
exploitation by a private monopoly such as
Bell.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we come back to
this government. This government should
152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
supply leadership and funds to keep Bell
under surveillance, and when hearings are
called by the board this government should
finance and lead the case for the respondent.
Howard Ferguson used to do it; why not
John Robarts?
An hon. member: He is thinking about it.
Mr. MacDonald: Is he thinking about it? I
wish I could get the comment from a more
authoritative source. In fact, if this govern-
ment were doing its duty, it would not be
sitting idly by while Bell illegally exceeds
its permissive level of earnings. It would
not be so silent when Bell seeks an even
higher permissive level of earnings. It would
be leading the fight to make certain that
some of the benefits of Bell's monopoly posi-
tion, and the technological progress, would
not be going into the earnings which are
forecast for more than $4 per share, and $100
market value for stock, all to the benefit of
the investor-owner, but it would be making
certain that some of those benefits were
channeled back to the subscribers whose
money has placed Bell in a strong financial
position.
In short, Mr. Speaker, instead of sitting
idly by in face of rate increases, the facts
suggest that this government should be
taking the lead today to secure a hearing
before the board of transport commissioners
for a rate decrease. There is every justifica-
tion for it, and this party invites the govern-
ment to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I turn very briefly— and I
hope I can tuck this in before six o'clock— to
the amendment. The speech of the hon.
leader of the Opposition, which was con-
cluded by the amendment, had no form and
very little content that was not, in the words
of Mr. Wintermeyer, platitudinous. The hon.
leader of the Opposition complained of the
government's patchwork approach. I agree
the government's approach was a patchwork,
but rarely have I seen or heard of a more
confused and patchwork approach than what
the hon. leader of the Opposition himself
presented.
The hon. leader of the Opposition described
the Throne speech as an uninspired document,
with no co-ordination or cohesion, no sense
of direction and purpose; in short it gave no
indication of dynamic leadership. Mr. Speaker,
precisely the same criticisms can be levelled at
the Liberal amendment. I was not over-
whelmed by it last night— the nuance was
missed by people who listened to me— I was
appalled by it. It was an uninspired listing
of failures of this government with no co-
ordination or cohesion, no sense of direction
or purpose; in short, it is no alternative in
terms of dynamic leadership.
The Liberal amendment is just another
laundry list of unfinished business, proving
conclusively that there is no difference be-
tween the Liberals and the Conservatives.
To quote the Globe and Mail this morning.
They are both walking hand in hand
down the same road.
Is that not a lovely analogy? How magnifi-
cently apt. They are walking hand in hand
down the same road. Mr. Speaker, just let
me assure you, we are not walking with
them. The government's policies are inade-
quate, in not doing anything to really cope
with the problem of poverty by getting at a
guaranteed income, and all the other prob-
lems I dealt with earlier and will not repeat
now, and in the failure of this government to
develop dynamic economic and social devel-
opments throughout the various parts of this
province, so that we can avoid the possibility
of re-creating that poverty in the next genera-
tion, and can have a positive, comprehensive
manpower programme that must be set up if
we are going to be able to meet the needs
of our economy, and which cannot be at-
tempted until we have got some sort of an
inventory of our skills.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rown-
tree) came in last year and deluded us into
believing that this kind of thing was going
to be done by the research department of
The Department of Labour. Now The De-
partment of Economics and Development
goes to a poverty conference in Ottawa and
it suggests that it is not being done; and
only when it is done can you then start to
work out a manpower policy. This govern-
ment simply is not doing the job, as the
Liberals in Ottawa are not doing the job.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
The hon. member docs not even know the
facts.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I know what my facts
are.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Fort William (Mr. Freeman):
That the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, now
before the House, be amended by adding
thereto the following:
And, above all, this House regrets gov-
ernmental failure to achieve even the basic
prerequisites necessary to eliminate poverty
and to prevent its recurrence in succeeding
FEBRUARY 1, 1966
153
generations and, to remedy this neglect,
advocates that:
1. Government policy should henceforth
be oriented towards a guaranteed basic
income programme, dynamic regional eco-
nomic and social development, and a com-
prehensive manpower programme based in
the first instance on a skills inventory;
2. As an immediate, interim measure, old
age security and related allowances should
be increased to $100 per month.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, what the Tory
party at Ottawa wants, what this government
supported in the hustings, something which
even Leslie Frost came out of retirement to
support vigorously— the payment of $100 a
month— because said he, in most magnificent
contradiction of most of his earlier statements,
"The economy of this nation can bear this
kind of thing."
I suggest that this government should move
towards doing it. It should be done by
Ottawa. When can we get Ottawa to do it,
even though there is a majority in the House
that wants it? I do not know. Such is the
frustration of democracy at the federal level
which we sometimes see here. But in any
case, until we can get them to act, I suggest
that the needs of these people are urgent, to
quote Mr. Frost, and that this government
should move immediately.
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow I would like to deal with,
probably, second reading of government bills,
the orders number two to six. We will then
resume this debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
ERRATUM
(January 27, 1966)
Page
51
Column
2
Line
48
Correction
Change to read:
reformatory have recorded the following com-
ments.
No. 7
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
Bebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, February 2, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 2, 1966
Plant Diseases Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 157
Stallions Act, bill to repeal, Mr. Stewart, first reading 157
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Sopha, first reading 157
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, first reading 157
Expansion and improvement of privately owned woodlands, bill to provide for,
Mr. Roberts, first reading 157
Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Davison, first reading 158
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 163
Public Lands Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 163
Provincial Land Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 164
Bailiffs Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Crown Administration of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
County Courts Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Jurors Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Public Trustee Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Mechanics' Lien Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 165
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Walker, Mr. Ben, Mr.
Welch, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. White 166
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. White, agreed to 187
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 187
157
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
to the Legislature as guests today, in the
east gallery, students from Riverside high
school, Windsor.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE PLANT DISEASES ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Plant Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation,
these amendments simply provide for a
change in the name of The Plant Diseases
Act in accordance with the proposed change
in The Department of Agriculture Act and
they also provide a penalty clause for viola-
tions of inspectors' operations.
THE STALLIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to repeal The Stallions
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Highway Traffic Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Wednesday, February 2, 1966
THE CROWN TIMBER ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Crown Timber Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, a number of changes
are being made to The Crown Timber Act
for the purposes of ensuring that Crown
timber on areas held under licences are fully
utilized, clarifying the intent of a number of
sections, strengthening management pro-
visions, of discontinuing the issue of new
pulpwood scalers' licences, but the existing
licences will be continued, and of providing
greater flexibility to the penalty provisions of
the Act.
PRIVATELY OWNED WOODLANDS
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to provide for the ex-
pansion and improvement of privately owned
woodlands.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, with your
permission and the permission of the House,
I would like to explain more on the intro-
duction of this bill than I would normally do
at this stage of its progress through the
Legislature, because I am sure it is not a
contentious bill. On that basis I ask this
indulgence.
This bill which it is proposed to cite as
The Woodlands Improvement Act, 1966, has
as its major objective the improvement of
privately owned woodlands in the province,
mainly in southern Ontario. We propose to
do it by providing, at government expense,
the facilities for planting and for stand im-
provement under contract with the owners,
who will join with the department in this
attack on a major problem in southern
Ontario.
158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This will be accomplished by designating
a number of areas for tree planting and
woodland improvement by negotiating with
land owners in these areas where they are
willing to enter into contracts to carry out
the objectives. The overall programme can
be illustrated by pointing out that we are
aiming at rehabilitating an estimated 7.8
million acres of private forest land in
southern Ontario. Of this, 2 million is now
idle land requiring tree planting and 5.8
million acres is woodlands in need of silvi-
cultural treatment and management to bring
it back to a more productive stage.
This programme will benefit the land
owner, the forest industries, the community
and the province as a whole. The 1,343
secondary wood using industries in southern
Ontario require 112,000,000 fbm, 224,000
cords of hardwood annually. The furniture
industry uses half of that total. Among the
hardwoods, maple is of particular impor-
tance. Latest available statistics show that
the secondary wood using industries employ
about 27,000 people having an annual pay-
roll reaching up to $100 million, with the
gross value of their manufactured products
exceeding $300 million.
A survey of secondary wood using firms
in southwestern Ontario in 1965 revealed
that half of their wood requirements were
imported from outside Canada. Species such
as mahogany will continue to be imported
because Ontario does not produce these
species. However, the new programme is
intended to produce the high quality native-
grown material required by industry and
reduce the need for future import. The pulp
and paper mills near the private land areas
in southern Ontario now import much of
their requirements largely from Quebec. This
programme will more than double avail-
ability of native-grown pulp wood by plant-
ing open forest land and the utilization of
lower grade hardwood from improved wood-
lands.
Many woodland owners are reluctant to
carry out non-revenue producing improve-
ments of a long-term investment nature ne-
cessary to rehabilitate the forests. The
Woodlands Improvement Act will assist very
materially in reducing that long-term invest-
ment in tree planting and woodland improve-
ment. I point out that this is a voluntary
programme, though we will require the co-
operation of groups of owners in the various
areas where the operations are to be under-
taken.
To illustrate, we already have demands
sufficient for immediate action in Simcoe
county, North Dumfries township of Water-
loo county and Renfrew county. There are
many other areas which we expect will follow
suit. The programme should be eligible for
cost-sharing benefits under the federal-pro-
vincial rural development agreement. The
land owner will purchase the trees from the
department as at present, the department will
supply the services of planting and of stand
improvement up to a maximum amount per
acre, to be determined. The owner will
undertake to protect the area for the period
of the agreement, which will probably be 15
years. By that time it is anticipated that the
value of the asset will be sufficiently evident
to all concerned to warrant further develop-
ment, and of course it will belong to the
owner.
We foresee yearly expansion in this pro-
gramme for a considerable period ahead and
a resultant increase for all yields, and particu-
larly hardwood yields, in southern Ontario.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Eigh-
teen years after the Kennedy report recom-
mended urgent action.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
1961-1962
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton) East moves
first reading of a bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Ontario Human Rights Code,
1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): The pur-
pose of these amendments is to prevent dis-
crimination in employment because of age
except within the limits set out in the pro-
visions added by subsection 2 of section 1 of
the bill.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a question for the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis), a copy of which has been sub-
mitted to him.
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
what weaknesses in existing procedures for
the hiring of university professors permitted a
university to bring into its faculty an imposter
and what steps he is taking to correct these
weaknesses?
An hon. member: Impossible!
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, one might start out by saying:
"Will the real Mr. MacDonald stand up?"
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
159
Mr. MacDonald: Are we sure it is the real
Minister of Education?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the selection
and the appointment and the terms of em-
ployment of university staffs are the exclusive
prerogative of each individual institution. The
universities consider the right to make ap-
pointments to be an important aspect of their
independence, their autonomy and they alone
make the decisions, as I am sure the hon.
member for Windsor- Walkerville knows.
With this principle, as I said in some small
speech last night, I am in complete agree-
ment. The procedures which universities have
followed have worked remarkably well and
excellent staff are being recruited to our insti-
tutions. I think the one example to which
the question refers should not be allowed to
detract from the soundness of the principle
involved.
Mr. Speaker, I would further add that the
hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Freeman)
has asked a somewhat similar question as this
institution is in his own area. I would sug-
gest that the same answer might suffice for
his question as well.
I might, while I am on my feet if I may
Mr. Speaker, answer a question directed to
me by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Thompson) yesterday with respect to a state-
ment made by Dr. Wendell MacLeod. I am
instructed that while information about ac-
creditation is a confidential matter as between
the accreditation group and the university, at
the present time no Ontario medical faculty
or university is involved.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner).
Can the hon. Minister report any steps
Ontario is taking to correct the irregularities
in the municipal winter works incentive pro-
gramme, as pointed out by Auditor General
Maxwell Henderson?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): I must first assure the House that
The Department of Municipal Affairs has
never found any irregularities, other than
those of a very minor nature, in its adminis-
tration of the federal-provincial municipal
winter works incentive programme.
I assume that the hon. member's question
is based upon certain reports which appeared
in the newspapers this morning. Let me state
that I have merely seen the item in the
newspaper this morning. I have not had an
opportunity to secure a copy of the auditor
general's report.
The Department of Municipal Affairs ad-
ministers the winter works incentive pro-
gramme in Ontario, as agent of the province
and of the government of Canada, on the
basis of a memorandum which is exchanged
each year between the governments of
Ontario and Canada.
Applications are submitted and claims
made in accordance with the terms of that
memorandum.
The applications, as submitted, are sub-
ject to audit and in connection with this
audit, the accounts, records and supporting
vouchers of the municipalities are examined.
The techniques that are used in connection
with this examination are under the control
of chartered accountants on my staff.
The examination techniques have been re-
viewed with, and approved by, the provincial
auditor. As a matter of fact the audit is
carried out on his behalf and it is he who
certifies the claim that is made on Ottawa for
its portion of the cost of the programme.
In addition to the provincial auditor's part
in the verification of the claims under this
programme, may I point out that the admin-
istration of this programme, including the
department's verification techniques, is re-
viewed regularly by agents of the auditor
general, Mr. Maxwell Henderson. As a mat-
ter of fact, in this connection, I should point
out that Ontario has never taken any objec-
tion to the agents of the auditor general
visiting the municipalities in order to test
some of the records of the municipalities.
The auditor general's agents were in the
offices of the department during 1965, for
instance, and I am informed that they were
completely satisfied with our administrative
methods and our verification techniques.
Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I
may say that, as far as Ontario is concerned,
it is unnecessary for us to take steps such as
those suggested in the question of the hon.
member.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), of which he has
already had notice.
Does the province intend to increase its
grants for hospital construction now that
Ottawa has indicated its grants will remain
the same for two years beyond the original
cut-off date of March, 1966?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I must point out first of all that
the hon. member is in error as to the cut-off
date. Actually the present agreement runs
160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to March 31, 1968, and the two years exten-
sion announced by the federal government
will take us then to March 31, 1970. I have
not yet had time to discuss this decision or
this pronouncement of the federal govern-
ment with my hon. colleagues in the Ontario
government and therefore I am not in a
position to answer the question of the hon.
member.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Tourism and Information (Mr.
Auld).
Would the hon. Minister inform this
House what steps have been taken by the
historical branch of his department to assist
financially members of the Guelph historical
society in their efforts to preserve the home
of Colonel John Macrae, the author of the
poem "In Flanders Fields"?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, in answer to
this question: As I mentioned yesterday, I
should explain that our department has no
general authority or funds which would en-
able us to assist financially with the acquisi-
tion and preservation, renovation or operation
of historical buildings as such. As a conse-
quence, our department would be unable to
give financial aid to the society if they had
in fact made any written request for this
assistance which, to the best of my knowl-
edge, they have not.
Mr. Paterson: Would the hon. Minister
answer a supplementary question? Have Mr.
Goodman and his associates requested any
assistance from the department of the hon.
Minister in the preservation of the Sir John
A. Macdonald home here in Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I can best answer
that, Mr. Speaker, by saying Mr. Goodman
himself has not but others have, and the
same answer would apply.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Health.
Since the Legislature has not yet had an
opportunity to debate the government's re-
vised medical insurance plan, and since the
government is planning a mass distribution
of literature concerning it, commencing in
mid-February, as announced in the Toronto
Telegram on Saturday, would the hon. Min-
ister assure the House that copies of all such
literature will be provided to hon. members
prior to distribution across the province?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is "Yes"; and I can assure the hon.
member that the hon. members of the House
will have ample opportunity to debate the
measure before there is any distribution of
literature.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. Minister will permit a supple-
mentary question? What agency has been
authorized to prepare for, and to conduct,
this mass distribution?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am afraid I cannot
answer that question, Mr. Speaker. This is
all in the hands of a management team that
is setting up the branch.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart). Would the
hon. Attorney General advise what steps are
being taken to investigate the opinion of the
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve),
expressed in recent newspaper articles, that a
$1 million trade fraud in milk is being opera-
ted between eastern Ontario and Quebec?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the anti-fraud squad of the On-
tario provincial police has been instructed to
investigate.
Mr. Singer: May I ask the hon. Attorney
General a supplementary question? Would
not, in his opinion, a more suitable way of
bringing these charges before the people of
Ontario, have been to announce them in the
House rather than to do it in the newspapers?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the Attor-
ney General has nothing to do with curtailing
the opinion that anyone feels free to express
to the newspapers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) copy
of which has been submitted to him. What is
the hon. Minister doing about the fact that,
according to Allan Cass, an official of the
children's aid society of London and Middle-
sex county, about 500 children of those
counties are living in neglect at home be-
cause there is no better accommodation avail-
able to them?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I assume, as the news-
paper reported, the question relates to poten-
tial neglect of children living within their own
homes. I can assure the hon. member that I
will seek details from this society as to the
allegations.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
161
I might also state that public funds are
available in total to the society in dealing
with the question at the local level.
Mr. F. R. Oliver
I have a question
Health. In view of
federal Minister of
Minister of Health
disagreement with
on Medicare, will
ate for the House
(Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
for the hon. Minister of
the reports from both the
Health and the provincial
that Ontario has points of
regard to the federal plan
the hon. Minister enunci-
those points of disagree-
An hon. member: That is a good question.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am not
in a position to answer for the federal Min-
ister, the hon. Minister of National Health
and Welfare. I can assume the hon. member
that I did not state there were points of dis-
agreement existing between the federal gov-
ernment and ourselves relative to this matter.
We asked for clarification of certain points
and we asked for explanation of certain
others, and the Minister of National Health
and Welfare undertook to do this for us.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask my hon. friend a
supplementary question? Was he correctly
reported in the Toronto Daily Star yesterday,
where it was said that he had no powers to
agree to any plan that might be offered by
the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: May I say, Mr. Speaker,
that I was not in a position to give a commit-
ment on behalf of the Ontario government
at that time because I had to ask for clarifica-
tion of certain points and further explanation
of others?
Mr. Oliver: A watching brief the hon.
Minister had.
An hon. member: Rather a noisy watching
brief, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Oliver: Well, a watching brief, never-
theless.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, on Friday
last, I believe it was, the hon. leader of the
Opposition asked a question which I was not
then in a position to answer. The question
was: In view of the needs of doctors, has
the Minister inquired of the college of
physicians and surgeons whether there are
doctors established in Ontario who took
undergraduate courses in universities which
the college of physicians and surgeons now
excludes? If so has the Minister asked for an
explanation from the college for excluding
internationally recognized doctors from prac-
tising in Ontario?
The answer, sir, is that there are doctors
presently practising in Ontario who were
granted a licence before the Ontario college
had completed its study of their schools. As
stated in reply to a previous question, the
college has explained the reason for excluding
certain foreign-trained doctors from licence
to practice in Ontario.
I am not sure what the hon. leader of the
Opposition means by "excluding internation-
ally recognized doctors". I can only repeat
that the college is charged with the responsi-
bility of assuring that all who are licensed to
practice in Ontario have had adequate train-
ing, at least equal to that demanded of Cana-
dian- and Ontario-educated and trained
doctors.
Mr. Speaker, also on Friday, the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) put a
question which I was not then in a position
to answer. How many students from Jamaica
and Haiti had been admitted by the Ontario
college of physicians and surgeons to practise
medicine in Ontario during the last two
years? The answer: one from Haiti. Students
from Jamaica are not identified by the
country of origin but are included in the
graduates from the University of London,
England. That university grants the degree
for the University of the West Indies which
is located in Kingston, Jamaica, so that we
do not know how many came from that
university per se.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question, if I could. Does the hon.
Minister of Health not think it somewhat
ironical that doctors who are holding respon-
sible positions in Ontario, who graduatec
from the undergraduate schools which the
college of physicians and surgeons is now
saying have inadequate training? Therefore
they are giving this the reason for barring
other doctors. They are recognized by the
United States, and have also practised in
Edinburgh, and are now teaching at our
universities and in some cases have been
chief interns. Are they being disbarred for
the one reason that they went to the same
undergraduate school as doctors today who
are now practising? I ask the question: Does
he not think it is ironical that this is the
reason?
Mr. Speaker: Would the leader of the Op-
position pose his question? |
Mr. Thompson: Get it clear, Mr. Speaker?
162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. Minister of Health permit a
supplementary question to the reply he gave
to my question?
Mr. Speaker: To the member's question?
Mr. Renwick: Yes; the question which I
placed with him last Friday.
In view of the reply of the hon. Minister
to my question, and to the question of my
hon. colleague from Scarborough West (Mr.
S. Lewis), will the hon. Minister not now
agree that it is, with rare exceptions, the
policy of the Ontario college of physicians and
surgeons to admit only qualified persons of
white colour to the practice of medicine in
the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I can
only very vehemently state that this is com-
pletely and totally wrong. Of the 6,000
doctors, as I stated last week, licensed to
practise medicine in Ontario in the past 15
years, 2,000 of them, sir, one in every three,
is a foreign-trained graduate; and we do not
care what the colour of his skin is. If his
training and preparation to practise medicine
fits him to do so in Ontario, according to
Ontario standards, then that is the only quali-
fication that is asked.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare, notice of which has been given.
How many of those persons in receipt of
old age assistance, or old age security pay-
ments, are receiving supplementary assistance
from the province?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, Mr. Speaker, the
latest figure I have is for November, 1965.
It is an accurate figure. I might state, first
of all, that supplementary assistance is actu-
ally paid by the municipality, which is re-
imbursed by the province to the amount of
80 per cent. Old age assistance cases number
1,430; and old age security 3,314.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett), notice of which has been given.
What amount is the province of Ontario
spending to clear up pollution present in Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
since the question is worded in such general
terms, it is difficult to know what the hon.
member wants. However, for his information,
I am pleased to provide the following.
Lakes Erie and Ontario form the outlet for
most of the waters from developed areas in
this province. In the past ten years, there
has been an expenditure by municipalities of
over $722 million to provide sewage works.
At the end of December, 1965, the Ontario
water resources commission had under de-
velopment, under construction or in opera-
tion, 191 sewage works projects valued at
over $102 million. In addition, the pollution
control activities of the OWRC, accounts for
a major portion of its budget which, for the
current fiscal year, totalled just over $4
million. The waste disposal and pollution
control programmes of industries in Ontario
involve the expenditure of over $100 million
and will continue to increase as more facili-
ties are provided.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question for the hon. Minister. The
question asked "to clear up pollution present
in the lakes," and I do not think he answered
this question. He told us the capital expendi-
tures to prevent pollution going into the lake,
but not what is spent to clear up the pollu-
tion present in the lakes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I might
say it is all part of the programme, and if
the hon. member was listening, he would—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, is that not what
the hon. member wanted, the overall picture?
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): No!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I answered the
other question, if he was listening.
In addition, the pollution control activities
of the OWRC account for the major portion
of its budget, for which the current fiscal
year total is just over $4 million. Is that
clear?
Mr. Thompson: No, but he wants to know
about the dead sea portion of Lake Erie.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: All right now, just a
minute! The waste disposal and pollution con-
trol programmes of industries in Ontario in-
volve the expenditure of over $100 million
and will continue to increase as more facilities
are provided.
Mr. Thompson: That still does not answer
the hon. member's question.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is what the hon.
member asked.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
163
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Connell), notice of which has
been given.
Would the hon. Minister of Public Works
inform this House of the details of the pur-
chase of the building which will house the
medical services insurance division of The
Department of Health? Specifically: (a) How
much did the government pay for the build-
ing; (b) from whom did the government pur-
chase the building; (c) who is the owner of
the land on which the building stands; (d)
how much is the government paying in
annual land lease; (e) what was the selling
price on the previous sale of the building and
when did that transaction take place; (f)
on what date was the building purchased by
the government?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answers to the
hon. leader of the Opposition's questions
are:
(a) $3,150,000; (b) The Gunnar Realty
Limited; (c) The Ontario hospital association;
(d) $37,500 per year; (e) the information is
not available; and (f) December 1, 1965.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett) a
question?
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
when the study by the Ontario highway
transport board of The Public Commercial
Vehicles Act and regulations was completed
and whether he intends to table the board's
report in the House?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the inquiry by the Ontario
highway transport board has been completed
and I am assured that the report will be in
my hands by the end of next week. As the
study was made on ministerial directive the
report is not a public paper and until I
have had a chance to study it I am in no
position to say if I will or will not table it.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE CONVEYANCING AND LAW
OF PROPERY ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 1, An Act
to amend The Conveyancing and Law of
Property Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No. 3,
An Act to amend The Public Lands Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, Bill No. 3 is one of the type of
bills, that we see here frequently, where
each section contains a number of principles.
I wanted to address myself to the principle in
section 3 of the bill.
As I read this, the hon. Minister is suggest-
ing that certain restrictions running against
some 36 acres of land in the town of Niagara
be removed by this statute. Now, Mr. Speaker,
in the time that I have been in this House
matters of this sort have come before the
House, not in the form of a government bill
but in the form, usually, of a private mem-
ber's bill.
The interference with restrictions by the
Legislature sometimes is warranted but usu-
ally is only warranted after the private bills
committee have had an ample opportunity
to study and examine the reasons for it. I
would think, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in this
case we might want to find out if there are
opposing opinions from some of the resi-
dents in the town of Niagara.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): I have no objection to this bill be-
ing put to the committee, if that is what my
hon. friend would like.
Mr. Singer: My concern, Mr. Speaker, is
that it should go to a committee in a form
whereby notice is going to be given to all
of the residents who are going to be affected.
It may well be that the municipal council
is in favour of it; but I do not know, for
instance, if copies of the bill have been
circulated to all the residents who are going
to be affected.
I would like to inquire, for instance, from
the surveyor-general what his opinion is. Is
this going to affect boundaries and titles?
Could there perhaps be a subdivider in the
background who has an option to purchase
all of these lands and who can only proceed
with his project if and when he is able to
remove this type of restriction?
Unfortunately my concern is, and perhaps
I am at no great variance with the hon.
Minister, my concern is that in coming before
the House as part of a public bill, and if it
follows the normal procedure of a public bill,
the availability of information, the full oppor-
tunity to inquire, is denied to us. I would be
quite content if the hon. Minister is pre-
pared to send this to committee and to give
164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
us his undertaking that, prior to it being
called before the committee, all of the owners
who will be affected will be notified and
given an opportunity to appear; and in addi-
tion if the surveyor-general of the province
is made available to the committee for such
questions as the committee may want to
direct to him.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would be quite happy,
Mr. Speaker, to have it referred. Yes, that
would probably be the proper place for it
to go.
Mr. Singer: I am sorry, I did not hear
that. Natural resources? I do not care what
committee.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would be glad to have
it referred there and there would be ample
opportunity if my hon. friend has anybody
whom he thinks might be interested. Actu-
ally, I do not think that there is anything at
all.
This reservation under section 3 is some-
thing that is 100 years old and if my hon.
friend has found any reason for questioning
it I would be only too glad to have him give
it to us. As far as I know, it is just a matter
of straightening away a cloud on title that is
over 100 years old and has no particular sig-
nificance, except the difficulty of getting rid
of it. I would certainly be glad to have it in
front of the committee and if there is any
question about it at all we would be very
glad to have it.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, it is more than
just having it referred to the committee. I am
concerned about the question of notice. I do
not know how many owners—
Hon. Mr. Roberts: We would have to go
back 100 years to look up people; it is about
100 years old.
Mr. Singer: There are some 36 acres here;
there might be 100 different owners affected,
who might have a variety of views. If there is
going to be action taken by the government
they may all be very happy with it. I hon-
estly do not know, but, if they do not know
about it, it seems to me that the reasonable
procedure would be to see that they do get
some form of notice and be given a form in
which they can express their concern if they
have any.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: If there is any reason
for it I would be glad to do it. At the moment
I know of no reason for it.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, speaking to the same bill and fol-
lowing my hon. colleague's remarks, I wonder
if the hon. Minister could enlighten us at this
time as to what he has in mind in connection
with the words "substantial compliance"?
Mr. Speaker: I would just like to point out
to the member that questions really should be
posed during the committee stage of the bill.
We are now debating the principle of the bill
and I think perhaps any remarks that the
member would have should be based on prin-
ciple. Perhaps, within the principle, he could
ask rhetorical questions that the Minister
would answer at a later time. But if it is
just a specific question it should be left to the
committee stage of the bill. I only point this
out to the member as being regular practice.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I think that behind the
hon. members' question was the fact that we
are always concerned about discretionary
power on the part of government. I am
certainly curious to know that, if we pass this,
in principle who would decide the definition
of "substantial"?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: I think it would be a
matter between the parties; and the depart-
ment would have something to say about it.
But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that all
that this particular amendment does is bring
back what was in the statute and was the law
as a result of that up to 1942, I think it was.
In 1942 there was a change that left out this
particular remedy. In 1961 there was an
amendment brought in. At that time there
was a gap between 1942 and 1961 which had
given rise to quite a number of difficulties on
the part of people who have complied, as we
think, with the requirements in relation to the
patents they are applying for, and so forth.
By making this amendment now, we are
just simply going back to the state as it was
prior to 1942, and it will enable us to deal
with that hiatus between 1942 and 1961
which at the moment is a period in which we
cannot clear title under that particular
method. It is really helping the settler and
so forth to get his title cleared up.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PROVINCIAL LAND TAX ACT,
1961-1962
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading of
Bill No. 5, An Act to amend The Provincial
Land Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
FEBRUARYS, 1966
165
THE BAILIFFS ACT, 1960-1961
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves second reading of Bill No. 7, An Act
to amend The Baliffs Act, 1960-1961.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Will this go
to the legal bills committee?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, it would be my thought that this
bill, as well as those mentioned in orders 8
to 15, inclusive, would all go to the committee
for study. I might say that I, on first read-
ing, mentioned the purpose of these bills. In
essence that was the principle and I would
not expect to say anything more on any of
these at this time. They will all go to com-
mittee.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CROWN ADMINISTRATION
OF ESTATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 8, An Act to amend The Crown
Administration of Estates Act.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
on Bill No. 8, so far as there is a principle in-
volved in it, section 2 would appear to indi-
cate that the public trustee could sell land
free of any dower claim without any pro-
vision in the statute for notice to find out
whether any person was in fact entitled to
assert a dower claim or a claim for courtesy.
I would hope that, in committee, if the bill
goes to committee, the hon. Attorney General
would give some adequate explanation of the
basis under which such action would be
taken.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
say that the purpose of the bill— it is not too
clear here, but the intention is that the
conveyance from the public trustee would
pass the property to the purchaser free of the
claim of dower. That does not destroy or kill
the claim for dower. The funds would be
available to meet such a claim should it arise.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 9, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act^
- Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.:. ' : - -.::; ■: utl ,: lUifJ Mwd -I^r
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill No. 10, An Act to amend The Fire
Marshals Act.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, subsection 2 of
section 1 of the bill appears to provide for
the repeal of a tax which was designed to
cover, in part, the expenses of the office of the
fire marshal. We would be interested to
know what amount of tax has been collected
annually under that section and to what
extent provision is being made, if necessary,
to provide additional funds for the office of
the fire marshal.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I will
undertake to furnish this information in com-
mittee. I do not have it here. I may say that,
generally, this Act came forward with the
recommendation of The Treasury Department.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE JURORS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill No. 11, An Act to amend The Jurors
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 12, An Act to amend The Public
Trustee Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill No. 13, An Act to amend The Sheriffs
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MECHANICS' LIEN ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 14, An Act to amend The Mechanics'
Lien Act. .
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor at'the open-
ing of the session.
166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in this debate, I would
like to join with previous speakers in extend-
ing congratulations to my seatmate, the hon.
member for Lambton West (Mr. Knox) as
well as to the hon. member for Armourdale
(Mr. Carton) for their fine, thought-provoking
speeches in moving and seconding addresses
in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Congratulations are also in order to the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and
the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith)
on their byelection victories last September.
I had the pleasure of meeting the hon. mem-
ber for Nipissing during one of our com-
mittee sessions in northern Ontario last year,
but I have not as yet had the privilege
of meeting the hon. member for Bracondale.
I recently read an interesting newspaper
item about him and I would like to quote
in part:
He promises to bring some colour to the
Liberal ranks. He has the reputation for
being a loner and a rebel. He could in-
troduce some fire into this party.
These few words provide an interesting in-
troduction to this hon. member. Certainly, I
think many hon. members in this House
would agree that the Liberal ranks could
certainly use some colour. And, as the session
proceeds through the long winter days and
nights, I will certainly look forward to the
fire which this rebel will introduce to this
House.
Since leaving this House last June I have
enjoyed a busy but interesting seven months.
The select committee on aging, of which I
am a member, has been engaged fairly con-
tinuously compiling information on which
to base their report which will be presented
later this session. I have appreciated the
opportunity which has been presented of
travelling to many areas of this province and
meeting the citizens, especially in northern
Ontario. Even though I realize we live in
the banner province of Canada, there are
many problems still unsolved. There is much
to be done. And I have appreciated the
opportunity of broadening my horizons.
I would like to digress from the Throne
speech for the moment to say a few words
on the very serious situation in my home
city of Oshawa, and I refer to the Oshawa
newspaper strike.
This strike went into effect last Thursday
morning and the newspaper has not pub-
lished since. Monday morning the company
applied for a court injunction against mass
picketing which was granted— and I say
that very briefly— and a meagre, token picket
of three pickets was to be permitted at each
of the three entrances. Mr. Speaker, I realize
full well there have been many court injunc-
tions on mass picketing during the past few
years. The subsequent remarks I make on
this subject are directed primarily to the
injunction of Monday morning which so
directly affects the city of Oshawa.
The surprising point to me in this matter
is that the day prior to the court hearing one
of the Oshawa labour leaders predicted to me
almost exactly what the court decision would
be. There is something wrong with these
court injunctions of mass pickets, especially
so when an ordinary citizen can fairly accur-
ately predict a court decision before the court
is even held and the evidence presented.
To a large extent these injunctions are
making a mockery out of our courts among
large numbers of law-abiding citizens. If
these rulings are automatic, why bother
holding a court hearing? I would hasten to
point out that I would be the first one to
support court action against picket line
violence, but in this situation there was no
violence. I questioned the Oshawa police
chief and there was not one single incident
of violence on the police blotter.
We in this House generally support the
principle of collective bargaining. We
support lawful procedures leading to a strike,
such as arbitration hearings and a subsequent
cooling-off period before a lawful strike can
be called. Picketing is a very important part
of any strike and if we have a labour law
which can stop bona-fide members of a
union carrying out a peaceful, lawful picket,
then it is time this law was changed. I do
not know the exact wording of this law nor
am I a member of the law profession, but I
have been told by an authority in our De-
partment of Labour that this section of the
labour statutes was never intended to be
used as it has now developed, that the courts
are putting the wrong interpretation on the
law.
I have already stated that I do not have
the professional knowledge to argue either
one of these points. But as a layman, I will
argue against a practice which has developed
insofar as this particular labour statute is
concerned. It has grown from words on a
page to a Frankenstein in the eyes of the
labour movement across this province; a
Frankenstein which today finds hundreds of
honest, law-abiding citizens prepared to carry
out mass picketing in defiance of a court
ruling because this action appears to be their
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
167
only defence. This action seems to them the
only way to preserve their rights against
this type of court injunction.
I regret to say that at this moment I do
not know where this matter is going to end.
Our Department of Labour brought company
and union together yesterday afternoon, but
apparently little was achieved. Both Mayor
Lyman Gifford and Oshawa's police chief are
gravely concerned over the present explosive
situation.
I would urge The Department of Labour
to re-examine this area of our labour statutes.
If it be true that there is nothing wrong with
the wording of this law, then let the proper
authorities call for an immediate understand-
ing of the court's interpretation. Our present
position in this area of labour legislation and
ruling is wrong. It has solved nothing in the
present Oshawa situation and can only lead,
as it has done in the past, to argument and
violence.
The Speech from the Throne which was
presented to this House last Tuesday demon-
strated—and the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) will like this— the Speech
from the Throne demonstrated once again
that the Robarts administration has a pri-
mary interest in people. In fact, even that
eminent pillar of journalism, the Toronto
Daily Star, called it a "protect the people"
speech. This is reflected in the government's
announcement of introduction of legislation
covering legal aid,, consumer credit, the pro-
posed Ontario council of health, new
securities legislation and additional educa-
tional opportunities.
Introduction of legislation based on the
recommendation of the select committee on
consumer credit is an important step and
deals with an area in which the actual home-
owner becomes involved on numerous occa-
sions. It is inevitable, I suggest, that the
Throne speech is phrased in broad terms.
Detailed information on the various pro-
grammes will be forthcoming when the legis-
lation is actually presented to the House.
I was particularly interested in the fact
that 10 items in the speech related to man-
power problems, reflecting the government's
concern over the skilled labour shortage and
other problems in this field. The expansion
of the on-the-job training programme is an
important move. The economy of this prov-
ince is continued at a high rate and automa-
tion has not as yet seriously affected our
employment picture. We must continue to
press forward with retraining programmes
in view of the ever-increasing threat of
automation.
The establishment of an Ontario develop-
ment corporation will be welcomed by the
small businessman, especially in the northern
and eastern parts of the province. The aim
of this new corporation will be to provide
capital to small businesses which want to ex-
pand or to people with sound ideas for
establishing new businesses. Financing will
be made available on reasonable terms and
conditions, particularly in the areas where
capital funds are hard to find on reasonable
terms.
I agree with the hon. member for Armour-
dale when he said the small businessman is a
very important factor in our provincial
economy.
Many hundreds of citizens in Ontario will
be interested in the legislation of The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare to consolidate and
extend the present benefits of the old age
assistance, disabled persons, and blind per-
sons' allowances. The suggestion of a welfare
programme based on needs will be welcomed
by many of us in this House who find our-
selves involved in this area of responsibility
from time to time.
I note the hon. Opposition leaders have
referred to the Throne speech as Irish stew.
Well, even though I am not Irish, I must ad-
mit I sometimes eat Irish stew and I have
never yet found too much wrong with Irish
stew.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York
South used that old cliche "too little
and too late" which, even though it is a
catchy phrase, has been used so many times
it is being worn somewhat thin. I realize
the job of the Opposition is to oppose, but
as we enter the sixth year of what has been
referred to as an economic boom, it is un-
derstandable the hon. leaders of the Opposi-
tion must of necessity reach out desperately
for straws on which to attempt to build the
foundation of argument against this govern-
ment.
When we consider, Mr. Speaker, the tre-
mendous progress and development which
has taken place during the past 20 years;
our high rate of employment, our economic
position; really, Mr. Speaker, I do not think
that these things just happened. I suggest
to this House they were brought about by
sound constructive programmes under the
leadership of the very progressive government
of this province.
The great riding of Oshawa continues to
grow and expand at a very rapid rate. The
city of Oshawa which forms the major part
of the population . of the riding reported an-
other substantial increase during the past
168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year. This city now has a population of
75,000 and is averaging approximately 4,000
to 5,000 each year.
The residential areas in my riding, which
are just east of the Metro boundary, are also
increasing at a very rapid rate and here we
are faced with a considerable problem. The
areas of West Rouge and Bay Ridges contain
many hundreds of residential homes with
little industrial assessment to balance the
costs of necessary services. These South
Pickering township areas are described in
the Goldenberg report as a dormitory munici-
pality with residential property representing
about 90 per cent of its taxable assessment.
They face real problems in financing rising
school projects and municipal costs.
In the Bay Ridges area a survey shows
that over 95 per cent of the residents leave
the township to reach their place of employ-
ment, the vast majority going to Metro
Toronto. Pickering township submitted a
brief to the Goldenberg hearing claiming
their entitlement to financial assistance from
Metro to meet the costs of serving these dor-
mitory municipalities. This, of course, brings
out an interesting situation which is develop-
ing in many areas of the province, and I
refer to the spill-over problem in municipali-
ties which are adjacent to large urban cities.
The large city is not in a position to force
or prevent the development of such residen-
tial areas by the local township councils, even
though it would have to be admitted that
the brand-new subdivisions are simply going
to serve as dormitory areas for the larger
adjacent city.
In his report, Mr. Goldenberg recom-
mended that the provincial government should
give recognition to such special situations
through appropriate adjustments in the sys-
tem of grants to municipalities and school
districts including the municipal unconditional
grant.
I would request that every consideration
be given to this recommendation in the
Goldenberg report; regardless of the opinion
of the government or its reaction to the re-
port, this particular section, as outlined on
pages 168 and 169, is very valid and must be
given very serious consideration with a view
to alleviating the financial strain under which
these township residential home owners find
themselves.
I mention the financial strain under which
a large number of my constituents find them-
selves in these dormitory areas but they are
not alone, of course. The tremendous expan-
sion of population, with the resultant demand
for services of all kinds, causes the inevitable
problem of increasing financial need and a
call on the average home owner for increased
municipal taxes. Possibly the most serious
problem at municipal level is the ever-
increasing costs of education.
During the past year the select committee
on aging has travelled to many parts of this
province, and nearly every group presenting
briefs dealt with the problem of citizens on
fixed incomes and the ever-increasing munici-
pal taxes which they are called upon to pay.
Many suggestions were offered as solutions,
the most popular being that pensioners should
be relieved of their obligations in regard to
educational costs. These elderly citizens are
anxious to maintain their own homes but it
is evident they need some additional financial
assistance. The first solution to this particular
problem, and most assuredly the most popu-
lar, is an increase in the old age pension to
at least $100 per month.
It does not take much thought to realize
the present meagre $75 a month is quite in-
adequate to maintain even a modest standard
of living, and more especially is this true of
those citizens living in urban areas.
I note the recent Canadian conference on
aging, meeting in Toronto, suggested $139
per month is the financial requirement for an
elderly person living alone. A small financial
subsidy to assist elderly citizens to remain in
their own homes might well be given con-
sideration. It would be much less costly to
maintain an elderly citizen in his own home
by means of such a subsidy than it would be
to maintain him in subsidized housing or a
home for the aged.
In discussing the financial problems of the
elderly citizen, and their difficulties in regard
to municipal taxes, I do not wish to leave
the impression that this elderly group is alone
when municipal taxes are being considered.
To the average home owner, municipal taxes
are an ever-increasing financial strain, with
the costs of education providing in many
cases approximately 50 per cent of the tax
bill. There are municipalities who advocate
the government should take over the entire
costs of education.
While I feel strongly that the municipality
should retain a loud voice in school adminis-
tration it may well be the day is fast ap-
proaching when the entire costs of education
will have to be assumed by the province.
There are many of our municipal taxpayers
today who ask the question: "Why should
education be supported by a property tax?"
Back in the early days, when education was
purely a local matter, perhaps it could be
justified. Today, however, education is so
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
169
essential to the progress, wealth and social
well-being of people that its efficiency and
scope should not be tied to land assessment
and land taxes. In addition, it is very impor-
tant that educational opportunities be equal
throughout the province. The province, by
taking full control of all taxes for the support
of education, would be able to guarantee the
fullest possible educational opportunities for
all.
If the province assumed the full cost of
education it would be faced with a staggering
financial cost. It is obvious there would be a
need for revision in our taxation system. One
possibility might well be a provincial educa-
tion tax; in other words, tax people, com-
merce and industry directly to finance educa-
tion. If such a tax revision were introduced,
my municipal taxes certainly would be re-
duced but my total taxes would not. The
major achievement and advantage would be a
broader and fairer taxation base for education.
I have discussed this taxation problem with
many citizens and there is strong support for
the suggestion that we should tax property
for services to land, and tax people for serv-
ices to people. One thing is certain: The
municipal tax picture has reached the satura-
tion point in many areas of our province. We
must press forward toward a revamping of
our taxation structure.
The report of the Carter Royal commission
on taxation will be tabled in the House of
Commons later this year. It is anticipated the
report will present a challenge of sound gov-
ernment financing at the federal, provincial,
and municipal levels. I am sure there will be
general support in this House for this antici-
pation to become a reality, and a hope that
the Carter report will present a new picture
of taxation, a picture which will solve some
of the present financial problems with which
we are confronted.
During my first speech in this Legislature,
I spoke on the need for regional planning
boards supervised and encouraged by govern-
ment. Last year the central Ontario joint
planning board was organized in my area,
encompassing six municipalities, from Bow-
manville on the east to Whitby on the west.
The dynamic growth and development
throughout this area during the past few years
has been spectacular. Continual pressure is
on the city of Oshawa to annex surrounding
township lands which would mean, of course,
the providing of underground services which
the city cannot afford to provide. The resi-
dential spill-over into the surrounding town-
ships, lacking municipal water and sewer
facilities, is providing a real headache in
many of our major residential areas through--
out the province of Ontario. These problems
will not diminish but will continue to grow.
The question may well be asked: What is
the answer?
We hear and read a lot these days about
improvements that might be made to govern
our municipalities more economically and
more efficiently. One has only to look at the
duplication of administration services and
maintenance equipment to realize that more
efficiency could be given to the ratepayers. I
suggest we are rapidly reaching the stage
where, in our own best interests, bigger muni-
cipal units of government must be adopted.
We must have a re-examination of our exist-
ing municipal structure, finances, and the
lines of communication between local govern-
ment and the province.
One of the big factors complicating the
situation is the uneven population, industrial,
and commercial growth throughout this prov-
ince. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner) has pointed out on several
occasions the inequalities in the administra-
tion of the existing tax base of our various
municipalities. There is undoubtedly an
urgent need to improve standards and prac-
tices in municipal assessment.
In our province today there are more than
900 local governments attempting to provide
programmes of uniform standards of service
for the benefit of the citizens whom they
serve. It is becoming increasingly evident
that new and more modern administrative
procedures are urgently needed. With the
increasing growth of our province, it becomes
more and more clear that local government
units can no longer be entities unto them-
selves. We must recognize that action taken
by one municipality will inevitably affect its
neighbours. In this area, I refer to roads,
water distribution, sewage collection and so
forth.
Regional government, its place in our pro-1
vincial development and how it should oper-
ate, has been widely discussed. The select
committee on The Municipal Act and related
Acts suggested that, as a practical start, the
adoption of the county in whole or in part,
or with additions thereto, be the basic units
of regional government. Our hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs has stated that regional gov-
ernment, based on the metropolitan principle,
with the county as the basic political unit, is
a possible solution to our problem. There are
varying views expressed by local government
representatives and community leaders. It
may well be that the county base for regional
government could operate effectively in many
170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
areas of our province. I would hasten to sug-
gest, however, the differences that can occur
in economics, social and physical patterns
would necessitate a flexibility of approach,
no hard-and-fast lines can be established.
There would be need of the highest degree
of co-operation if any successful form of
regional government is to be achieved. It
must be remembered that local government
is an essential element within our democratic
system and the elected municipal officials
can be understandably on guard in the protec-
tion of their local autonomy.
In one area of my own riding there are
three local governments governing individual
sections of a very highly populated area
which involves ever-increasing problems. I
am sure one government in this particular
area could plan better, assess better and
thereby serve the needs of the people more
efficiently. A more highly trained and better
paid staff could be retained to provide the
most efficient government.
The regional system would also improve
the management of the tax base and ensure
more effective equalized assessment, and in
the overall picture a better standard of serv-
ices could be provided.
On the disadvantage side would be the
problem of political representation. There
would undoubtedly be disagreements over
the division of responsibilities between the
local government and the regional level.
While levying and collection of taxes would
be on a more equal basis, the establishment
of a regional government would not offer
any new taxation sources. This is one of the
basic problems facing local government today,
indeed it is an ever-increasing problem which
is confronting all levels of government.
This problem of community expansion,
regional planning and government is obviously
the major problem facing our province today.
Many municipalities across this province are
literally bulging at the seams. Their bounda-
ries do not conform with the lines of economic
and social development. They are anxious
to move forward, they are looking to the
future, they are looking to our government
for direction. Certainly the problems which
lie ahead are many and complex but they
must be tackled without delay. Many dollars
can be saved and much more efficient form
of government can be established.
I feel the time has come when this gov-
ernment must take a more determined attitude
in the development of the regional govern-
ment programme. I realize that studies are
being undertaken in various areas throughout
the province. Careful studies and planning
are vital to the success of this important
aspect of our provincial development. But let
those studies be objective, with a view to
definite action based on the results of such
studies.
I was surprised to read recently that in the
past 20 years, since joint planning boards in
this province have been permitteu, not one
official plan has been approved by ail muni-
cipalities in the planning area. In the in-
terests of the overall development ot this
great province we can no longer afford to
tip-toe around the fringe of this matter. We
cannot permit individual municipalities to
hold up future progress. We must grasp this
problem in both hands and, in co-operation
with our progressive elected municipal offi-
cials, we must take strong decisive steps to
push forward this important programme which
will provide a system of government which
will more adequately and efficiently serve the
needs of the people of Ontario.
In a few short months we in Canada will
stand on the threshold of our 100th birthday.
What will this 100th birthday party bring to
Canada? I suggest the greatest birthday
present we here in Ontario could present to
Canada would be a sincere dedication to
work diligently toward the preservation of
a united Canada.
If we are to have a united Canada we
must work to strengthen and make richer the
historic partnership between English and
French Canada. We must ever bear in mind
that Canada is a country of two basic cultures
and these two cultures will remain the corner-
stone of the future development of our nation.
We must have the complete allegiance of all
our citizens and this allegiance to our nation
should stand above our relationships with
our province or any voluntary association to
which we may belong— in other words we
must first of all be Canadians.
We must be willing to support whatever
measures that changing times and historical
transition may prescribe for the continuation
of this great union and to this end subscribe
to and foster whatever constitutional, eco-
nomic and social changes are necessary to
achieve this paramount goal.
One hundred years ago the fathers of Con-
federation, at their meetings in Charlottetown
and Quebec city, were faced with problems
which in comparison dwarf those of today.
They looked at the political and economic
structure of the several colonies and saw
weakness and instability on every hand. But
these men also saw the possibilities and
potentials inherent in the concept of Canadian
Confederation. They saw that Confederation
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
171
provided the mechanism by which a nation
could be built for the benefit of all Cana-
dians. These great men drafted The British
North America Act — a document that has
served us well for almost 100 years. Today
we have reached a period in our history
where changes in this historic document to
some degree are necessary, and we must
look beyond our own immediate concern. We
must look forward with the same foresight
that these fathers of Confederation displayed
towards a strong united Canada.
The potential for the future development
of this country is unlimited and in comparison
our problems of today seem insignificant.
We must never become so concerned over
specific problems that we fail to grasp the
concept of a stronger and more vital Canadian
nation.
Today there is a change in the attitudes of
our people. We are beginning to look objec-
tively and realistically at the existing relation-
ships between our various cultural groups
and the contribution they are making and can
make to our community life. The influence
of any individual in the promotion of under-
standing between provinces is, by itself,
negligible. It is much more important that
there be a climate of opinion favourable to
the promotion of understanding in our rela-
tionships if we are to achieve the desired
unity which is so important to all Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as we arrive at our 100th
birthday I suggest to this House that we are
blessed in being permitted to live in the most
stimulating and exciting period in the history
of this country. Let us take advantage of our
opportunity; let us put patience, understand-
ing and education to work for all our people.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): I count it an
honour and a privilege to be rising as a mem-
ber for the riding of Bracondale to make my
first speech in the legislative assembly of
Ontario.
In listening to the hon. member for Oshawa
(Mr. Walker) I must admit that I was com-
pelled to look at the sketch on my desk and
then at the aisle there at least three or four
times to determine whether or not he was
speaking on behalf of the government or on
behalf of the Opposition. Frankly, I would
more than welcome him over to this side of
the House as I am now in a better position to
appreciate at least why he, if not the other
hon. members, are on this side of you, Mr.
Speaker, rather than on the right.
I am able to represent a constituency in
which I have worked many years, one in
which I have counted among my many
friends and supporters many thousands of its
constituents and one in which I know there
are many others who, whatever their poli-
tical affiliation, wish me well.
I would like to interrupt here, Mr. Speaker;
when I started speaking someone else was in
the chair.
Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity
to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
appointment. I might say that, sitting here
for a week as I have, I was not quite certain
whether I should offer condolences or con-
gratulations as I find you in a position which,
frankly, I would not envy. Sitting in the
middle of the House here, you must be com-
pletely impartial; you have to listen to many
dull speeches and cannot interject or correct
the errors of many hon. members. You
seldom absent yourself from the House, as
do many of the hon. members here, and you
must listen to all this dull stuff that comes
out. So, although I think perhaps condol-
ences should be in order, considering that
you have the confidence of this whole House,
you are worthy of congratulations and I offer
them heartily to you, sir.
I have divided feelings as I stand here
today. They are feelings of both pride and
humility, determination and diffidence, con-
fidence in my own capability, and uncer-
tainty, which many must feel at such a
moment, in my ability to discharge to the
fullest my responsibility to what I believe
is the truly enormous task that lies ahead.
It has been my good fortune in recent
years to have had the opportunity for public
service and, to the public which has given
me that opportunity, I am truly grateful. I
give them my formal promise at this time
that I will bend every effort to discharge my
duties to them, to that wider public through-
out the province and the country, and to my
party and myself with all the energy and
dedication that is at my command.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
may add that I have been a little discon-
certed by recent events that seem to me to
smack of something more than coincidence;
in fact, I crave reassurance.
First of all, I have just been elected and
the riding I represent is soon to be wiped
from the map. Now, I ask you, is that fair?
Moreover, when I ran in Bracondale I found
myself contending against one mortician or,
if you like, funeral director, whose motto was
"The last man to let you down", and whose
workers' motto was "Bury Ben". I find my-
self seated beside another, both of whom
would do the last thing in the world for me,
172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
so I merely want to go on record at this time
to the effect that if one of these men is to
bury me, please I would prefer it to be a
Liberal.
Mr. Speaker, we are assembled here, at
what I believe to be the most critical and
challenging period in the history of this prov-
ince. As I look around me, first at the small
number of my own party gathered on this
side of the House, and then towards the
heavy majority opposite, I am brought to a
full realization of the magnitude of the task
ahead. Were the record of this government
as formidable as its hon. members I think I
would be at an utter loss. As it happens, it
is not.
The record of this government— permit me
to say it— the record of this government with
all its long tenure of power, with the tremen-
dous wealth and resources it is able to com-
mand, with all its potentiality for admirable
service, is not a good one. In fact, if you
will allow me, any objective survey of recent
history demonstrates that the record of this
government, seemingly so well entrenched
in complete majority, is appallingly bad. If
this were an over statement it is not merely
to serve political ends. I would be guilty of
a disservice to the public were it so. In the
short time I propose to take I cannot hope
to deal with this record at length so, with
your indulgence, I am going to cover as
much ground in as short an interval as I
can.
In a few words, Mr. Speaker, the record of
this government is one of complacency,
omission and neglect. This is so, not merely
in those areas of government activity that are
rarely brought to the attention of the public;
it is the blunt unpalatable truth with regard
to areas of vital importance to the welfare and
the prosperity of this province. Truth travels
slowly but it eventually reaches the public,
and in time it will reach even this govern-
ment. There is a cold wind rushing upon
these gentlemen and I predict that, when it
has passed, most of them will have vanished
from this House.
For 22 years this government has been in
power in this province. That is a long time,
too long to be reviewed in any short space
but— and I give you notice— I intend to rise
frequently in this House, if the strength and
opportunity are allowed me, to deal at length
and in detail with each of the issues I raise
today. There are, I admit, many of them.
Any candid, non-partisan student of On-
tario affairs who has surveyed the record must
be struck by a flaringly unfavourable dis-
crepancy between the government's achieve-
ments and its failures. In the most crucial
areas of civilized concern— in health, in wel-
fare, in the administration of justice, penal
reform, planning, in many others— the Con-
servative government of Ontario has failed
to discharge its obligations to the people,
even in those areas where it acknowledges
them.
Notwithstanding this, it is an arrogant
government, swollen with complacency, and
gone to seed through indifference and neglect.
What other government in Canada has so
curtailed the right of this Opposition to make
the voice of the people its members
represent heard in this House? What other
government has so restricted the opportunity
for debate? What other government has
shortened legislative sessions to such an extent
to permit itself to rule by edict and ukase?
What other government is so paralyzed by
the prospect of an open discussion and
debate?
With all those antennae and listening posts
and channels of communication that govern-
ment is supposed to have, with all the
enormous resources of the richest province in
the land, it is a government that has lost
touch with the people; a government that
is forever stopping at the lotus pool and
gazing admiringly at its own reflection while
the proper business of the province remains
undone. With a very few notable exceptions,
it is a government gone to seed through
indifference and neglect.
Here I must give credit to the government
for its housing policy. I have always taken
the position that the large low-cost housing
communities being created by the municipal
governments were economical ghettos that
would become physical ghettos; that low cost
housing units should be small in size and
spread throughout the whole community so
that no one need know the occupants in the
apartment next to his were having their rent
subsidized. To me the roof over the head
of an unfortunate is not enough. He must be
given an equal place in the community, and
I feel the present policy is going a long way
in accomplishing some of my desires in this
regard.
It is a government distinguished by a com-
placent, self-rewarding and self-perpetuating
Cabinet supported by long grey lines of re-
fined, well-dressed, personally attractive and
generally incapable men. Altogether they
comprise a government generally devoid of
interest, impulse and vitality. A bored gov-
ernment and a boring government; a gov-
ernment of men not merely prematurely old
at 60, but old at 28.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
173
It is a government steeped in the pleasures
of pomp and vanity and the pleasures of
pushing other people around. It is a govern-
ment that regards the right of the
members who make up this Opposition with
the same disdain with which it regards the
public. The members of the Opposition
have known about this for a long time and
now at last the public is beginning to under-
stand.
The first obligation of most governments
is to govern; the first obligation of this gov-
ernment is to ask for forgiveness. Twenty-
two years is a long time, and it is interesting
to hear hon. members of that heavy majority
advert to their experiences.
It reminds me of a story. Now, it is a
story not directly applicable, of course; it is
just a story, Mr. Speaker. It seems that a
general in the American Civil War was
speaking harshly and deridingly of one of
his associates in command. "But, sir" pro-
tested an aide, "that man has been through
22 campaigns." Whereupon the general
pointedly replied, "So has that mule there,
but she is still a jackass."
A recommendation has been made that a
court for youthful offenders be established.
What has the government done to implement
this recommendation? As most hon. members
know, one of my special areas of concern is
the courts and penal system of this province.
In this area as well I have been struck by
what must be the near total incapacity, if
not sheer indifference, of the hon. Minister
involved.
The word "informed" is one we often
associate with the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Grossman) but, alas, not in
the sense that the hon. Minister would in
fact like all of us to associate this word. The
hon. Minister is consistently uninformed, ill-
formed, and misinformed to an extent that
would be comical if his lack of initiative and
comprehension of his role did not bear on
one of the great areas of human concern.
The other day I asked the hon. Minister if
he was aware that the so-called "baby doll
pyjamas" was the normal attire for those-
inmates at Guelph reformatory in isolation in
D wing. The hon. Minister replied that he
was not aware that such was the case and
denied it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I visited Guelph
reformatory everyone in solitary confinement
was wearing the baby dolls. And I was in-
formed by Mr. Sanderson, the superintendent,
that everyone in detention in that area did
wear the baby dolls and that they were the
standard garb for those in isolation. I there-
fore interpret the hon. Minister's remark as
an admission that he was not aware of this
situation, but that he denied that he was
unaware of it.
What has the hon. Minister done since
assuming office? He is in the proud position
of being the Minister responsible for some
of the most hopeless and damning institutions
on this continent. He is the Minister who,
with appalling judgment and consummate
arrogance, rises in this House to speak of the
possibility that the government would restrict
"surprise" inspections by members of the
Legislature to the institutions which are his
responsibility. This may not be laudable, but
it is understandable because any candid scru-
tiny of The Department of Reform Institu-
tions, any thorough inspection of the prov-
ince's penal system, reveals that that depart-
ment and that system are in a shocking and
deplorable state.
He is the Minister who rises in this House
to make the statement that $25,000 would
not be a large enough salary to lure psychi-
atrists into full-time jobs in Ontario institu-
tions and then inanely resumes his seat with-
out dwelling upon the problem at length.
Obviously if $25,000 is necessary to obtain
adequate competent psychiatric help in our
jails, that is the price the government must
be prepared to pay. He is the Minister who
blandly, in a blinding flash of fleeting insight,
says he is, "Aware that much remains to be
done in reform institutions." This is a bland
and impudent understatement, and may be his
solitary apt and significant statement on
record.
He is the Minister who virtually exon-
erates himself from all responsibility for the
shocking state of the system under his control
with the airy statement that this country is
not going to forge ahead in penal reform
until the federal government creates a separ-
ate department to handle reform institutions.
This is ministerial responsibility? This is
discharging the duties of office? Obviously,
this province is not going to forge ahead in
penal reform or anything else when the
Ministers of this government persist in run-
ning to Ottawa and burying their heads in
mommy's apron every time they run into a
problem; every time the going gets rough.
He is a Minister who says he is con-
cerned about a frightful and deteriorating
situation in Millbrook reformatory and at
once adds the incredible statement that "It is
not within the power of The Department of
Reform Institutions to change it."
We are left with a penal system that is
deteriorating rapidly, with all the profound,
174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
disquieting implications that deterioration has
for this province. Let me read you a state-
ment. It begins:
We are setting up a department to deal
with certain institutions . . . and this new
legislation is intended to stress reform
rather than punitive methods.
Mr. Speaker, that remark was not made yes-
terday or last week or a month ago. It was
made 20 years ago by the hon. George Drew,
then premier of this province.
As visualized by him, inmates in reforma-
tories were to spend most of their time in
classrooms. There would be special schools
for guards to ensure they were fit and com-
petent for their work.
What has been the record since? Even a
Minister must be satisfied from the reports on
Mercer and Millbrook reformatories that the
heaviest burden placed on the inmates of
those two institutions is boredom — sheer
boredom.
How do the classrooms in Guelph prepare
the inmates for their release? Will the short
terms they spend in the woollen mills, tailor
shops, the body shops, the piggery or the
cattle barns, prepare them for the place in
society they are entitled to by virtue of being
part of this country? Or have they lost all
rights to citizenship and participation in the
daily affairs of our province and our country?
A survey several years ago showed that
under Britain's probation system 75 per cent
of first offenders placed on probation have
not been convicted again. In contrast, the
Canadian prison scheme here has failed to
rehabilitate 70 per cent of those committed
to its charge.
Twenty years ago the hon. George Dunbar,
the first Minister of that new department,
suggested with a smile, that the motto of the
department should be "Segregation, education
and salvation". Today in all its bleak and
frightening aspects, the motto could be, "In-
carceration, intimidation and subjugation."
I intend to return to this department and its
Minister at a later date.
As for the poor in this province, no people
have received so much verbal sympathy and
so little practical support. And this is a prov-
ince which, with all its wealth and resources,
numbers too many persons who are poor. No
real attempt has been made by the govern-
ment to assess the nature and depth of pov-
erty; no genuine concern is shown for the
problem of the poor.
Why does a province that provides 40 per
cent of the national income require those
who are living on pensions and fixed income
to pay education taxes— as the hon. member
for Oshawa pointed out? Should not the
cost of education be paid from income tax
and income tax alone? Since those who earn
the most probably benefited the most from
their education, thereby owing the most to
their education, should they not pay the
most towards the education of others?
An hon. member: Is that Liberal policy?
Mr. Ben: That is my policy and it is the
Liberal policy. When Nelson was asked the
secret of his success he replied, "I was always
15 minutes before the other fellow". This
government is always 15 years behind.
In so many fields this government has
failed to perform. It has failed even to
observe the traditional and hallowed forms
of procedure by replying to questions put in
this House. Where is the youth service
branch of The Department of Education
promised almost two years ago?
Where is concern for the poor in a prov-
ince where two million are impoverished,
500,000 are living at bare subsistence level,
and 700,000 are destitute?
Where is concern for the emotionally dis-
turbed children in the province when there
are estimated to be between 280,000 and
560,000 such children?
Has the research programme the Deputy
Minister announced to be the answer to the
problem? The people want more results and
not just more research.
Where is the planning council for Toronto
hospitals promised by the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond) for last July 17?
Where are the changes in the Ontario
hospital school for the retarded, promised
more than a year ago, today?
Where does the government stand on
Medicare, on pensions, on welfare, on
prisons, on nursing education and on other
issues in so many important fields?
The public does not know where the
Ministers stand, the Ministers do not know
where the Prime Minister stands, and God
only knows where the Prime Minister stands.
It is like the old epigram, how does it go?
Hail to the city of Boston
Home of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots
And the Cabots speak only to God.
This government is vulnerable and knows it.
The only justification for continuance in
office is performance and this government
has failed to perform. It stands like those
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
175
elaborate Hollywood sets, impressive in
front and empty behind. And what sort of
leadership is given by that party? It is an
uninspired and uninspiring leadership char-
acterized by confusion, obfuscation and de-
lay.
I will always associate the quality of that
leadership with a remark made by the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts): "The main
antidote for unemployment is increased
growth and production," he said. I had an
uncanny feeling when I read this, that I had
read something similar before and then I
remembered. I think it was Herbert Hoover
or Calvin Coolidge who said: "When large
numbers of people are out of work, unem-
ployment results."
I have a notion that the voters are going
to respond the next time to these government
promises the way a certain young lady
responded to the proposal from a young farm
friend of hers. He said: "Marry me and I will
paint the house and the barn inside and out.
I will put in electricity, I will buy a brand-
new stove and refrigerator. Will you marry
me?"
She answered: "Honey, let us leave it this
way. You do all those things and then ask
me again." The government had better start
getting things done if it wants to woo the
electors.
But it is not only the poor who are
neglected by this government. It neglects
the average man, the man on the street.
Consider one area in which this has been
made perfectly clear. A guaranteed family
income is an absolute social necessity when
the wage-earner has been struck down by ill-
ness. This unalterable fact has been ignored
for too long, and I, for one, intend to follow
every avenue until action is taken to ensure
that a person who is stricken by illness or is
a victim of an accident* can be assured of
monetary security for his family during the
crisis.
By providing salary insurance during
periods of hospitalization and convalescence,
a tremendous burden and a great concern
would be lifted from the shoulders of the
afflicted family. I cannot think of anything
more demoralizing for a man recovering
from illness, than to be forced to concern
himself with his family's finances. During
these times, the family is under great emo-
tional strain and is experiencing what is often
a difficult and fighting period of readjust-
ment. It certainly must be disconcerting for
the person who is ill, and it must hinder his
recovery to be faced with this added burden.
A form of salary insurance such as I pro-
pose would induce some wage-earners to
undergo medical attention promptly.
All too often people delay seeking medical
assistance for fear of the financial problem
this would impose for their family.
I firmly advocate assistance that would
allow a moratorium to be declared on loans,
mortgage payments and financing if the bread-
winner is medically certified unable to resume
his normal occupation. The family, the basic
unit of civilized society, has enough prob-
lems to cope with during a period of illness
and if they are to avoid destruction they
should be aided in every possible manner.
This is the 20th century and we are sup-
posedly living in a wealthy nation. This is a
positive step that we can take, and must take,
to help provide stability within a family in
these demanding times. As someone once said,
democracy is a poor form of government but
is the best we have. However, under the
arbitrary rule of the many government-ap-
pointed boards and commissions, and so on
in this province, your chance of getting just
treatment can be shockingly reduced.
Persons charged with misdemeanors should
not have to be faced with a night in jail.
Rather they should be either released on their
own recognizance or released on bail they can
afford to pay. Today, intolerably— as the
hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer)
once put it— bail means jail.
The family court system as we know it
should be scrapped. In the first place it
should be given a proper name and called a
counselling service. For the many young
people who come before these courts today
the court renders an inappropriate, if not
actively harmful, service. The court approach
is ad hoc, unsympathetic and too often shows
a lack of comprehension of the background
and environment of the child. The child has
frequently been formed in an amoral, if not
an immoral, environment and the court fails
to take this into full account.
Re-education is the key to making these
children good and productive citizens and
society is not well served by branding them
as delinquents.
Youthful offenders should be kept out of
jails as much as possible. The high number
of repeaters only bears out substantial evi-
dence that jail in Ontario today is only a
training school for crime. Instead of group-
ing veteran criminals and impressionable new-
comers, there should be segregation in our
jails. Young people particularly should be
lodged in rehabilitation centres or halfway
houses where they can be helped, instead of
damaged for their lives. The hon. Minister of
176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Reform Institutions readily admits that there
is insufficient professional staff in our institu-
tions and evades the responsibility by doing
little or nothing about it.
Another area of concern is low interest
home improvement loans which should be
made available as an incentive to homeowners
to check the growth of slums.
New Canadians should be offered a chance
to attend evening courses established by the
government and designed to help them under-
stand Canadian laws, customs and the entire
cultural pattern. And yet what is the record?
Recent figures show that more than 300,000
immigrants have gone to educational classes
since World War II, but only 15 per cent
have graduated or received certificates, Mr.
Speaker.
Obviously there is something wrong with
the system. The immigrant not only has to
contend with the top-heavy bureaucracy of
this government, he cannot even get from it
the sort of education necessary if he is to
find his rightful place in community life.
The hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yar-
emko) is therefore still another of many of
this government's ineffectual Ministers. In
this crucial area he is clearly failing to do his
job.
Consider also the position of people on wel-
fare in this province who, under the present
system, are forced into utterly unproductive
lives. They cannot turn their hands to any
socially useful work. If they do Big Brother
pounds his fist on their door and their meagre
dole is promptly cut off. Instead of this mean-
spirited, oppressive and gratuitous system we
should establish one allowing the welfare
recipient, within specified limits, to supple-
ment his welfare cheque with the income from
part-time work. This is good for the province,
good for the recipient and gives him self-
respect and a sense of purpose in life.
But it is not only the poor and the unfor-
tunate who are given short shrift by this
lethargic and indifferent government; a gov-
ernment that, before an election, plants its
feet towards the future and after turns its
face to the past. Even children, the hope of
this province and this nation, are the victims
of this government's laziness, dismissivcness
and neglect.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have
taken this afternoon I have not attempted to
cover the whole field of my interest or my
concern with regard to the problems confront-
ing this government. To deal with any one
of them at sufficient length would require an
afternoon and that would be only a begin-
ning. I will return to each one of these
subjects and others at a later date as time
and opportunity are allowed me. It may be
sufficient for me to say at this time that I
believe the record of this government is one
of shameful neglect in areas of vital concern
to the welfare of this province. I will demon-
strate this in detail when I am able to deal
with this record in a logical and progressive
way.
I am grateful for your attention, Mr.
Speaker, and may I express my thanks.
Mr. R. Welch (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to participate in this debate, I would
want to echo the words of commendation
already directed to you, sir, and to add a
word of welcome to our new colleagues in
this House— the hon. members for Bracondale
(Mr. Ben) and Nipissing (Mr. Smith).
May I also take this opportunity to pay
tribute to those employed in the civil service
of the province. I am sure many in this
House appreciated the efforts of Mr. William
Rathburn, who took the time to discuss our
civil service on a radio broadcast at the be-
ginning of December last year. We tend to
take these people for granted; but, as a
private member in this House I did not want
to overlook the tremendous help they pro-
vide in looking after the affairs of one's con-
stituency. Many work behind the scenes,
attendants for whom nothing is too much
trouble; the staff of this particular House
when it is in operation; secretaries, depart-
mental staff; and so on. It is a pleasure to
work with these people in the interests of our
citizens.
In studying the Speech from the Throne,
it becomes obvious that this government,
notwithstanding what has just been said,
recognizes very well the need for increased
investment in our human resources. We will
have to await the introduction of the Budget
to learn the amounts involved, and perhaps
any remarks on this subject should be post-
poned for the Budget debate.
Sufficient to say at this point, Mr. Speaker,
that when one considers the fluidity of the
Canadian population, and studies the inter-
provincial differences in ability to support
education, our federal government is going
to have to provide more financial support for
education.
The Economic Council of Canada very re-
cently emphasized the importance of this
increased investment in human resources,
and we have been reminded that: "our people
are mobile as no people before them—
making the nation their home." But more
of this at Budget time.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
177
There are several matters I would like to
■discuss in this particular debate.
The agricultural industry is a very vital
part of the economy of the riding of Lincoln.
I know that our rural people are looking
forward to having further information on the
subject of crop insurance referred to in the
Speech from the Throne.
The Department of Agriculture, of course,
is to be commended for joining with the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation farm de-
partment in sponsoring the short course en-
titled, "This Business of Farming." These
television broadcasts, as you will recall, were
shown through the co-operation of local tele-
vision stations and other organizations inter-
ested in the agricultural industry.
It should also be pointed out here that, last
November, the provincial Department of
Agriculture sponsored a trade mission to
England and Western Europe with a view
to promoting new markets for our fruit and
Vegetable products.
We were fortunate in having two very
active growers from Lincoln as members of
this mission.
Our people are enthused with the possi-
bilities that are available for the export of
■6ur processed products. There are vast
potential markets in the United Kingdom
and Western Europe.
Of course, there are many problems, but
there are two major problems which face the
fruit and vegetable growers in the Niagara
peninsula. The first has to do with the short-
age of suitable farm labour, and the second
the curtailment of rail transportation.
In 1964 and 1965 fruit crops in the pen-
insula were below average. 1965 crops were
approximately 20-25 per cent below 1964,
with cool weather extending the marketing
season. With present labour shortages, if
this situation were to reverse, serious crop
losses could result.
• Producers in my riding cannot compete on
the general labour market as farm prices have
not kept pace with increases in other aspects
of the economy.
Of the various sources of farm labour ex-
plored over the past few years, the largest
and most available source appears to be our
northern Indians. Many of these people
show a propensity for farm work and a
mechanical aptitude. I am advised that,
after two years of trial employment of
northern Indians as seasonal farm workers,
the whole programme is in grave danger of
failure because of some related problems.
A suggestion has been made— and I would
underline it for the very serious consideration
of the House— that an Indian centre be estab-
lished in Lincoln county, similar in many
respects to the centre for continuing educa-
tion in Elliot Lake. It is envisaged that this
centre could accommodate some 300 to 400
Indians, with both single and married quar-
ters. It would include classrooms and recrea-
tion facilities.
Through the programme at the centre,
educational levels could be raised where
necessary, with the students working part
time on local farms. And in addition, in co-
operation with local industries in my riding,
working with the directors of the centre,
some of our Indian friends who qualify could
be given further trades training under an
apprenticeship programme. This would be a
very imaginative step which would be of
tremendous help to the northern Indians who
travel to our part of the province and, at the
same time, relieve a critical labour shortage.
This would appear consistent with govern-
ment policy already announced with respect
to our responsibilities in this regard.
On the subject of transportation, the cur-
tailment of rail service for the shipment of
Ontario fruits and vegetables, and increasing
costs, are serious problems facing Niagara
producers, as well as those in Essex county
and the marsh areas. This applies particularly
to the rapid increase in express rates. The
substantial rate increases make shipment to
many points prohibitive and tends to restrict
distribution of our products to the major
centres in the province.
, The cancellation of special fruit rates for
LCL— less than car lots— shipments means, in
effect, a 55 per cent increase in express rates.
This is a real hardship for my agricultural
people and it is hoped that something can be
done about it.
In completing this section of the address,
I am anxious to make a brief reference to our
ARDA programme and, in particular, to
emphasize the importance which we must
continue to attach to it.
I am hopeful that a pilot project initiated
in the township of Gainsborough, in my
riding, might be the first of many steps to
reclaim acres of valuable agricultural land
and make it possible for the people in the
area to make a decent living from their farm
labours by supplying the food needs of our
nation and, indeed, the world.
Mr. Speaker, reference is made in the
Speech from the Throne to the programme
of The Department of Highways in 1966. At
178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this point I would be remiss if I did not pay
tribute to the hon. Minister (Mr. MacNaugh-
ton), to his deputy, Mr. MacNab, and to all
who are involved in the work of that great
department. I never cease to be amazed at
their patience and understanding as they meet
with the many delegations who come from all
parts of my riding, and as they work with all
of the officials— both elected and appointed—
from the various municipalities throughout
the county of Lincoln. Officials of the depart-
ment and our various municipalities work very
closely together to carry out an extensive road
programme for our people.
Many matters have been placed before the
hon. Minister. One of recent interest was the
presentation by a committee appointed from
the councils of the counties of Lincoln, Wel-
land and Wentworth. This committee pre-
pared a brief for the government in order to
outline the value of the Niagara escarpment
as a provincial resource, and to interest this
government in providing the direction and
financial assistance necessary to construct a
roadway and integrated parks system from
Queenston to Hamilton.
This tri-county scenic drive would assure,
to a very large population, a uniquely varied
park area and at the same time preserve a
tract of land of so high an order of interest
as to constitute what might be called a
national asset. I would hope, Mr. Speaker,
that this project would be favourably consid-
ered by the department. The possibilities for
development of forty miles of road and park-
land are almost limitless.
Turning to another important consideration,
we would underline the importance of the St.
Catharines area transportation study. The
cost of this report was paid for substantially
through government grants. It provides a de-
tailed outline of the transportation system
necessary to serve the great city of St. Cath-
arines and its expanding area for the next 20
years.
I would like to draw the hon. Minister's
attention to an excellent series of articles
dealing with the report written by Mr. A. E.
Kingsley, which have appeared in the St.
Catharines Standard. The articles have been
reprinted in booklet form and have been
widely circulated.
St. Catharines is a very fast-growing com-
munity, and tremendous development and ex-
pansion is taking place in our sixth largest
City. One raises the question here as to
whether there might be some need to review
the transportation study referred to, particu-
larly with reference to priorities of work to
be dpne.
The uninterrupted crossing of the Welland
ship canal is of particular concern in our
area. We are grateful to The Department of
Highways and the seaway authority for their
decision to construct a tunnel under the canal
at Carlton street in St. Catharines. However
the question is now raised with respect to
the development of Glendale avenue in St.
Catharines, and the crossing of the canal at
this point. It would seem that an uninter-
rupted crossing should be provided here as
well.
McKinnon Industries Limited have located
their plant No. 2 and their large administra-
tion building on the east side of the canal on
Glendale avenue; and as a result this has
introduced thousands of cars to an already
inadequate roadway. Glendale avenue is also
experiencing increased traffic as it connects
the Queen Elizabeth highway to the new
Highway 406. It is hoped that a re-examina-
tion of this location and its problems might
be included in the programme of the depart-
ment working with the municipality and the
seaway authority.
It is indicated in the speech read to the
Legislature recently by His Honour, that the
subject of welfare is to receive legislative
attention.
May I presume at this point, Mr. Speaker,
to make the following suggestions:
First, with respect to our assistance pro-
gramme, or our assistance pensions, with the
qualifying age for the old age security pension
being annually reduced from 70 years to 65
years, we should seriously consider reducing
the qualifying age for our provincial "means
test" assistance pension from 65 years to 60
years of age. We are presently helping widows
and unmarried women starting at age 60.
Now it is true that the others can be
helped through general welfare assistance,
which is subsidized by an 80 per cent grant
from the two senior governments, but I would
suggest that the benefits to the recipient are
really not as great as they would be if com-
bined in our present provincial programme.
Several advantages would follow:
First, we would aid municipalities by as-
suming full responsibility for those in this
age group who qualify.
Second, it would mean a great deal to
many of our senior people who, through poor
health— not bad enough for disability pension
—and/or age, cannot obtain full-time employ-
ment and who would have a basic income
with the privilege of earning a little more on
part-time work.
There would be nothing wrong with main-
taining the so-called "means test" subject to
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
179
comments which I would like to make now
concerning regulation in this regard.
With respect to these regulations I would
think that realistic levels of allowable income
in addition to the provincial assistance pro-
vided should be considered with respect to
all of our assistance programmes, particularly
in view of the present-day cost of living.
I think, also, that we are obligated to
consider another procedure when determining
eligibility for some of our programmes. The
emphasis, I feel, should be on need rather
than means. Perhaps this could be best ex-
plained by way of an example.
The province is presently paying, along
with the federal government, an 80 per cent
grant with respect to what is called supple-
mentary aid.
Without going into all the details, local
municipal welfare officers can pay up to $20
per month by way of supplementary aid to
the recipients of our so-called means test
pensions and to recipients of old age security
provided that the income of a single person
does not exceed $105 per month including
the pension and a married couple's income
does not exceed $185 per month including
the pension. It is my understanding that as
soon as these people go $1 above the allow-
able income limits they then are disentitled
to any supplementary aid. This would leave
one with the impression that such an approach
does not really reward thrift and a desire
to help oneself.
Would it not seem fairer if we worked
from the top down and simply deducted the
excess over the allowable income from the
amount of supplementary aid to be paid and
then paid the difference as supplementary aid?
Now if need is to be the meaningful
criterion then surely we can work out regula-
tions for all of our programmes which will
provide our people with the ability to main-
tain themselves at a respectable standard of
living;
And before leaving this general heading I
want to say how much I appreciate, as a
private member in this Legislature, the help
received from everyone in The Department
of Public Welfare. In particular may I single
out the Deputy Minister, Mr. James Band,
who goes above and beyond to assist the
private member in the exercise of his day-
to-day responsibilities. Mr. Band and our
various regional administrators and their re-
spective staffs are tremendously helpful in this
regard.
Now turning to another subject, Mr.
Speaker,; the Niagara peninsula, with its four
major urban centres of St. Catharines, Niagara
Falls, Welland and Hamilton, represents about
12 per cent of the population of Ontario by
1961 figures, and has increased at a rate of
32 per cent between 1951 and 1961— a growth
rate which I would suggest is well above that
of the province.
With the estimated increase in population
for the Niagara region to a some additional
1 million people in the next 20 years over
our present 460,000, it is estimated that there
will be an obvious need for another 4,250
acres of land for park purposes, with per-
haps some 1,500 acres being lakeshore areas.
I would like to suggest that the govern-
ment consider at least two proposals in this
connection:
First, through a generous grant from The
Department of Lands and Forests a master
development plan has been completed, cover-
ing the third Welland Canal regional park
located in the city of St. Catharines and the
town of Thorold.
This park, as proposed, will provide much
needed camping and picnic areas and at the
same time will preserve historical evidence of
the region.
The site, comprising a total of 708 acres,
is traversed by the remains of the waterway
and locks of the old third Welland Canal
operated from 1887 to 1932.
I would strongly urge the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests (Mr. Roberts) to
study the master plan for this park very
closely in the hopes that the government will
become very much involved in the compre-
hensive development of this land for public
purposes. I would like to pay tribute to the
fact that a local committee has been working
very hard on this project.
The second suggestion, Mr. Speaker, con-
cerns the members of the Niagara regional
development association who have also been
very active in the establishment of Lake
Ontario frontage for park and recreational
purposes.
The Fifty Point Park made up of acreage
within the townships of North Grimsby and
Saltfleet will be readily accessible by the
Queen Elizabeth highway.
I know that the hon. Minister is very fa-
miliar with this site and it is hoped that it
will be recognized as a must because the area
is already the subject of much real estate
speculation.
It would seem to me that the purchase of
this Lake Ontario frontage would fit in with
the $200 million, 20-year programme an-
nounced by the government in 1962 for land
acquisition designed to acquire parts of the
180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shoreline of the Great Lakes and other needed
lands to provide for future parks and recrea-
tional needs.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would feel that the
time has come for some bold steps if future
generations are to be provided with the
opportunity to know something of their past—
that which has contributed to our greatness as
a people.
Naturally, this is very relevant to the area
which I am privileged to represent in this
Parliament. We should also consider this in
the light of the recent report of the Ontario
economic council concerning Ontario's tourist
industry.
Perhaps the government would consider the
establishment of a provincial commission or
foundation equipped with powers and re-
sources to enable it to negotiate the purchase
of property of all kinds deemed by research
personnel worthy of acquisition for the pub-
lic. This should be a co-operative effort,
however, with the government simply being
one of the parties, for I would hope that we
could attract into such a proposition interested
individuals and groups prepared to accept
their share of responsibility with respect to
this work as well.
But in doing so, let us keep in mind the
welfare of the municipalities where this
property is located. There should be a very
close relationship between such a government
foundation or commission, call it what you
will, and the elected councils of the various
municipalities of this province.
The town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, for ex-
ample, is very rich in historical treasures.
But we have to keep in mind that its duly
elected council has the responsibility to pro-
vide the same municipal services for its
people as the residents in other towns have
come to expect. Therefore, if the province
was to take a great deal of property over
and thus remove it from the assessment rolls
insofar as taxation is concerned, naturally
the results would be quite obvious and dis-
astrous.
Niagara must be kept as a living com-
munity. It should not be impossible to work
out some programme based on joint planning
procedures With the municipality to accomp-
lish all the ends that are desired— namely, the
town to have the resources for its daily rou-
tine and the province to protect, for all of
our people, the historical property involved.
While we are talking about Niagara-on-the-
Lake, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) will look fav-
ourably on holding a special session of the
Legislature or the Cabinet at Niagara some-
time during 1967. This will help not only to
mark our national Centennial but as well to
commemorate the 175th anniversary of the
first Parliament of Upper Canada, which of
course met at Newark, the former name of
the town of Niagara-on-the Lake.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, some refer-
ence should be made in a speech such as
this to the question of the Canadian nation
and its future.
As we approach the Centennial year of the
Canadian federation we must continue to
underline the importance of our unity as a
nation. It is most unfortunate that in recent
years so much emphasis has been placed on
our so-called differences and difficulties.
The ever-growing numbers of young people
in this province and throughout the country
must surely query the obvious lack of confi-
dence and optimism with respect to our na-
tional future which reveals itself in so many
quarters of the adult community.
It goes without saying that narrow paro-
chialism and excess regionalism must give
way to the demand that we as a people have
a truly national identity. It really means
something— I can assure hon. members I say
this with great sincerity— to be known as a
Canadian, which it has been our privilege to
declare since the passing of The Canadian
Citizenship Act in 1946.
Enriched as we are by the traditions and
background of our ancestors from other
lands, we strive to make our respective con-
tributions to our period of man's history as
citizens of this great country, either by birth
or by adoption.
Yet it should be pointed out here that there
is at least one piece of legislation on the
statute books of this province which denies
us the right to be designated by our true
national status.
I would therefore hope that the govern-
ment would look favourably on amendments
to The Assessment Act— and for that matter
any Act which might apply in this regard— to
the end that citizens of this country may be
described as "Canadian" on assessment rolls
of our various municipalities.
I am proud that the present government of
this province, under the able leadership of
the hon. Prime Minister, is pledged to
support a strong federal government and a
united Canada.
It is imperative that we follow his lead in
recognizing Canada as a nation, that it is
more than a group of provinces joined to-
gether for particular purposes. It is an entity
that transcends the parts.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
181
We all have much to give to our country
in the way of understanding one another's
points of view. If we are to develop our full
potential, the cultures of our two founding
races, plus the enormous contributions made
by the waves of immigrants who have come
to our shores in the past 100 years— many of
whom have settled in the great Niagara pen-
insula—all of these must be taken into
account.
The hon. Prime Minister of this province
has recently stated that he sees "no diffi-
culty in reconciling the need of our country
for a strong central government with the
present and continuing strength of the prov-
inces." With this type of attitude in our
province, the great province of opportunity,
it is hoped that all of the leaders of today
will meet the challenge of nation building
with the same spirit as did our forefathers
100 years ago.
Mr. E. A. Dunlop (Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, it was about ten months ago that
we debated a motion which embodied what
has come to be known as the Fulton-Favreau
formula, and which embraced an address and
a bill to be laid before the Lords and Com-
mons at Westminster entitled: An Act to
provide for the amendment to the Constitu-
tion of Canada in Canada.
Recent events appear to have dashed the
high hopes we all held last spring— I hope to
dash them only briefly and not permanently.
We are told by members of Parliament and
editorial writers that the Fulton-Favreau
formula is dead. I hope it may turn out that
this interment is premature, somewhat like
the news of Mark Twain's death which he
found to be premature when it was reported
to him.
It is not, however, a matter for any levity;
it is, I think, a matter for some lament. If
we treat the formula as dead, if others treat
the formula as dead, it provokes the ques-
tion: What is to replace it? If we dwell too
much on its features, which are considered to
be part of its extremis, then we may not be
able to bring those features back into some,
new mechanism.
The critics of the formula have referred
frequently to its rigidity and its inflexibility.
I find that criticism rather hard to under-
stand, because really there are only three im-
portant areas that are said to be entrenched
in the formula. The word "entrenched" is
used to mean required agreement of all prov-
inces as well as the Parliament of Canada to
produce a change. Those three areas refer to
the use of the English and French languages,
and to education, and to certain aspects of the
Constitution of Canada, its executive govern-
ment, and the responsible and representative
nature of that institution.
It does not seem to me unwise that these
features should be entrenched. Indeed, it
seems to me possible only to progress with
them entrenched if we wish all provinces to
be able to subscribe to the Constitution-
amending formula.
Within the other areas there is an excellent
provision for the delegation of the authority
to legislate between jurisdictions. This would
require the agreement of four provinces and
the Parliament of Canada. It seems to me
that this provides a good deal of flexibility,
and it may be a provision which will wish to
be resuscitated or revived in future constitu-
tional discussion in Canada.
It does not require a very vigorous effort
of the imagination to visualize a situation in
which four provinces and the Parliament of
Canada, for example, would be prepared to
delegate legislative powers in the fields of
securities legislation to the Parliament of Can-
ada. The Porter commission recommended
the Parliament of Canada should be enabled
to take over the supervision of all the near-
banks and similar financial institutions.
I believe our hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has suggested that that would be a
sound policy. It would require only three
other provinces and this province, plus the
Parliament of Canada, to bring that about
under the delegation provisions of the Fulton-
Favreau formula. This could be done and yet
still not disturb the province of Quebec,
which certainly does not wish to transfer
authority over its near-banks to the Parlia-
ment of Canada largely because of the very
special position which the caisses populaires
hold in that province.
Another field in which some useful delega-
tion from one level of government to the
other might take place is in the matter of
divorce. I can hardly imagine the time com-
ing in our lifetime when the Parliament of
Canada would be prepared to act to liberalize
the grounds for divorce. I know things change
but I do not expect that change to come very
soon. However, again it does not take a great
effort of imagination to think of four prov-
inces and the Parliament of Canada willing to
allow provincial governments to legislate
upon divorce; and, as provinces tend to be
somewhat more homogeneous in their attitudes
towards divorce, one can imagine a liberaliza-
tion of divorce laws in a number of provinces,
That would not be fragmentation of Canada}
United States is not fragmented, although it
182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has as many systems of divorce law, as many
jurisdictions, as there are states.
If we ever do get down to the actual busi-
ness of Constitution amending in Canada, I
have one favourite project which I hope the
constitution makers might give consideration
to and which has, I think, rarely been men-
tioned. I would like to see a system devel-
oped of uniform electoral districts, both for
provincial and federal elections. This has
been achieved in the United States. It has a
number of obvious advantages. The disad-
vantages of the present system are made very
clear to me, for if the federal plan of redis-
tribution is carried out in its present form,
my constituency will embrace parts of four
different federal constituencies and the elec-
torate are confused.
It is easy to see how you could develop a
system of uniform electoral districts in some
provinces, where the mathematics are com-
fortable. Saskatchewan will have 14 seats
federally, and has 52 seats in its provincial
Legislature. It will be at once clear to all
hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that 14 times
three equals 52 and an electoral district could
return three provincial members and one fed-
eral member. This is the system, approxi-
mately, which is followed in Prince Edward
Island. The mathematics defeat me, how-
ever, as to how in Ontario, which decides
that 117 seats is a proper representation in
the provincial government, which will have,
I think, 85 seats in the federal government,
how we could produce uniformity under the
circumstances. Again, as I say, it has been
achieved in the United States and, I think, to
the benefit of the electorate and to the benefit
of political parties.
I have the same optimism that has just
been expressed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,
by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Walker)
and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr.
Welch), that the problems of Canada will be
solved and are, indeed, solvable. We have,
I think, dwelt perhaps rather much upon our
problems, as if we were the kinds of persons
who are always discussing illnesses and recent
operations. One knows how very boring those
kinds of people can be. I think we should
dwell as much, too, on our progress and on
our bright future.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few
words about the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto. Last month, the hon. Prime Minis-
ter announced a proposed plan for the organi-
zation and government of the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, which was, in effect, a
modification of the proposals of the Royal
commissioner, Mr. Goldenberg. What the
final shape of the legislation will be we can-
not know until it is introduced into this
House, until it has gone through all stages of
the legislative process. The hon. Prime Min-
ister has indicated that he is not inflexible,
and is prepared to consider further amend-
ments and changes.
I believe that what has already been pro-
posed by the hon. Prime Minister represents
a workable and sound system of government
for Metropolitan Toronto. It embodies most
of the main principles of Mr. Goldenberg's
report, and departs from it in one or two
places where a departure seemed obviously
essential.
I, myself, would have preferred a some-
what more radical solution than that which
has already been advanced by the hon. Prime
Minister. I would like to have seen a solution
which drew the borough boundaries, having
full regard to the geographical and man-made
barriers which are obvious barriers to muni-
cipal services, such as Highway 401. I would
have liked to have seen a solution which
would have rationalized the position of wards
1 and 8 in the city, in relation to the Don
valley parkway, and in relationship to East
York and Leaside. I should have liked to have
seen the boundary extended from Steeles
avenue north to Highway 7— about to become
Highway 407-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Hear, hear!
Mr. Dunlop: Thank you very much.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition ) : Do you think we will get it?
Mr. Dunlop: —and thus help provide imme-
diate control over planning in a difficult fringe
area.
Also, I would have liked to have seen more
representation provided on the borough coun-
cils. I was impressed, when I was in England
last autumn, with their two-tiered system of
local government, as it is applied in the
Greater London council. The boroughs, as
will be the situation here, will deal almost
entirely with matters of purely local char-
acter. Each borough's representation is based
on one councillor for 10,000 of population,
producing rather large borough councils but
ones in which the councillor is very readily
available to the residents of his ward.
It is interesting that the upper level— that is,
the Greater London council— which would be
the analogue of our metropolitan council, is
not to be elected on the same system as the
borough councillors. Indeed, the Greater Lon-
don councillors are to be elected on the basis
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
183
of the parliamentary constituencies. This is
to avoid, in their minds at least, a parochial
approach.
I would like to have seen a solution here
which provided for separate election to both
the metropolitan council and the borough
councils, with the only common denominator
being that the mayors of the boroughs would
also sit on Metro council. It seems to me that
it is important to have a very clear system
of direct election and specific responsibility,
particularly in relation to the second largest
taxing and spending body in the province
of Ontario.
I should like to have seen boards of
control done away with and executive com-
mittees, with their powers, chosen by the
councils at the borough level, or the Metro
level, in their place. Of course, producing
larger borough councils and producing execu-
tive committees, all would tend towards the
introduction of a party system into our muni-
cipal government. That, I very much favour.
I would not favour it in many of the small
municipalities in this province, but I do favour
it in our great municipalities. The parties
would not necessarily, I believe, be exact
photocopies of the parties which exist in this
Legislature and in the Parliament of Canada.
One has observed the development of the
party system in great American cities and
finds that it has some local modifications.
We find in New York and in Cleveland,
parties with such names as Fusionist, and
even Liberal.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): But
basically still Republican and Democrat.
Mr. Dunlop: I am glad of that interjection
from the hon. member for York South because
I gather his party proposes to enter municipal
politics, and I think its decision was right. I
hope that the party I support will do the
same.
Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear! Let us cut out
the hypocrisy for a change.
Mr. Dunlop: We did not introduce it. Those
are changes which I would have liked to
have seen, but if they do not take place I
shall not feel that any great harm will come
to this great city. I think the system which
has already been proposed is sound, and it
has the advantage of being capable of being
harmonized with the two-tiered system of
municipal government throughout the prov-
ince. I hope, as I know many hon. members
in this Legislature hope, that the two-tiered
system of local government throughout the
province will be strengthened, putting more
power in the hands of county councils,
directly elected with uniform assessment, able
to deal with problems of much larger areas
in the automobile era, and leaving the muni-
cipal governments at the second tier with the
local problems.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to com-
mend the hon. member for Lambton West
(Mr. Knox) and the hon. member for Armour-
dale (Mr. Carton) on their splendid speeches
in proposing and seconding the address in
reply.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, it is a very great pleasure to rise
in this Throne debate, sir, and to join previ-
ous speakers in congratulating you on the
dignity and efficiency which you bring to
this Chamber. More than that, I would like
to congratulate you on the authority you are
exercising in the region adjoining the Cham-
ber itself, the improvements in the lobbies
for the members and for the interest you
have shown in the facilities and services
available to the members. I should like
to thank you, sir, for myself and my hon.
colleagues and to extend those thanks also
to members of your staff.
May I congratulate the hon. member for
Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) on his election as
Deputy Speaker. The unanimous pleasure
that was expressed when that election was
held last Friday is ample testimony to the
integrity and ability that the hon. member
brings to this important position.
I should like to congratulate the two hon.
new members, for Nipissing (Mr. Smith) and
Bracondale (Mr. Ben), and to say that I en-
joyed the remarks made just now by the hon.
member for Bracondale. As a matter of fact,
I understand that he is on tape as saying he
is going to run for the leadership over there
and so I suppose this may be said to be the
first shot in his leadership campaign.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. White: My congratulations go also to
the mover of the address from the Throne,
the distinguished hon. member for Lambton
West (Mr. Knox), and to the seconder, our
good friend, the hon. member for Armourdale
(Mr. Carton).
May I take just a moment also, Mr.
Speaker, to thank the government whips, the
hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and the
hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Harris). Their
assistance has been invaluable to me and of
great service to this House and to the public
of this province as evidenced by the fact
that I am the ninth Conservative speaker on
184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
his feet in this Throne debate while the
Opposition have had only three speakers. It
is further evidenced, Mr. Speaker, by the fact
that when the committee on government com-
missions met a day or two ago the Conserva-
tive members outnumbered the Opposition
members four to one. So I do thank these
government whips for the work that they
have done.
Mr. Speaker, I have a little potpourri to
offer to the hon. members of the House today,
a few matters which are of concern to the
province as a whole, some items that are of
particular interest in the London area and a
few corrections for the hon. member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) and those others
who may have strayed from the path of
truth and righteousness during the past few
days.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): As
seen by the Tories.
Mr. White: May I start by informing the
House that at the annual meeting of the
young Progressive-Conservative association in
London last Saturday morning that great
organization— to use the words of my friend
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Mac-
Naughton)— that great organization passed a
resolution, I think 74 per cent of the mem-
bers supporting the motion, that the voting
age in Ontario and in Canada be lowered
to 18.
Mr. MacDonald: Hurray!
Mr. White: May I spend just a moment or
two on that idea. I have had the pleasure of
lecturing to students at high school intermit-
tently and of teaching a succession of courses
to university students at the University of
Western Ontario.
I have some-
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppos-
ition): Were they in favour of lowering the
voting age to 18 years of age?
Mr. White: Seventy-four per cent in
favour of lowering the voting age to 18, yes.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a little candle in
the Tory house.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. White: Well, I am going to raise an-
other one.
I know from this experience, Mr. Speaker,
that these young men and women are intelli-
gent and dedicated to the public welfare. I
think, sir, that the current events courses-
being offered and the current events clubs
which have formed on high school and uni-
versity campuses prepare these young men
and women for a vote in a way perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, that our own scholastic experience
did not.
Even at that, I recall having voted at the
age of 18 or 19 in the navy. I think the way
in which I voted at the time was entirely
satisfactory, I voted for Mackenzie King and'
for George Drew, and I never had reason to
regret either one of them. I have never voted'
NDP and that is also a source of some
pleasure to me.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that if we
were to lower the voting age the students,
many of whom would still be in high school,
some of whom would be in tertiary educa-
tional institutions of one kind and another,
would be introduced to the idea of voting
while they were still in what I will call this
rather controlled atmosphere; that is to say
they could be encouraged by their teachers
to participate in political discussions leading
up to the election itself, and I think might
be encouraged in the years to come to vote
regularly in a way that may not now be the
case.
At any rate I did want to put the views of
the young Progressive-Conservatives from
London on the record here in anticipation of
some further debate on the resolution which
is on the order paper.
May I spend a few moments on the idea
of regional government? The hon. member
for York South-
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Why is the
hon. member running down the House
leaders so much?
Mr. White: The hon. member for York
South quoted Professor Krueger from the
University of Waterloo as saying that our
approach to regional government was out-
moded and insufficient. That, I may say, sir,
is not a universal opinion. I cite as my
authority Professor Edward Pleva, the head
of the department of geography, Middlesex
College, University of Western Ontario. I
think I am correct in saying, sir, that he will
be considered to be perhaps the dean of the
discipline in this province. He was good
enough some weeks ago to provide me with
notes from a speech which he gave entitled:
"Can expanding urbanism and a prosperous
agriculture exist in the same region?" The
speech was given, I think, December 8.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
185
I note in particular the remark of Dr.
Pleva, and I quote:
Fortunately, Ontario has had a high
level of planning legislation and planning
practice available to local government
through excellent and far-sighted permis-
sive legislation.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): What year
was that?
Mr. White: This is December 8, 1965-
about six weeks ago.
The province is already deeply involved
in the regional impact through regional
highways, area schools, regional hospitals,
regional water supply and sewage disposal
systems and other involvements. The prov-
ince likewise has taken a leading role in
the location problems of new major indus-
tries.
Now, sir, I could go on at some length but I
am going to abbreviate that portion of my
remarks except to say that some weeks in
advance of the Ford announcement about
their new plant at Talbotville a meeting was
held at the University of Western Ontario in
which the hon. Minister of Highways ex-
plained a 20-year regional highway pro-
gramme—I use "regional" in that context
advisedly, Mr. Speaker and at which time the
hon. Minister of Highways, the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), the hon. mem-
ber for Elgin, the hon. member for Middle-
sex South (Mr. Olde), Dr. Pleva, the head of
the geography department of the university,
the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Pittock),
the general manager of the Lake Erie devel-
opment association and myself took part in
a separate meeting to concern ourselves with
regional government or regional development
and planning more particularly.
It was decided at that time, and in the
several meetings which followed, when I met
with both Dr. Pleva and Mr. Fisher, the
general manager of Lerda, that a request go
to the Ontario government asking for the
modest sum of $11,000 to carry out a three-
phase study of regional government in that
part of Ontario.
At about that same time, as I said, the
Ford Motor Company announced that it
would be building a very large new plant at
Talbotville, and of course this quickened our
interest and heightened the urgency of the
request that we put to the government. I am
glad to say that that request is getting the
sympathetic support of the several Min-
isters concerned, and the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
is hoping to have an answer for us in the
very near future.
There is one aspect of regional govern-
ment, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me a little
bit and that relates to the city of London
and the county of Middlesex particularly. For
some time it has been acknowledged that
our county courthouse facilities and jail
facilities are inadequate. Those of us at
Queen's Park who represent that area have
done what we could to encourage municipal
council to move ahead.
The warden and the council of the county
of Middlesex have been prepared for some
years to build a new courthouse. The hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man) is willing to help with grants for a
regional jail. The hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Spooner) is prepared to help in
those ways made possible by statute. The
hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) is pre-
pared to assist with respect to combining
the registry offices. It is with a great deal of
disappointment that I must say to the House
that all of these endeavours have been un-
successful because of the intransigent atti-
tude of my good friend, the mayor of London,
and from the portion of council that he has
been able to attract to his cause.
How we at Queen's Park can shake that
loose I do not know, but I am very con-
cerned indeed because the consequence, quite
frankly, is that the constituents in my riding
and adjoining ridings are not being provided
with adequate courtroom and jail facilities.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It should
be provided by the hon. member's friend, the
hon. Attorney General.
Mr. White: That is what the hon. member
says. I do not agree with that. There are
certain responsibilities which are well handled
at the local level. This is a regional concept,
of course; it is a county-city courthouse; and
we are talking in terms of a regional jail, so
it is not what you would call the exclusive
responsibility of a single municipality. In
.fact, there are literally dozens of municipali-
ties involved.
How the government here can cope with
that kind of delay I do not know. I make
mention of the circumstances and of the
problem which I say concerns so many of my
constituents in the hope that ideas will be
forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned for
some years, and made mention of the fact
previously, that the Legislature of Ontario,
through certain statutes, grants very large
186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
powers to professional and vocational groups;
I have thought, from time to time, that these
powers were not being well used. You may
recall that, a couple of years ago, I suggested
that there be well defined appeal provisions
for teachers or doctors or lawyers, or any-
body else who felt that the hierarchy of his
profession in some way was making it difficult
or impossible for him to make his earning
in that profession.
I turn for a moment to the increasing
standards that are being imposed in many
of these professional groups. This obviously
is being done in the name of increased, or
improved, service to the public. Of course, the
result is that the supply side of the market
is shortened and the prices are driven up. I
am not suggesting that the leaders of the
reputable and prestigious professions are
doing this deliberately, but I do say, speaking
as an economist for a moment, that this is the
inevitable consequence of continuously rais-
ing standards.
May I cite a few statistics in support of
this argument? The number of arts and
science graduates since 1956 has increased
from 6,861 to 15,820; in effect, a trebling of
the number of university graduates. The
number of educationists with degrees has
increased from 1,456 in 1956 to 4,920 in 1964.
The number of PhD degrees has increased
from 266 to 450, approximately double. The
number of nursing first degrees from uni-
versities has increased from 120 in 1956 to
400 in 1964. I have got figures on the popu-
lation of Canada here, and on the number of
hospital beds, and certain other figures which
I will omit.
I would like to contrast this with the per-
formance in the medical profession. I do not
do so in any spirit of acrimony, or with any
wish to attack the profession, because un-
deniably the medical profession is, as it has
always been, the pre-eminent professional
group in this country, and the sacrifice and
service of individual doctors is a story well
known to all of us. I do say though, sir, that
it is incredible to me that the number of MD
graduates in Canadian institutions has held
more or less steady as indicated by the figures
—and bv the way, all these figures are taken
from DBS statistics. In 1956, 826; 1957, 875;
1958, 847; 1959, 842; 1960, 879; 1961, 842;
1962, 846; 1963, 826 and 1964, 850.
Now, then, Mr. Speaker, as you will have
noted, there has been virtually no increase in
the number of medical graduates from Cana-
dian universities in the last ten years. If this
were a general condition— if there were not
increasing numbers of nurses and teachers
and lawyers and engineers— then I would have
to seek the solution at the level of govern-
ment, federal or provincial, or perhaps even
municipal. If this were a more general situa-
tion, extending from one faculty to another in
the universities across the province, I might
be tempted to blame the university hierarchy;
but, in view of the fact that this would seem
to be the only professional group that has not
increased the number of graduates, one must
conclude that the medical profession, or the
college of physicians and surgeons, or some
other such medical body, is responsible.
This is going to be a matter of increasing
concern with the great new medical health
insurance programme that we have here in
Ontario, and I would hope that the study
committee announced in the Throne speech
by the government will pay particular heed
to this deficiency. It is pointed up, Mr.
Speaker, by the unhappy fact that infant mor-
tality in Canada is very high compared to
some other countries. Canada's death rate in
infant mortality is higher than Australia, Den-
mark, England and Wales, Finland, France,
Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ire-
land, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland
and the U.S.A. Our neo-natal mortality rates
are higher than Australia, Denmark, England
and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Ire-
land, Japan, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway and Scotland. And so we, as legis-
lators, and the medical profession as such,
have no reason to be complacent about this
performance to date.
Mr. MacDonald: Better send a copy to the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond).
Mr. White: Incidentally, I have been dis-
cussing this problem with friends of mine in
London who are doctors, and they point to
a number of reasons, none of which I have
been able to substantiate, quite frankly. They
blame such things as the shortage of teaching
beds, to the shortage of qualified instructors,
to the shortage of sophisticated research facil-
ities, and so on. I have not yet satisfied
myself that those reasons are valid.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): A cause of
concern to the hon. Minister.
Mr. White: I shoidd like to deal with a
little practice in The Department of Trans-
port—and I am very glad to see my friend,
the hon. Minister (Mr. Haskett) in his place
here— that I think typifies large government
and which I think we have largely succeeded
in heading off in this province. It is astonish-
ing to me the high degree of efficiency,
politeness and speed with which our public
servants are able to operate.
FEBRUARY 2, 1966
187
But here is a little practice, quite frankly,
that is very much of a nuisance and which I
suspect will be credited by citizens as
evidence of bureaucracy. I have a letter
from a constituent in which he complains
that he is able to get his car licence some
time in December before leaving for Florida
but that he is not able to get a licence for
his trailer home until either March 1 or
March 31, at which time, of course, he is
in Florida.
Mr. Singer: Set up a commission to investi-
gate.
Mr. White: Now the man has one of two
alternatives: He can either take the risk of
running his trailer back to London in the
hope that he will not be pinched, or else he
can mail a letter and his old licence to
Queen's Park. But I think in either case, Mr.
Speaker, and notwithstanding certain explana-
tions offered to me by The Department of
Transport, I feel confident that this can and
should be changed so that the period at
which these licences are available will co-
incide.
Mr. Sopha: We could open an office in
Florida.
Mr. White: I have a number of other
topics, Mr. Speaker, but I think perhaps
rather than embark on the next one, which
happens to be the workmen's compensation
board, that I will save those remarks and
certain other criticisms that I have about the
errors in the speech by the hon. member for
York South. I think I will save those, sir, until
next day and, with your permission, I will
move adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow I would like to proceed
with order No. 7 on the order paper, the
second reading of The Medical Services In-
surance Act. At five o'clock I would like to
adjourn that debate and revert to notices, and
complete order No. 16, that is, the adjourned
debate and the two motions respecting hate
literature. And, if we have time before six
o'clock, then we will proceed with the third
motion under other motions on the order
paper.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder, before the hon. Prime
Minister adjourns the House, is he in a posi-
tion to confirm or deny the rumours that the
Budget will be down next Wednesday?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, I think it will be.
There might be some slight element of
doubt; that is why I have not mentioned it.
There is a very slight element of doubt, but
that is our target date and I think the Budget
will be brought down on Wednesday next.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 8
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 3, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 3, 1966
First report, standing committee on standing orders, Mr. Ewen 191
Department of Agriculture Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 192
Town of Thorold, bill respecting, Mr. Morningstar, first reading 193
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Renwick, first reading 193
Tilbury public school board, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, first reading 193
City of Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, first reading 193
Township of Saltfleet, bill respecting, Mr. Ewen, first reading 193
Liability of occupiers of premises, bill respecting, Mr. Sopha, first reading 193
Appointment of a commissioner to investigate administrative decisions and acts of
officials of the government of Ontario and its agencies and to define the commis-
sioner's powers and duties, bill to provide for, Mr. Singer 194
Board of trustees of the Roman Catholic separate schools for the city of Windsor, bill
respecting, Mr. Thrasher, first reading 194
City of Kitchener, bill respecting, Mrs. Pritchard, first reading 194
L'Institut Canadien Francais, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, first reading 194
Gananoque high school district, bill respecting, Mr. Apps, first reading 194
Guelph district board of education, bill to establish, Mr. Worton, first reading 194
Town of Hespeler, bill respecting, Mr. Reuter, first reading 194
City of Sudbury, bill respecting, Mr. Sopha, first reading 194
City of Port Arthur, bill respecting, Mr. Freeman, first reading 194
Huntington University, bill respecting, Mr. Sopha, first reading 194
Strathroy Middlesex general hospital, bill respecting, Mr. Apps, first reading 194
City of Brantford, bill respecting, Mr. Gordon, first reading 194
Board of education of the township of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, first
reading 195
Parole Act, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, first reading 195
Kenora Rink Company, bill respecting, Mr. Gibson, first reading 195
Township of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, first reading 195
City of London, bill respecting, Mr. White, first reading 195
Township of Charlotteville, bill respecting, Mr. McNeil, first reading 195
Salvation Army, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 195
Canadian national exhibition, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 195
Toronto aged men's and women's homes, bill respecting, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, first
reading 196
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading 203
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Thompson, agreed to 209
Notice of motions Nos. 1 and 2, concluded, Mr. Trotter, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, Mr.
Bryden, Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sopha, Mr. Robarts; carried 209
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 217
191
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature, and today
we welcome, as guests, in the east gallery,
students from the F. H. Miller public school,
Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth) from the
standing committee on standing orders and
printing presented the committee's first report
which was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee has carefully examined
the following petitions and finds the notices,
as published in each case, sufficient:
Of the corporation of the township of Salt-
fleet praying that an Act may pass empower-
ing the corporation to relieve owners of farm
lands from part of certain special assessments,
yearly, so long as such lands continue to be
used for farming.
Of the Kenora Rink Company praying that
an Act may pass dissolving the company and
transferring its assets to the corporation of
the town of Kenora.
Of the board of education of the township
of Toronto praying that an Act may pass
annulling certain trusts and permitting it to
sell certain lands owned by it by virtue of
The Township of Toronto Act, 1962-1963.
Of the Toronto aged men's and women's
homes praying that an Act may pass enabling
it to hold real property at 43-55 Belmont
street and 102 Davenport road in the city of
Toronto; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Toronto praying that an Act may pass to
enable it to issue and sell sinking fund de-
bentures and to make provision for the man-
agement of the sinking fund.
Of the Tilbury public school board praying
that an Act may pass enabling it to establish,
and vest certain property denied to it, in the
"William J. Miller Trust."
Thursday, February 3, 1966
Of the Strathroy Middlesex general hos-
pital praying that an Act may pass to change
the name of the Strathroy general hospital
to the Strathroy Middlesex general hospital.
Of the corporation of the city of Port
Arthur praying that an Act may pass dis-
solving the board of park management and
establishing a board to be known as the
Parks, Recreation and Community Centres
Board of the city of Port Arthur.
Of the corporation of the city of Brantford
praying that an Act may pass to incorporate
the Brantford and district civic centre com-
mission.
Of Huntington University praying that an
Act may pass to permit the board of regents
to increase its membership.
Of the board of education for the city of
Guelph and the public school board of the
township school area of the township of
Guelph praying that an Act may pass to
establish the Guelph District Board of Educa-
tion.
Of L'Institut Canadien Francais praying
that an Act may pass to increase its powers
to hold property and its honouring privileges.
Of the Canadian national exhibition asso-
ciation praying that an Act may pass enabling
it to change the membership; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the township of
Charlotteville praying that an Act may pass
confirming a by-law to issue debentures for
school renovation and equipment.
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass to authorize
the corporation to refund certain business
and property taxes; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Thorold
praying that an Act may pass to relieve the
corporation from any further obligation im-
posed on it by the plan of refunding of the
corporation's debenture debt; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Gana-
noque and the corporation of the united
192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
counties of Leeds and Grenville praying that
an Act may pass to enlarge the Gananoque
high school district.
Of the corporation of the city of Kitchener
praying that an Act may pass permitting cer-
tain by-laws compelling completion of pro-
posed apartment building; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Hespeler
praying that an Act may pass permitting it
to pay the cost of certain curb and gutter
work by a special rate.
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
to enter into certain agreements for the
purpose of mamtaining and operating a
community television system; and for other
purposes.
Of the governing council of the Salvation
Army, Canada East, praying that an Act may
pass exempting certain real property owned
by it, as defined in The Assessment Act.
Of the corporation of the city of Sudbury
praying that an Act may pass to establish a
parks and recreation commission.
Of the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic separate schools for the city of
Windsor praying that an Act may pass vest-
ing certain lands and premises in it in fee
simple.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Department of Agriculture
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, tills bill provides for the
changing of the name of The Department of
Agriculture to The Department of Food and
Agriculture. It also makes such further
amendments necessary because of the change
of name and because of the broader implica-
tion of this name. This bill describes our
current and long-range activities, our policies
and responsibilities.
While The Department of Agriculture ini-
tially was concerned with basic agricultural
activities, there has been a gradual recogni-
tion of the fact that agriculture cannot start
and stop on the farm but must take in the
much broader field of marketing in a very
co-ordinated way.
We have therefore over the years devel-
oped marketing policies which in certain cases
have taken producer marketing boards well
along the marketing road. Our department
has concerned itself with the quality of agri-
cultural products and has worked with con-
sumers in agricultural and food matters. We
have been concerned with the techniques of
food processing and with the licensing of pro-
cessing establishments.
In brief, The Department of Agriculture,
since its establishment in 1888, has through
all its programmes and policies worked to
assist the farmers of Ontario to produce food.
Indeed, so well has the department fulfilled
its function that experts from our depart-
mental staff have been requested by, and been
available to, developing countries in order
to facilitate their own food production.
It is therefore quite obvious that this
broader concept suggested in the new name
of the department, The Department of Food
and Agriculture, is not only much more
fitting and more descriptive of our current
activity, but as well of the responsibilities
which we must accept for the future. The
establishment under The Department of
Agriculture a short time ago of the Ontario
food council gave public indication of an
acceptance for the first time of a broad work-
ing team which existed in agriculture and
the food industry. This team must work to-
gether in a co-operative understanding way
if the food and agriculture industry is going
to meet the future demands which will be
made of it.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the Ontario
food council, which is operated with success
and acceptance, is made up of representatives
from producers, processors, wholesalers, re-
tailers and consumers. The food council has
been encouraging the most effective form of
food production, processing and distribution,
consistent with fair returns on investment to
all participants and with our ability to pro-
duce food and be as self-sufficient as possible
in order to maintain and expand our agricul-
tural food products industry.
With rapidly changing trends in food pro-
duction today the farmer is becoming more
aware of the importance of the consumer.
Today's modern farmer recognizes that the
end result of all his efforts as a farmer is
the production of food, not just for himself
and his family, but for those who will benefit
from the efficiency which he has developed
in the operation of his farming.
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
193
Food and water are basic essentials for
human survival. As our population expands,
indeed as world population expands, there is
increasing emphasis on the importance of
food, not only to the producer but to the
consumer both within and beyond our
borders. In this broader picture, which cer-
tainly requires the thought and planning of
all governments, our province of Ontario will
play its part.
However, Mr. Speaker, in the purely do-
mestic field, in the growing industrialization
in this province, there will be increasing
pressures on our farmers and on our proces-
sors to adequately meet the demands. This
will require teamwork, in which we are
prepared to give the necessary leadership.
These amendments, which on the surface
appear relatively simple, will provide the
framework and the guidelines for future plan-
ning and long-range policies necessary in the
interests of the food and agriculture industry
and of the consuming public.
TOWN OF THOROLD
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the town of Thorold.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Judicature Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
the amendment to The Judicature Act pro-
posed, defines the grounds on which an
interim injunction in a labour dispute may be
granted, and requires at least six hours' notice
in applications which now may be made ex
parte. In short, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the bill is to curb the abuse by management
of court injunctions to destroy legal strikes,
such as the present strike at the Oshawa
Times.
TILBURY PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the Tilbury public school board.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF SALTFLEET
Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the township of Saltfleet.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS
OF PREMISES
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the
liability of occupiers of premises.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
for a long time the common law has been in
a very pronounced state of confusion with
respect to the duty of occupiers of premises
to render and keep the premises reasonably
safe for those who come on them. The com-
mon law placed in categories the people going
onto premises, generally defined as invitees,
licensees and trespassers. The first two cate-
gories refer to persons who are lawfully on
the premises, invitees being those who come
on to do business with the occupier, his
servants or agents. Licensees are those who
are tolerated— for example, canvassers. This
group-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Would the member
keep to the purpose of the bill.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I am. This grouping leads
to confusion of thought, and in many cases
unjust results.
The intent of this bill is to do away with
the categories of invitees and licensees and to
impose upon the occupier a common duty of
care. That is to say, the occupier will be
liable for negligence, the failure to carry out
the duty imposed upon him to keep his
premises reasonably safe, and to prevent
injury occurring which he might reasonably
have foreseen.
The English law was changed in 1957 by
the passing of a statute upon which this one
is modelled and it has worked quite well in
securing justice to those who must needs, in
the ordinary course of their lives, go on the
premises of others and are injured, usually
through no fault of their own.
194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide
for the appointment of a commissioner to
investigate administrative decisions and acts
of officials of the government of Ontario and
its agencies and to define the commissioner's
powers and duties.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, the puqoose of this bill is to estab-
lish in the province of Ontario an official who
is recognized in other jurisdictions under the
name and title of ombudsman. The intention
behind this purpose is to provide, for the citi-
zens of Ontario, an impartial official who
would stand in the same relationship to the
Legislature perhaps as the auditor does, who
will be able to listen to and, where necessary,
deal with the continuing infringement by civil
servants upon the rights of the citizens of
the province of Ontario.
GUELPH DISTRICT BOARD
OF EDUCATION
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to estab-
lish the Guelph district board of education.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF HESPELER
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the town of Hespeler.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF SUDBURY
Mr. Sopha moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting the city of Sud-
bury.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE
SCHOOLS FOR THE CITY
WINDSOR
Mr. I. W. Thrasher (Windsor-Sandwich)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
respecting the board of trustees of the Roman
Catholic separate schools for the city of
Windsor.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF KITCHENER
Mrs. A. Pritchard (Hamilton Centre), in the
absence of the hon. member for Waterloo
North (Mr. Butler), moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act respecting the city of
Kitchener.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
LTNSTITUT CANADIEN FRANCAIS
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting
LTnstitut Canadien Francais.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the city of Port Arthur.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
HUNTINGTON UNIVERSITY
Mr. Sopha moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting Huntington Uni-
versity.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
STRATHROY MIDDLESEX GENERAL
HOSPITAL
Mr. Apps, in the absence of the hon.
member for Middlesex South (Mr. Olde),
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
respecting the Strathroy Middlesex general
hospital.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
GANANOQUE HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston) moves first reading
of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Gana-
noque high school district.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF BRANTFORD
Mr. G. T. Gordon (Brantford) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the city of Brantford.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
195
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF TORONTO
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the board of education of the township of
Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE PAROLE ACT
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Parole Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Was notice
given of this bill?
Mr. Speaker: Notice was given yesterday.
Mr. Bryden: It is not on the order paper,
Mr. Speaker. I think hon. Ministers should
obey the same rules as other members.
Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister have the
unanimous consent of the House to introduce
the bill today?
Mr. Bryden: We will let it go this time.
We do not want to spoil your press release.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, I would point out
that it happens to be on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Act is
to increase the complement of the Ontario
parole board.
Presently constituted, it has three full-
time and two part-time members. By this
amendment there will be five full-time and
two part-time members. By law, a board
meeting must include three members of the
board.
Our Ontario parole board interviews per-
sonally all those eligible for parole. On the
basis of a seven-man board, two teams will
be available. All prisoners with indetermi-
nate sentences are eligible for parole but, be-
cause it is physically impossible for the
present board of five to visit all institutions
in the province, it has been necessary to
restrict placement of such prisoners to a
limited number of institutions.
A larger board will permit: (1) Placement
of more offenders, mostly the younger ones,
in institutions closer to home and thus permit
more frequent family visits.
(2) The extension of our training centre
programmes to four additional institutions
this year. (3) Specific training programmes
to suit the needs of the local community so
that trainees will be better qualified for local
job opportunities upon release.
(4) Increasing the number of institutions to
which indeterminate sentences may be sent
will further reduce the number of inmates
in institutions such as Guelph and Burwash.
KENORA RINK COMPANY
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the Kenora Rink Company.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF TORONTO
Mr. Mackenzie moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting the township of
Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the city of London.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF CHARLOTTEVILLE
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act respecting the
township of Charlotteville.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE SALVATION ARMY
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the Salvation Army.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
Mr. Cowling moves first reading of bill in-
tituled, An Act respecting the Canadian
national exhibition.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Would the hon.
member explain the purpose of the bill?
Mr. Speaker: It is not the practice of the
House to ask for an explanation of private
bills.
196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
TORONTO AGED MEN'S AND
WOMEN'S HOMES
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the Toronto aged men's and women's
homes.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question, which was sub-
mitted yesterday, for the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall).
In view of the proposal made in the
address by the hon. Eric Kierans to the
Toronto society of financial analysts, would
the hon. Minister consider implementing
immediately the idea that a detailed analysis
be made of imports and prices paid by
American subsidiaries operating in Ontario?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question: No, I am not
in a position to implement a proposal of
this nature.
The federal bureau of statistics compiles
statistics by industry and commodities only.
There is no detailed analysis of the imports
of American subsidiaries. Furthermore, these
statistics are at the present time only available
in Canada on a Canada-wide basis. The in-
formation regarding prices paid by American
subsidiaries operating in Ontario, as well as
that of any other company, is confidential and
no manufacturer will reveal his manufactur-
ing operating costs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that answers the
question asked by the hon. member, but I
would like to make a few observations in
view of the presentation of Mr. Kierans'
speech in Toronto. I think it has had a
very adverse effect in many areas of our
economic growth and what will happen to
it. I would like to think that if he makes any
more statements of this kind, he will make
them in his own jurisdiction so that if he
wants to commit economic suicide he does
it down there and not so the headline, or the
dateline, appears in world markets as
"Ontario".
If he believes foreign investment has any
adverse effect in Canada, perhaps he should
do what we are doing in this province. We
have taken steps over the years to minimize
the effects of foreign manufacturers investing
in this province. We have invited our friends
in Quebec to join us on sales missions, in in-
vestment opportunity missions. We have held
five manufacturing opportunity shows in this
province in which 22,000 products, formerly
imported, were shown and more than $44
million worth of quotations were issued. I
would like to believe that this resulted in at
least $26 million of business for Ontario man-
ufacturers.
In fact, we sampled the Ontario manu-
facturers last May to see whether we would
hold another manufacturing opportunity show
and they advised us they are so busy with
work received at previous shows that they
are working to capacity. They asked us to
postpone it for another year.
I am sure that if Mr. Kierans is having this
kind of problem, manufacturers' opportunity
shows in Quebec would correct some of the
problems that he has outlined in his speech
here in Toronto. Our "shop Canadian" pro-
gramme, designed to replace imports, is
twofold and is directed to the industrial use
of components here and also the sale of re-
tail products by Canadian manufacturers.
There are approximately 1,400 American
manufacturers in this province— roughly 10
per cent of our manufacturers— that are con-
trolled by American interests. One of the
things we are working on constantly and very
successfuly is inviting American manufac-
turers to invest in this province. I could not
answer the question of the hon. member yes-
terday because I was in Chicago presenting
the Ontario Sheridan Park research science
city to 20 American manufacturers and I
believe two of those are committing them-
selves very shortly to invest in our research
centre. I am sure hon. members will be in-
terested to know that more than half the
tenants who have now taken property in
Sheridan Park are American-owned. They
are good corporate citizens and I think we
are doing them a disservice in some of these
statements that have been emanating from
friends like Mr. Kierans.
I might say that in 1964 we brought into
this province, because of the climate created
by this government, 163 branch plants, and
we made 12 joint ventures and 104 licence
agreements, and 1965 will be even better.
Certainly it would seem to me that this
is a good way for others in other jurisdictions
to offset any adverse effects that foreign
investment has on a province.
Mr. Sopha: According to the hon. Minister,
it does not have any.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It has some but I think
they can be offset.
I would also like to suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that it is our belief that international monetary
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
197
policies are the responsibility of the federal
government, such as international trade, and
I believe we should co-operate with them and
work with them as we are doing. We have
used their offices all over the world and I
believe that this is the proper way to make
these presentations.
We in this province have a great interest
in what is taking place in this field, but we
feel it is in the mutual interests of all
Canada to make known our wishes in this
regard to those at the federal level who can
best deal with them. It is obvious there is a
great shortage of capital in almost every
country in the world, particularly those that
are highly industrialized. Great Britain is
going through a difficult problem right now;
Italy is going through a difficult problem;
Japan has just gone through one and is
getting back on its feet. We are going to have
these problems, and I think taking pot shots
at the Americans is not going to solve them.
They are our best supplier and they are our
best customer and I do not believe it is in
the interests of the world or of Canada to
criticize them in this regard.
If Mr. Kierans believes his province's prob-
lems are difficult now, I perhaps would sug-
gest he should consider what they would be
if the American dollar was devalued because
of difficulties that the Amercians face at the
present time. It would be obvious the Cana-
dian dollar would follow and it would be
obvious it would follow in panic.
The world-wide international problems of
the United States are of great significance
to the free world. I wonder how many of us
recognize it. If they can be solved we are all
going to benefit, even without making a con-
tribution. If the United States fails in their
efforts to solve some of these problems exter-
nally, Canadians at least, I believe, should
get ready to stand up and be counted be-
cause the world is going to have some most
difficult times to deal with.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by
just suggesting, like the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. Allan) when asked to comment, like
many of the prime ministers across this coun-
try, who I am sure agree with the comments
I have made this afternoon, that I have every
confidence in the constitutional government of
Canada and I hope others will see it is in
their best interest to do likewise.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. Minister would permit a supple-
mentary question?
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr.
Kierans did not express opposition to foreign
investment but rather said that it was vitally
necessary, would the hon. Minister consider
reviewing his statement so that we can face
up to the problem of American government
direction of economic developments in Canada
—that economic development should conform
to guidelines of the Canadian government
rather than the American government? That
is the issue. In other words, would the hon.
Minister mind getting his policy into confor-
mity at least with that of John Diefenbaker
to protect the sovereignty, economic and
political, of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, there are more
opinions on this matter of American domina-
tion in our economic expansion-
Mr. MacDonald: They are all to be found
in the Tory party.
Hon. Mr. Randall: —perhaps than anything
else at the present time, but I would just
like to suggest that at the moment, while the
guidelines in the United States have been laid
down by Mr. Johnson, he has not issued any
directives to industry in general, specifically,
to do what he asked. He has asked for a
voluntary effort. There has been no pressure
applied, legislatively or otherwise, to force
them to change their method of doing
business.
My experience with most of the American
companies who are concerned with this in-
dicate that they are trying to co-operate but
certainly not at the expense of the Canadian
operation.
As for the second part of the problem, yes,
I think there is room in this province to do
more research with reference to the matters
the hon. member has brought up; and we are,
in our economics department, setting up a
statistical department this year to perhaps
gather more information that we can use
in the interests of the province. But the
matter of imports coming direct, as we sug-
gested earlier, is very difficult to control,
because if a commodity sucR as steel is
brought into Montreal it may be distributed
in nine other provinces, it may stay right in
Quebec, or it may stay right in Ontario. But
I think, when we do set up our statistical
department, we will have the machinery with
which to investigate some of the matters
the hon. member has brought up.
I would like to know about them, yes,
but I think at the present time we should
be careful that we do not upset the apple-
cart in so far as our expansion is concerned—
certainly when tight money is not only a
problem in Canada, but is a problem every-
where. I appreciate the opportunity of ex-
pressing to the hon. member, through his
198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
questions, my feeling in this matter, and I
am sure that I have a very keen interest in
what this province is going to do and what
this country is going to do about the guide-
lines in the United States; but I am also aware
of the difficulties that they are experiencing. I
think we should—
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister has read Mr. Kierans' speech?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I have read it very
carefully. I would suggest that the hon.
member read Mr. Levesque's speech of last
week— and it took Mr. Kierans the first three
days of last week to explain Mr. Levesque's
speech to the Montreal businessmen.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, let us not get off on
that.
An hon. member: You do not know who
your friends are.
Mr. Ben: I should like to direct a question
to the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions,
notice of which has been given. Would the
hon. Minister inform this House: (1) How
many full-time psychiatrists are employed by
The Department of Reform Institutions; (2)
What are their salaries; (3) What is the
average educational level of the custodial
staff at Millbrook and Guelph reformatories;
(4) What is the mean educational level of the
custodial staff at Millbrook and Guelph refor-
matories—as shortly as possible?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in
answer to the first one, the number of full-
time psychiatrists employed by the depart-
ment is one; his salary is $18,000 a year,
reaching to a $20,000 maximum. As to ques-
tions numbers three and four, I am sure the
hon. member will realize it requires a great
deal of research and tabulation in order to
ensure accuracy, consequently I shall take the
questions as notice to provide him with the
information at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, with your permis-
sion, I should like to direct a question to the
hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) touching
on a motion for the return of a report made
on Monday. Could the hon. Attorney General
inform this House when these reports will be
tabled?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): I
am sure, Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what
the hon. member refers. I had no notice of
this.
Mr. Speaker: Was the member's question
on the order paper? Well, therefore, the
answer will be placed in the order paper
whenever the answer is obtained by the Min-
ister, unless the Minister wishes to give it in
the House. I am informed by the Clerk that
it is a notice of motion for a return. It there-
fore will only be returned when it is ordered
by the House.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Attorney General. Does the
government plan to make representations to
the Royal commission, Mr. Justice Rand, in
the matter of the continued tenure in office of
Mr. Justice Landreville?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
not discussed the matter with my hon.
colleagues in the government. As far as I am
concerned I have not made representation to
the hon. Mr. Justice Rand, who was ap-
pointed by the federal Minister of Justice to
inquire into the matter of Mr. Justice Landre-
ville. Mr. Justice Rand, however, was here
by appointment on Tuesday, the first day of
this month, and some of you may have recog-
nized him. He came into the House with me
and observed our proceedings for a while,
and I returned with him to my office and
spent perhaps an hour in discussion with him,
during which time I reviewed with him fully
the part which I had had to play, or my
department had had to play, in the matter of
Mr. Justice Landreville. I undertook to make
available to him, and exhibited to him at that
time actually, all the material which we have
in this whole matter, including the inquiry
conducted by the Ontario securities commis-
sion, the transcripts of evidence, the reports,
all the exhibits, everything which had to do
with or was related to this matter. That
material has all been made available to him
and will be at his disposal. I had not
thought, unless he requested a representa-
tion, that we would volunteer with any repre-
sentation. However, we are doing everything
to assist his inquiry.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, "would the hon.
Attorney General permit a supplementary
question?
Does he not think this is a matter touching
upon the administration of justice in the
province of Ontario; and, if an inquiry is to
be held, that he, as Attorney General,
should make representations to that inquiry,
regardless of the fact that the appointment
was made by the federal government under
the Constitution?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think it is a matter
touching on the administration of justice, Mr.
Speaker, in this province; and I think that,
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
199
so far as this department of this government
is concerned, we acted in a very complete
and thorough prosecution of Mr. Justice
Landreville. The courts disposed of that
matter. The disposition of a judge of the
supreme court, or of the lower courts, is a
matter for the federal government to decide.
As I have stated, I made the fullest repre-
sentation to Mr. Justice Rand of the whole
matter and am laying before him all the
material, all the evidence, everything, with-
out a single exception, relating to the matter,
and I expressed to him, in the course of our
interview, my views in the matter.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I have three related questions for
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond),
notice of which has been given.
1. Will the hon. Minister explain why the
Ontario college of physicians and surgeons
differentiates among universities in white
western countries as to acceptability of
undergraduate medical standards, but ex-
cludes all universities in countries like India
and Pakistan?
2. What criteria has the college of physi-
cians and surgeons applied to Indian medical
schools to justify its refusal to accept the
students from any of these schools?
3. How does the hon. Minister explain the
college's recent exclusion of Indian medical
schools, when more Indian students wrote
the medical council of Canada examinations
in 1964 than students from any other country
and had the highest passing rate of any
country in the world?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have taken this question as
notice, for the reason which I gave to the
hon. member last week.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Frankly, I should
like to ask the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will take this also
as notice.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! Whenever
there is a question being asked, and the
Minister takes it as notice, if the member
has a supplementary question in mind, I
think he had best ask it after the original
question has been answered.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly
have done so, but since the hon. Minister has
already said he wishes to take it as notice as
well, then I think I am bound to give it in
this House.
Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that the
member ask it at that time.
Mr. S. Lewis: Then I have another ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile).
What action does the department intend
to take in the case of 500 children described
by the London children's aid society as in
need of foster homes or other supported
services?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question
yesterday from the hon. member for Ottawa
East (Mr. Racine), I stated at that time that
I would seek details from this society as to
the allegations contained in the newspaper
report. This has now been done and I am
waiting for the report.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to correct a statement which was made by
the hon. member for Bracondale yesterday
in his maiden speech during the Throne
speech debate.
I do so—
Mr. Sopha: Point of order!
Mr. Speaker: Order! Will the member
state his point of order?
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, there is no provision in the rules of
the House for a Minister of the Crown
to take this opportunity to correct any state-
ment made by any member on this side
of the House. Clearly the rule is designed,
as I apprehend it, sir, that a Minister
may make a statement before the orders of
the day on a matter of public policy or of
public interest.
This is not such an occasion. If it is
desired, on the other hand, to correct a
statement made by a member during the
course of the Throne debate, it ought
properly to be made in the Throne debate,
and can adequately be made by a member
from that side of the House or this hon.
Minister, sir, who has not yet spoken in the
debate.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the
member, though I would agree with him in
part, that perhaps correcting something that
some member has mentioned in a question
or in an address in either the Speech from
the Throne or the Budget, if he is following
that member on some day close to the date
200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on which the reference was made, the cor-
rection would be better given at that time.
But May's Parliamentary Practice states that
a Minister may make any statement that he
wishes before the orders of the day, in a
ministerial statement, and that he may also
correct any reference that has been made to
anything coming under the purview of his
department.
The Minister is simply correcting what, in
his opinion, has been a misstatement by the
member for Bracondale regarding his de-
partment, in the member's address yesterday,
therefore the Minister has the right to correct
that statement before the orders of the day.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order. If your Honour's state-
ment of the interpretation of the rule is to be
taken literally, I am sure that your Honour
will realize that this leaves the field wide
open. Supposing I, or any other member
of the House, said something in respect to
the Minister of Agriculture's, or the Min-
ister of Lands and Forests's, department
that he took objection to, surely we are not
going to open a debate on any subject that
might be mentioned by an Opposition
speaker?
Now surely, sir, it is stretching the rules to
suggest that a Minister has the right to reply
to statements made about his department in
a public debate. The opportunity is there for
the Minister to make his speech when the
opportunity presents itself in the debate itself;
if we are going to have Ministers getting up
from day to day, taking objections to anything
that is said on this side of the House, we are
going to be in a regular hodge-podge so far
as the rules of the House are concerned.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. I am rising on a point of
order, because I claimed that the hon. mem-
ber has stated that I misled this House.
Surely any member of this House is entitled
to rise on a point of order, which is what I am
doing.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I have in my posses-
sion a reply to a letter which I had asked
our Clerk, Mr. Lewis, to direct to the Clerk
of the House of Commons, Sir Bernard Cox,
two years ago, dated February 18, 1964. An-
ticipating perhaps there would be some ques-
tion about this matter today, I had the Clerk
hand me the reply to this letter this morning.
The reply refers to the questions that I had
asked on ministerial statements before the
orders of the day and the correcting of mis-
statements of fact. I will read in part the
reply:
However in this case the position in
your Legislature does not correspond ex-
actly to that which obtains here, where
Ministers have a certain advantage over
members.
He thought that my suggestion was emi-
nently sensible, when I had suggested that I
was allowing Ministers to make statements
if they were not too controversial and lengthy
in nature. I am quoting again:
By our practice, after the conclusion of
questions, before any other business is
entered upon, Ministers have the right to
make unprompted statements on any mat-
ter which falls within their province-
he quotes May, 16th edition, pages 364-65:
—and in doing so they are not by any
means required to abstain from contro-
versy. A private member cannot do this
but he is entitled a little later in the order
of business to make a personal explanation.
These are subject to well-defined restric-
tions.—
and he quotes May, pages 379-80:
—and must be seen by the Speaker though,
in advance, in order to ensure that they
contain nothing controversial.
Now, I may proceed with another para-
graph that may be relevant:
Ministers are, of course, also members,
and they fairly frequently use the ma-
chinery of personal explanation in order to
set right a misstatement of fact which they
themselves have made. If, however, a
misstatement by another member of a fact
relating to a Minister's official responsibili-
ties requires correction which could not
be made during the course of an ordinary
debating speech, the Minister would prob-
ably make it by way of a ministerial state-
ment rather than by a personal explanation.
Now I contend, in this particular matter,
the Minister should perhaps have risen on
a point of order at the time that the member
made the statement.
Mr. Singer: It was in midstream, was it
not?
Mr. Speaker: When the Minister asked
permission to make this statement today, he
assured me that he did not rise on a point of
order at that time to interrupt the member
for Bracondale, it being the member's maiden
speech.
Interjections by hon. members.
FEBRUARY 3, 1966 ■
201
Mr. Speaker: Order! Now, I rule that the
Minister has the right — and I took this
matter up with him before 12 o'clock today—
to correct what in his opinion was a mis-
statement by the member yesterday to the
effect that the Minister misled the House in
reference to a question which the member
had asked him a few days previously.
Mr. Ben: I rise on a point of personal
privilege.
Mr. Speaker: There is no debate. I am
sorry, I have made an order, there shall be
no debate. The member has risen on his point
of order, the member has answered it; there
is no point of personal privilege at this
time.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, would you hear me
out?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, if the member
wishes to come back at anything the Minister
may say at this time, he may do so in a later
address before the House.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, if that is your ruling,
then we will have to challenge it, with great
regret.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the
ruling, please say "aye". All those opposed
will please say "nay". In my opinion, the
"ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
As many as are in favour of the Speaker's
ruling, please rise.
As many as are opposed, please rise.
NAYS
AYES
Apps
Auld
Bales
Beckett
Boyer
Brown
Brunelle
Carruthers
Carton
Cass
Cecile
Connell
Cowling
Davis
Demers
Downer
Dunlop
Dymond
NAYS
Ben
Braithwaite
Bryden
Bukator
Davison
Freeman
Gaunt
Gibson
Gisborn
Gordon
Lewis
(Scarborough West)
MacDonald
Newman
Nixon
Oliver
Paterson
Racine
Reaume
Renwick
Singer
Smith
Sopha
Spence
Taylor
Thompson
Trotter
Whicher
Worton
Young-29.
AYES
Edwards
Evans
Ewen
Gomme
Grossman
Guindon
Harris
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Scarborough East)
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Kerr
Knox
Lawrence
(Russell)
Lawrence
(St. George)
Lewis
(Humber)
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McNeil
Noden
Peck
Pittock
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Reilly
Reuter
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Walker
Wardrope
Wells
White
Wishart
Yakabusld
Yaremko— 64.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 64, the "nays" 29.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the Speaker's ruling
upheld.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, it is my respectful opinion, sir, that you
ought not to seek advice about the affairs of
202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
our House from Westminster and we should
determine these matters within our own
House.
Mr. Speaker: I may say in reply to the
member's point of order, it has always been
the practice of this House to follow Westmin-
ster, as well as our own usages and prece-
dents, and until such time as the House
adopts other rules, Mr. Speaker can do noth-
ing other than that.
Would the Minister proceed with his state-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order to correct a statement which
was made by the hon. member for Bracon-
dale yesterday in his maiden speech during
the Throne debate. I do so because the state-
ment made by him, and to which I refer,
implies indirectly, if not directly, that I mis-
informed this House.
I could have interrupted the hon. member
during his speech and, by rising on a point of
order, objected to his remarks, pointing out
in fact that he was misinforming the House.
However, I refrained from doing so because
it has been a tradition in this House not to
interrupt a member when he is making his
maiden speech.
This is a tradition which is probably based
on the assumption that in his maiden speech
a member does not usually resort to the
kind of language which was liberally sprinkled
throughout the hon. member's speech.
There were a number of the hon. mem-
ber's strongly worded remarks to which I
take exception and which are totally incorrect.
But I shall deal with them at a later date
and at a more appropriate time as I do not
wish to abuse the privilege I have now to
rise on a point of order on his specific state-
ments which imply that I misinformed the
House on January 27.
The hon. member in a supplementary ques-
tion asked, and I quote:
Is the Minister aware that in Guelph
reformatory, where the young offenders are
sent, the so-called baby dolls are the
normal prescribed dress for all inmates in
solitary confinement?
I replied, and I quote:
I am not aware of that and I deny it.
I denied to this House that all inmates in
solitary confinement wear protective clothing
or, as the hon. member calls them, "baby
dolls." On the day that the hon. member
visited Guelph reformatory, there were a
total of 15 inmates in solitary confinement-
five in the detention cells and ten in the
segregation cells.
I repeat, only the five inmates in detention
were wearing the protective clothing.
On the day I rose in this House to answer
the question, there were nine inmates in
solitary confinement in Guelph— not one was
wearing protective clothing.
It is obvious that I in no way misinformed
this House.
The hon. member is the confused and the
ill-informed one, not I. He does not under-
stand the system or the terminology, con-
fusing solitary confinement, detention and
segregation. He apparently does not know the
difference. Obviously he did not even appreci-
ate the difference in what—
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: I will let the Minister com-
plete his statement. I have not heard too
much out of order as yet. He is correcting
the interpretation as I understand it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obvi-
ously, I am pointing out how the hon. member
arrives at his conclusions, which were in-
accurate.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I understand that
the Minister is trying to correct the mis-
interpretation the hon. member made in his
remarks, and I think perhaps it is in order
for the Minister to proceed with that course.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may we ask
that—
Mr. Speaker: No, there shall be no further
questions until the Minister has finished.
I will call the member to order if I find
anything out of order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He obviously did not
even appreciate the difference between what
he actually said on the 27th and what he
informed this House yesteday he had said on
the 27th. In one instance he asked about
solitary confinement; in the other, he referred
to isolation in "D" wing; and then later said,
and I quote:
I was informed by Mr. Sanderson, the
superintendent, that everyone in detention
in that area did wear the baby dolls.
When the superintendent of Guelph awards
a period in solitary confinement, he has
two choices. For those who are severely dis-
turbed, he awards protective clothing in the
"D" side detention cells, which are furnished
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
203
with double doors; for less disturbed inmates,
he awards a period of segregation on "B" side
without protective clothing.
Inmates may be transferred from one to
the other as their attitude warrants. However,
this means essentially that those requiring pro-
tective clothing are in double-doored deten-
tion cells; those requiring solitary confinement,
who are less disturbed, are in the "B" side
segregation cells. There is a basic difference
of which the hon. member should be aware
if he is to make any contribution whatsoever
on the subject.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member asked whether I was aware that all
inmates in solitary confinement wore protec-
tive clothing and I denied that such is the
case, I was quite correct. The difference, of
course, lies in the hon. member's misuse of
the terms "detention," "segregation" and
"solitary confinement".
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill No. 6, An Act to
amend The Medical Services Insurance Act,
1965.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Is the hon. Minister not going to
explain the bill, sir?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
I explained the bill on first reading.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am going to wait to
hear what the hon. members have to say.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has the privilege
to reply at the end of the debate. If he makes
remarks at the beginning of the debate it is
then considered that he has spoken on the
bill.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, speaking on
second reading of this bill, I, sir, think the
first principle which I should talk about—
because I am sure the hon. Minister of
Health is going to bring this up, he brought
it up before— is the principle of coercion.
Now, if we recall when he brought in his
bill before, he was quite dramatic about
bringing a red herring which he referred to
as the principle. He spoke about the fact
that he hated coercion or compulsion of
any form, and I, sir, would hope that he,
sitting next to the hon. member for Forest
Hill (Mr. Dunlop), would have listened to
the words of the hon. member a few days
ago when he talked of freedom and the fact
that there is not absolute freedom in a
society. Indeed, if we follow the approach
that you will have no form of coercion, it
would mean that you would have to leave
society and act like some savage aborigine
in a far-off island somewhere up in the
Hebrides, which is not inhabited at all; be-
cause if you are a member of society— I
realize I am being somewhat elementary here
but if you are a member of society—
An hon. member: The situation demands
it.
Mr. Thompson: The situation does demand
it. If you are a member of society you have
to accept some law and order within that
society or else you are an anarchist. May I
say that you are going to have to accept
some form of coercion if you are a civilized
member of society. You are going to have
to accept that we have law and we have
order and we have people to maintain that,
and you are going to have to play your part
within that society.
I say this because the hon. Minister, in this
great outburst about being against coercion,
tried to throw a red herring about the whole
of this bill, and I think that he has tried to
blur what freedom really means. You can
have freedom from restraint of government,
that all government is a necessary evil, and if
you have that philosophy you will have to
go to this island off the Hebrides. But also
you have freedom to do things when you
have a collective approach, working together
to provide opportunity; and of course we see
in a society, an organized society, where
there has been an agreement by the members
of that society that collectively they are go-
ing to create opportunity together for their
individual members, and I think of such
things as roads. No one individual can build
a road.
And I look at my hon. friend across the
way there who takes a big interest in Hydro;
and with the great complexity of Hydro we
know that this has to be a collective respon-
sibility in order that individuals can have
greater freedom through having the bene-
fits of Hydro. Being again very obvious, I
think of schools.
If we want to give opportunity to be able
to choose different kinds of jobs, we have got
to set a basic background of education; and
we do that collectively as a society. And
of course we do it with hospitals. We hear
204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
no great outcry by the hon. Minister when
we are asked to contribute to the building
of hospitals.
We know that health is important to the
people, and the facilities for treating health
are important, and we want the best for our
people, and we want him to get on with
getting active treatment beds throughout this
province. So, when he brings in measures
which will compel all the citizens to pay for
the building of hospitals, we are behind this
approach; and the hon. Minister is proud to
report on the progress of hospitals being
built.
Health has a particular significance to the
people; they see it as a collective respon-
sibility. If the hon. Minister was to come in
and say, "I am going to help the manu-
facturers of tricycles and I want you all to
contribute to this and we will give grants to
it," there would be an outcry— because the
need for the manufacture of tricycles is not
as great as the necessity for hospitals, which
refer to health. It is not sapping free enter-
prise to be building hospitals to provide
health for the people. It is not taking away
freedom when you arrange for a hospital so
people can get their health back again, in
order that they can be more free to be
creative and do their work.
Certainly, in training, there is no outcry
from doctors and other sources when the
government decides that it has got to create
greater facilities for the training of doctors.
There is no cry that it is socialism at its
worst when the doctors, through the OMA,
come to the government and ask to be pro-
vided with more funds in order to build our
schools and help with their research.
Indeed, we noticed just last week there
were doctors who were asking government
to give them more finances for research; and
of course they are very sensible men and
they realize that a collective responsibility is
not going to be creeping socialism. It is go-
ing to mean, if government comes in with
grants, that we are going to have better
health services.
And so the people of this province have a
tradition in giving collectively for hospitals,
for medical training, and for medical research.
We give through laws; we are compelled to
give; and I want to point that out to the hon.
Minister of Health. We do not all shudder
and cry out and say, "I hate every form of
compulsion." I am proud to give my taxes
to build medical facilities.
The next thing, sir, is that, having got all
these great advances in medicine, in research
and hospitals, we now want to see that the
individual members of society, who have to
pay to build these facilities, are able to par-
ticipate in using these facilities. And we have
been concerned that there are individuals
who may have to contribute by taxes to the
facilities, to the benefit, of medicine which
we have in this province, yet who are not
able to enjoy to the full the services them-
selves.
And I see, and my party sees, absolutely
nothing wrong in having, collectively, an
arrangement whereby we arrange the pay-
ment of the bills to the individual doctors.
We see nothing wrong because we adhere
very strongly to the fact that, first of all,
the relationship between a doctor and a
patient must be confidential. And when we
are talking about the payment of bills, of
collectively having an arrangement to pay
these, we are in no way trying to get between
the doctor and the patient.
I was rather amused when I read of the
Ontario medical association and the approach
they were taking between the doctor and the
patient— the approach, it seemed to me, of
almost putting Premier Manning in the clinic
room or in the waiting room between the
doctor and the patient— in the letter that they
sent out.
May I say that we are very firm about this.
Our only concern is, from the point of view
of the payment of bills, to see that the doc-
tor gets his bills paid and the patient is able
to pay them. It is a procedure there.
The other concern that we have is that
there should not be a compulsion on the
part of the doctor to belong to a plan. And
may I say to the OMA, that in their approach
I would hope that they would not make it
compulsory that the doctor cannot belong to
a plan either. I think that the doctor should
have the choice in this.
Well, sir, having said that, on the principle
of coercion which was brought in by the
hon. Minister when we discussed this before,
I want to say that we ourselves— and I am
sure the hon. Minister does now as he thinks
it over— recognize that collective responsibility
is not coercion. The hon. Minister has said
to us that if you have government looking
after the bills, where the people are having
to pay through taxes in order that they can
support a Medicare plan, and you have a
government department— he told us, previ-
ously in this House— that there would be all
kinds of dire results that would take place.
He brought forward all this stuff about
doctor-patient relationship, and the doctors
being overcrowded, and all the other usual
approaches.
FEBRUARY. 3, 1966
Hon, Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
to rise on a point of order.
I think that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion is dreaming. I have no recollection of
bringing forward the things he has just stated
I brought forward.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is no
point of order.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I will get speeches
that the hon. Minister made.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He was
correcting what he thought was a misstate-
ment.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say this, sir: I
notice, as far as people below a certain in-
come are concerned, that the hon. Minister
saw that it was quite all right for them to be
under a government-sponsored plan, a com-
pulsory plan.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, nol
Mr. Thompson: All right, let me say this:
The government— for a person on old age
pension, or for the welfare person— have only
one plan that they would go to, I presume,
which is the government-sponsored plan. That
amounts to the hon. Minister when he talks
to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter),
that there is some compulsion when there is
no choice in this. This is your basis of com-
pulsion.
My point is that if the hon. Minister—
and he says he has not raised this but if
there are people who are arguing that a
government-sponsored plan had all kinds of
dire results, and if they are saying that they
like this government plan, they are really
demonstrating class distinction, a distinction
that they do not give a darn about the
health of the people at a certain level of
the economy. Because this plan which the
government has, which it is introducing, is
saying to a number of people, "You are going
to be provided for under government-
sponsored auspices. Therefore others can go
to private insurance companies"— and so on.
In this, I do not think he admits something
is terrible for a section of the people and
that for others it is not.
May I say, sir, that one of the things in
the principles attached to this plan is that
we should have the best medical coverage for
the people of Ontario. I am not going at
great length into our stand— it is known. But
1 refer again just briefly to the Hall commis-
sion concerning the best kind of medical
coverage.
Quoting from the Hall commission, which
was probably the most comprehensive study,
and with all respect to the hon. Minister, I
think that was more comprehensive than the
Hagey commission. And in the Hall commis-
sion, let me quote:
The achievement of the highest possible
health standards for all our people must
become the primary objective of national
policy and a cohesive factor contributing
to national unity involving individual and
community responsibilities and actions. This
objective can best be achieved through a
comprehensive universal health service pro-
gramme for the Canadian people.
And that applies to the people of Ontario
as well.
It is not an idealist's dream but a prac-
tical programme within Canada's ability,
financially and practically. It is what Cana-
dians ought to strive for and expect through
their governments. They should not be
content with less.
And I would say that we in the Opposition
are not going to be content with less, even
though the government may try to push less
on the people of Ontario.
These are the broad goals which my party
has set out for this province, and they are
goals which will ensure the highest possible
level of physical and mental wellbeing for
all persons in Ontario. We believe that our
human resources are most precious resources
and we must exert every effort now to care
for these resources and to use them with
respect, foresight and prudence. The annual
economic loss to Canada through illness and
injury is well over $1 billion. Health care—
and I want to come back to this, the fact
that no man is an island unto himself— is a
social responsibility. In today's society we
are very much interdependent and what
afflicts any one group will have an effect on
others. We have already accepted the need
for community action in the prevention of
communicable diseases such as smallpox and
typhoid fever and we must also accept the
need for community action in providing
comprehensive health services.
Now I am certain that the government
would accept many of the objectives of my
party's plan but the bill before this House
demonstrates the government's unwillingness
to accept a fundamental principle, a principle
which must be accepted in order to achieve
the goals which the Hall Royal commission
has set for this country. The goal: "To make
all the fruits of the health science available
to all our residents without hindrance of any
kind."
206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The principle is universality, and the failure
of the government to accept this— and I want
to quote three main areas of concern to us
—will cause an increase in the cost of admin-
istering health care in Ontario, an increase
that we can ill afford. And also, it is going
to leave many who need health services
uncovered. It is going to force people to be
examined in a manner which is undemocratic
and degrading and generally it is going to
permit an unfair sharing of the cost of a
social responsibility— particularly, this time, for
middle income families.
We are handicapped, Mr. Speaker, in a
discussion of this bill because we have no
idea whatsoever of the intentions of the gov-
ernment in regulating its bill. The hon. Min-
ister of Health has indicated that groups
will not be accepted into the government
plan. I raise that as a question because I am
unsure whether he will stick to this.
Another question which is of vital impor-
tance is, does the government intend to
encourage individuals to join the plan and to
break away from groups? Is the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) going to give an ex-
ample of leaving the plan he is in and joining
the government plan?
Will the government accept payroll de-
ductions as premium payment for fully, par-
tial or unassisted individuals? What about
comprehensive within this plan? What does
the term psychotherapy mean? Does the gov-
ernment intend to negotiate a contract with
doctors, and if so, through what organiza-
tion? Will it be the OMA, and will the gov-
ernment have to get a special charter in order
to do that? Does the government intend to
pay doctors directly or to pay individuals?
The people of Ontario deserve to know the
answers to these questions and they deserve
to know them now. They deserve to know
how much of an administrative burden they
are going to be carrying under the plan that
the government is proposing. This affects
costs to the people of Ontario. We have some
idea about administrative costs which are
based on statements issued by the hon. Min-
ister of Health. The rates set down by the
government for a single person are $60, a
family of two $120, and a family of three
or more $150. I suggest they are going to
be subsidized.
If, as the hon. Minister of Health stated,
groups will not be accepted, then the rates
must be compared with pay-direct plans. We
had the experience of PSI. The PSI premium
on the pay-direct plan for a family of three
or more is $204, and I understand that PSI
is losing money at that rate, that its pay-direct
plan is being subsidized by group subscrip-
tion. The reason offered for this is, first, that
administrative costs are higher in the pay-
direct plan, and second, there is a higher
percentage of high-risk rates in the plan.
If, on top of these factors, we add the
additional cost of government services, which
are more comprehensive than the services paid
by the PSI pay-direct plan, then we can only
conclude the government premiums will have
to be subsidized. I submit that if the gov-
ernment premiums are going to have to be
subsidized, we are going to have grave con-
sequences coming from this if we exclude
group plans from this subsidized rate.
I say these are some of the dangers I see
if we do this, sir.
A large number of high health risks will
flock to the government scheme after being
turned away by private insurance companies.
Employers and employees may both have
reason to cause the disintegration of group
plans, and the burden of health care costs
will become even more inequitably distributed
throughout the population of this province.
Families who are earning between $4,000
and $5,000 a year not only will be forced to
carry their own premiums but will have to
pay for the government cost of administra-
tion through income tax.
The second criticism I have of the govern-
ment failure to accept the principle of uni-
versality is that many of those who need
assistance will not get the coverage. And I
think of Alberta. Alberta's experience has
demonstrated that a voluntary plan has not
achieved universality. Some 15 per cent of
the population of that province is still not
covered and most of them are the poor resi-
dents who need it most. There are other re-
lated weaknesses. Younger people and better
health risks feel they can bear their own
health expenses and they decline to partici-
pate in such a plan, increasing the average
cost of the coverage to the participants. Since
pre-existing conditions are covered in the
government's plan— and this would be good
if on a universal basis— participation in such
a plan may be deferred until benefits are
needed. Alternatively, coverage may be dis-
continued and taken up at a later time.
That is my second objection to the plan.
My third objection to the refusal of the
government to accept universality is that it
does force people to undergo a degrading
and undemocratic examination and I will use
the words of Chief Justice Hall about this.
He refers to the means test and he calls it
"a method of examining individuals which is
in the opinion of many Canadians contrary to
the dignity of man."
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
207
The question, apart from the degrading
aspects of this, is whether this kind of means
test will work. As yet we have had no assur-
ance from the hon. Minister that there are
ways of checking the income tax returns of
individuals since the federal government will
not release this information. And again we
look at the administrative problems they had
in Alberta. The government of that province
has estimated that 2,000 people a year
falsified tax statements in order to get gov-
ernment subsidization for medical health in-
surance.
Now what are the costs? Mr. Justice Hall
has estimated that Medicare will cost Ontario
about $200 million. Ottawa estimates it will
cost $238 million and I notice that the hon.
Prime Minister estimates it will cost $280
million.
Last year it was estimated that the govern-
ment subsidy would cost approximately $70
million. Perhaps, since on the one hand only
90 per cent of fees will be paid to doctors in-
stead of 100 per cent which was calculated in
that first sum, and on the other hand that the
subsidy rate has been raised, we can assume
that the cost would be about the same. But
if, as we fear, there is a steady rise in the
percentage costs of administration of the
government plan as a result of the mass en-
rolment of individuals, then I would estimate
that the charge on the government could
well exceed $70 million. Add to that direct
cost the amount spent by individuals and
groups on medical services insurance through
private and non-profit carriers, and the eco-
nomic expense of full Medicare becomes
clearer.
We had argued before that if you had
just one administrative unit, government-
sponsored plan, you could cut between $30
million and $40 million off what it is going
to cost the taxpayer by this other method.
The extra cost is not for medical services,
but it is for the administration of medical
services. Where there is misery and human
suffering through ill health, we cannot afford
the extra cost for the administration of serv-
ices.
I am led to believe, Mr. Speaker, and I
would certainly like to get an answer from
the hon. Minister of Health on this, that the
Ontario hospital services commission has con-
ducted an investigation into the possibility
of combining a medical services insurance
scheme with the hospital insurance scheme
and that the government has been advised
that such an undertaking would be feasible.
I would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister
if he intends to table the report of the
Ontario hospital services commission on com-
bining the two programmes, and if he
would table that report in this House.
Certainly, if the government accepts the
principle of universal hospital insurance, it
would find it a very simple matter to apply
the same principle to a related service.
Mechanically through computers and admin-
istratively, the hospital services commission
offers the most efficient and most effective
vehicle for implementing an Ontario Medi-
care plan. Claims against sickness could be
processed in the same way as claims against
hospitalization. OHSC has already achieved
approximately 98 per cent universality. May
I say that when we talk of universality, we
hope that when the hon. Minister goes up to
Ottawa he remembers the concern which
we have, he fights for the people of Ontario,
and he does not go there and try to chop
away at a definition of universality. I would
hate to think that behind closed doors he is
betraying the trust which we have in him.
But, of course, I do not know how he per-
forms up there.
Mr. Singer: And he will not tell us.
Mr. Thompson: May I say this as well.
Apart from this examination which has been
done in OHSC about combining the medical
insurance plan within OHSC, what about
the secret mission when you went into that
farm land that the hon. Prime Minister hates
so much, Saskatchewan? I understand—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Hate
Saskatchewan? Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I really could not let that remark go
by. I do not hate Saskatchewan, I do not
hate any part of Canada. I think Saskatche-
wan is a great province.
Mr. Thompson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
not know quite what—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: There may be some reason
why the hon. Prime Minister says this at this
time, because I certainly noticed in the last
debate that at one point he stood up and
said, "I am fed up hearing about Saskatche-
wan." But for some reason his heart has
changed.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If the hon. member
would like to refer to the former government
of the province of Saskatchewan, then he
might be on target. But when he refers to
Saskatchewan as such, I think it is a tremen-
dous, wonderful province, full of good shoot-
ing and fishing, potash and oil.
208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
hon. Prime Minister will have many other
occasions when he can speak about his loved
Saskatchewan and other parts of our country.
I am making a speech right now. There are
a number of delegates from there that per-
haps he is interested in just talking to about
Saskatchewan.
Where is this secret document that could
point the practical way for the implementa-
tion of a universal medical care scheme?
Who were— and I ask the government— who
were the Ontario civil servants sent to Sas-
katchewan in August? I do not know what I
am talking about, eh? Sent to Saskatchewan
in August of last year to investigate that prov-
ince's Medicare plan, and where is their
report and what is the government doing
with it? This government continually
endeavours— look at that; it is doing it right
now in front of us— to keep from the public
eye, a report that would be of benefit to the
people of the province.
But I would like to return for a moment
to questions I asked earlier in this debate,
and that is: Why is the government resisting
all public pressure for government-operated
Medicare? Who is the government protect-
ing? The hon. Prime Minister talked about
the fact there seems a fad in having pickets
come before this Legislature and I am sure
amongst that fad were a number of people
deeply concerned about health. When we
debated last year, we had members of the
clergy, men of the cloth who did not like to,
in many ways move out. I remember it was
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
who was concerned about the sensibilities of
these men and that they had to come down to
speak on behalf of the people. They remem-
bered the Good Samaritan story and knew
that they had to help their brother, and when
we had a government entrenched in its posi-
tion, they thought that adding their weight
and responsibility before the Legislature
might prick the conscience even of the hon.
Minister of Health.
And so from the labour movement, from
the churches, from all around this province,
the public have told the government what
they want. Now we ask, how is the govern-
ment trying to serve the public? They tell
the government what they want. The insur-
ance companies— is the government trying to
serve the insurance companies?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): They will tell
you what they want.
Mr. Thompson: Have they told the govern-
ment what they want? Have they had a
greater hearing than many of the public who
stood shivering outside this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: They do not stand
shivering outside this Legislature. They come
into my office.
Mr. Thompson: Is this a point of order?
When I speak I need to yield to no one.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Thompson: The government has
accepted full responsibility for providing in-
surance, and I want to quote this:
—to residents and their dependants with-
out regard to age, physical or mental in-
firmity, financial means or occupation.
That means, as I mentioned earlier, that the
government has decided it will look after all
the bad health risks who are going to flock
to the government plan and the insurance
companies will be in a position to raise their
health qualifications and they can take the
cream of the crop on their terms, the good
risks. In effect they will be left with the
5-BX graduates and the government will be
burdened with the costly bad health risks.
And the doctors? The doctors will be
pleased. They will be paid only 90 per cent
of their fee schedule, but then there are few
doctors who really expected the government
would proceed with Bill No. 136, which
would have given them 100 per cent, and
they may even get a little small bonus. We
want to get something on that, Mr. Speaker,
to see if the doctors are going to be favoured
in some other ways. We agree that doctors
are men who are giving of themselves, but
we want to be clear that when we come to
the public funds, there is some answerability
beyond this.
And we look forward to hearing ft
definition of psychotherapy. May I say that
I raise this because if the government, by
regulation, recognizes the Ontario medical
association's recently formulated definition
of psychotherapy, there could be an extra
fee. The OMA describes psychotherapy as
any service rendered by a qualified medical
practitioner that relieves the anxiety of the
patient, and the charge is $6. Compare that
with an office visit at $4. Simply by making
more expensive use of the term psycho-
therapy, doctors could increase the cost of
medical services insurance by as much as 10>
or 15 per cent.
During the 1964-65 fiscal year-
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
209
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. leader of the Opposition permit me to
interrupt? I undertook to go into other bills
at five o'clock. If he would care to adjourn
the debate, then we will go into the other
area.
Mr. Thompson: I am very glad to, Mr.
Speaker. I move the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS NOS. 1 AND 2
(continued)
Clerk of the House: Resuming the ad-
journed debate on the two motions respecting
hate literature and other matter disparaging
to individuals or groups by reason of race,
national origin, colour or religion.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity of mak-
ing a few brief remarks regarding the two
resolutions about hate literature that are be-
fore this House.
I well realize that there is little argument
in principle between the resolutions of the
hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) and
the hon. member for Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop).
I would like to mention, though, one or two
matters that concern me in the implementing
•of the principle that we have in mind. There
are often greater dangers that can be caused
to the freedoms of our people by implement-
ing principles in the wrong way.
Two things did concern me in the resolu-
tion of the hon. member for Forest Hill and
the first is: He says that everyone should be
punished who publishes orally or in writing a
statement, tale, news or matter that he knows
or he ought to know is likely to cause injury,
and so on.
The hon. member for Forest Hill has said
that he has had good legal advice in regard
to the preparation of this wording, but there
is one thing that I do fear as a member in
this House, and that is the wording "ought to
have known." It could take on a very large
connotation if it was ever misused, and if it
ever became law at some future date in the
hands of an extremist like a Senator
McCarthy. I know that the hon. member for
Forest Hill does not have anything like that
in mind, but this is something that we should
keep in our own minds when we go to imple-
ment such legislation that is obviously going
to involve the hate literature.
Mr. Speaker, we are all embarrassed, we
are all ashamed of any individual in this
country who spreads the type of publication
that we have seen spread in Canada and in
other places, particularly in the United States,
and that concerns anti-Semitism for the most
part. This has been the one single group that
has been centred on, that has been picked on.
We should all remember that they may pick
on one group today, but we never know
when we are going to be the next group that
will be picked on.
The one other matter and one other point
of the resolution from the hon. member for
Forest Hill that I was concerned about, is
that he said anyone might be prosecuted if
they brought mental harm. Now, about the
other things he said I can agree with him,
but when you use the term "causing mental
harm", I know it has been mentioned in this
House before, you use that to carry out a
prosecution beyond all bounds of reason.
So, with those two exceptions, I can say
that I agree with what the hon. member for
Forest Hill has brought before this House,
and I know in principle we are in complete
accord.
I also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is
often very hard to enforce such legislation,
because in the free debate we have to be
very careful that we do not so hedge our-
selves in that we are afraid even to criticize
some other group in case we might be dis-
obeying any law or any new law that might
be brought in. But one thing such legislation
would do, by amending the Criminal Code as
we want to do here, is this: It brings to pub-
lic attention that we are interested in protect-
ing the interests of those people who may
belong to some minority; and, as I have often
said before, we in this world, the so-called
white Christian world, are really a minority in
the world as a whole, that we, in trying to
look after the interests of a minority, really
in the long run have ourselves in mind.
But, even by giving the publicity to such a
change in the legislation, we are doing some-
thing to interest the general public in the
various ethnic groups and the various reli-
gious groups that, particularly since World
War II, have come to this country of ours.
And in the long run it must be admitted, Mr.
Speaker, that it is not change in our laws
that will bring about better relations between
the so-called ethnic groups.
Quite frankly, in Canada and in Ontario, I
deplore the use of the word ethnic group,
because the truth of it is that we all belong
to an ethnic group; but, for matters of per-
sonal use and of public use in recent years,
ethnic group has come to mean anybody who
is not from the Anglo-Saxon or French
210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
groups. Now, this is not the term in the
dictionary, it is not the legal term; but I
have found, as a matter of usage today, that
the ethnic group means someone that is non-
Anglo-Saxon or non-French, and I quite
frankly deplore its use. I would rather just
have a citizen of Canada and be done with
all these hyphenated words; but, as long as
we have the hyphenated Canadian, and as
long as we have minorities, it is most impor-
tant that we have legislation on our books
that will protect them. But it is our attitude
that is, I think, even more important and,
Mr. Speaker, here is where we fall down
badly.
If we look at the list of directors in our
leading banks, in our leading financial in-
stitutions, in our leading charities, we very
seldom come upon a non-Anglo-Saxon, non-
French name, and this shows that we as a
community are still very provincial, that we
have not grown up. The more people that we
have of various backgrounds, of various reli-
gious backgrounds and racial backgrounds,
the better we will come to know them, the
better we will come to understand them; and
there will be less opportunity for extremists
to get in a park and cause a lot of unneces-
sary trouble by sounding off against one
group or another.
So this resolution, or these two resolutions,
Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, gives
me as a member of this Legislature an oppor-
tunity to plead with our government, which
has immense power through its influence in
giving grants through its various agencies, to
see to it that our various boards in govern-
ment, and through the influence of govern-
ment I hope, through our various charities
and large financial concerns throughout the
province, see to it that the people of various
backgrounds have far better opportunity than
they have had in the past to have an oppor-
tunity to sit on company boards and on the
large charitable institutions which we have in
the province of Ontario.
When you think of the large number of
people, particularly in the city of Toronto,
in Hamilton, in Sudbury, in Sault Ste. Marie,
it is amazing how few of their groups have
any representation whatsoever. In some cases
it is there but it is very small, and in some
cases it is a complete blackout.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a good
resolution, both resolutions are good, the
intent behind them is excellent, and I would
urge this House, as I am sure all the hon.
members will, in asking the federal govern-
ment to amend its Criminal Code to let
people of the world, and particularly our own
people who come from minorities, know
where we as a Canadian people stand; but
also— and I think in the long run this is far
more important— that we have a far broader
attitude in dealing with people of non-French
and non-Anglo-Saxon background, to let them
know that it is most important for them, and
especially for us, that they are a part of
Canada, they are a part of Ontario. And the
better that we get to know people of different
background than ourselves the more we
understand them; and, as the old song goes,
"The more we get to know you." There will
be far less opportunity and, in the long run,
no need at all for legislation where we are
concerned about talk that causes hate among
various groups in the province of Ontario and
the country of Canada. So it is with pleasure
that I support these two resolutions.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak very briefly
in support of this resolution and I do so not
because of any personal experience with the
type of abuse with which the resolution is
concerned. Rather I rise because I am one of
that group in our society which has been the
beneficiary of all the rights and privileges
and protections which it gives, without dilu-
tion or diminution in any degree whatsoever,
and I speak of the English-speaking Prot-
estant majority.
The reason I speak today, sir, is for the
purpose of reminding the group to which I
belong that our freedom from abuse cannot
be taken for granted. I speak in part because
my father, and many like him, as young
English immigrants at the turn of the century,
suffered much abuse and discrimination in
trying to find a place in the Canadian labour
market of those days. And I speak because
at this very time we have in Canada men
such as the hon. Rene Levesque of the prov-
ince of Quebec who, despite his great power
and responsibility, preaches the spirit of the
very resolution which we are discussing here
today.
Within the last few weeks he has been
quoted as referring to the Rhodesian-like
attitude of Montreal's mainly English-speaking
financial community— the picture of a small
group of bigoted whites holding a majority
of blacks in a grip. He was quoted, on another
occasion a few days ago, as referring to the
ghetto-like attitude of the mainly English-
speaking residents of the town of Mount
Royal with their English street signs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a
moment that Mr. Levesque plans on erecting
a guillotine in St. lames to behead the barons
of finance, nor to lay seige to the enclave on
Mount Royal, but I do ask what emotional
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
211
string is he trying to pluck when he uses
such language? The preamble to the resolu-
tion we are discussing refers to statements
disparaging to individuals or groups, or tend-
ing to provoke feelings of ill-will and hostility
between different classes. Mr. Speaker, the
minor irritation caused by such remarks as
Mr. Levesque's is minuscule when compared
to the gross abuses which this resolution is
designed to attack. However, I mention Mr.
Levesque's remarks because to us they are a
little whiff of a problem which, to the Jew
and to the Negro, has a great stench.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I normally do not believe that it is appropri-
ate for this Legislature to attempt to mind
the business of the Parliament of Canada. I
think even less should we attempt to engage
in debate with members and Ministers of
other legislative assemblies. I really do not
think the speaker who preceded me made any
significant contribution to the problem we are
discussing.
I am quite sure that the gentlemen of St.
James street can look after themselves and
I do not think we are really concerned about
what may be said about them, whether
favourable or otherwise. I think there is
ground for concern about some of the atro-
cious, vicious literature that is circulated about
groups of people who are in a much less
favourable position to look after themselves
than the gentlemen of St. James street. It is
for that reason that I, myself, am happy, as
other hon. members are, to see an exception
made to what I think should normally be
general rule, that we do not here try to tell
the government of Canada what it should do.
We leave it to handle its own affairs, while
we look after ours.
This situation, however, is so serious, that
I think an exception can reasonably be made.
Some of the literature that has been circu-
lated in this country with regard to certain
identifiable groups, identifiable by race or
religion, in my opinion constitutes a gross
abuse of the right of freedom of speech, and
I agree with other hon. members who have
preceded me that some action should be taken
to curb that abuse. I will not attempt to re-
peat the quite eloquent argument that many
of the hon. members who have preceded me
have already made. I merely want to make
two or three supplementary points.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
suggest to the government, which controls
the business of this House by long tradition,
that here is a case where we might very well
permit private members' resolutions to come
to a vote. If, as I believe is the case, the
members of this House are unanimous in
supporting the principle of the resolutions
now before us, I think we should indicate
that by standing in our places and voting in
favour. If, on the other hand, we are not en-
tirely unanimous then I think it is only reas-
onable that that fact should be known, too.
If we are going to send advice to the Parlia-
ment of Canada I think there should be an
indication as to the degree of unanimity-
complete as I expect in this case— that stands
behind that advice in this House.
If this matter should come to a vote I
would like to indicate now, Mr. Speaker,
that we will vote in favour of the resolutions;
but that in doing so we will, as far as we are
concerned, be voting on the principle only.
There are some phases in these resolutions
that we view with considerable apprehension.
One of them in particular has been mentioned
by other speakers, the first part of clause 2
of the resolution of the hon. member for
Forest Hill.
Everyone who:
publishes orally or in writing a statement,
tale, news or matter that he knows or
ought to know is likely to cause injury or
mischief to public interest-
will be subject to certain restraints.
I must say that I am most unhappy about
that sort of broad wording. I appreciate the
fact that the hon. member for Forest Hill
has consulted legal advice and has been ad-
vised that this is the proper way to state the
matter, but I would certainly not vote in
favour of an actual bill that had language
of that kind in it. It seems to me that it is
extremely broad and could be open to inter-
pretations which would restrict the legitimate
exercise of free speech.
Therefore I want to emphasize, Mr.
Speaker, that if this should come to a vote,
and if we are called upon to declare our-
selves on this, we in this group will vote for
the resolutions— but only in the sense that
we are supporting the basic principles con-
tained in them. We do not commit ourselves
to the language contained there, and I think
that is a fair enough position to take with
regard to the resolution. It does not become
law in any case, it is really a question of
principle that we are discussing and perhaps
voting upon.
I would like to make one other point in
this connection. If we, either by vote or
merely in speeches, indicate in this House
that we think the federal government should
take certain action in regard to this matter,
212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it would be the height of hypocrisy on our
part if we are not also willing to take what-
ever action we can within our own juris-
diction.
It used to be an old game in Canada, and
still is to a certain degree, for governments
and legislative bodies to say that they be-
lieve in certain things but they believe some-
body else should do something about them.
This is always a very safe position. Hon.
members can have it both ways. They are
in favour of doing something, but they are
not ready to do it themselves. This sort of
passing the buck has declined somewhat in
Canada, and I think that we should bring an
end to it. If we are going to give gratuitous
advice to the Parliament of Canada, I think
we should show our good faith by supple-
menting our advice by concrete action which
we, quite clearly, are constitutionally able to
take. If we fail to do that, then I say that
everything we have said and everything we
may do is nothing but hypocrisy.
I listened with interest to the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman) the
other day, who said that action by this Legis-
lature would simply muddy the water. Well,
I would suggest to him that his statement
simply muddied the water. Surely we have
all of us lived long enough in Canada to
know that there are many areas, indeed per-
haps most areas, where joint action, at both
the federal and provincial level, is required,
if a matter is to be dealt with effectively. I
believe this is one of those areas. Various
speakers have mentioned that it is not easy
to legislate effectively against the type of
literature that we have been discussing. I
believe we should fill every possible loop-
hole to make the dissemination of such litera-
ture impossible.
My friend, the hon. member for Riverdale
(Mr. Renwick) has put before this House two
concrete suggestions that I think are worthy
of consideration. I believe that the hon.
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) plans to
speak later in this debate. He may have
some comments to make about those sugges-
tions, I do not know. But before he makes
comments I would like to add my voice in
support of the suggestions. They are things
that we can do and I think they will help.
They will not entirely cure the disease that
we are trying to cure but they will help to
cure it.
First we should, as we can, amend the laws
relating to libel to permit an individual
member of a group that has been libelled to
bring action. I am not a lawyer, and I do
not pretend to be a lawyer, but as I under-
stand the situation under our law at the
present time, if an individual is libelled in
his capacity as an individual, he can bring
action in the courts for damages, but if the
entire group to which he belongs is libelled,
neither he nor any other member of that
group has any recourse to the courts. This
seems to me to be a curious anomaly, one
that should be remedied and that I believe
we have the power to remedy in this House.
The other suggestion made by the hon.
member for Riverdale is, I think, ancillary to
the first one, and that is that we should
bring in laws requiring disclosure of the
names and addresses of the publishers of
material disseminated in this province, and
that it should be unlawful to disseminate
any sort of material that does not show the
name and address of the publisher. As a
matter of fact, I think that is a desirable
sort of provision in any case, quite apart from
the specific problem we are dealing with. If
a person wants to publish and disseminate
material then I think he should be prepared
to say who he is. I do not believe in this
business of anonymous material being sent
around any more than I believe in anony-
mous letters. The person who wants to speak
up should have the courage to identify him-
self, and if he lacks that courage then I say
that he has no right to speak up.
So this second provision that the hon.
member for Riverdale has suggested is, in
my opinion, desirable in itself, quite apart
from the ancillary benefit it would have in
making more readily enforceable laws under
which an individual could bring an action for
damages for libel in the courts, if he happens
to belong to a group that has been libelled.
Those are the only points that I wanted to
stress at this time, Mr. Speaker. As I said,
we will support the principle of these resolu-
tions. We trust the government will permit
them to be voted upon when this debate
reaches its natural conclusion, and we trust
that the hon. Attorney General will see fit to
bring into this House legislation that we have
the constitutional power to deal with, that
would help to cure the abuse that is of con-
cern to all of us.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I might say at the outset that I rise
to support both resolutions, by the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview and the hon. member for
Forest Hill.
Most of the ground, I think, has been cov-
ered in the remarks which have gone before.
I would say that I feel a» the hon. member
who has just spoken has said— in this case we
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
213
perhaps should make an exception to what
has been our accustomed practice, that we
are properly entitled to make representation
to the government at Ottawa in a matter of
this kind. I think this House should perhaps
know that in The Department of the Attorney
General over the past two years there have
been many, many complaints, many sugges-
tions made that we should prosecute where
very vile material, which we call hate litera-
ture, has been published, has been distri-
buted, or has come to our attention.
Looking at the law as it now stands and
as it has been over the years, and assessing it
as best we could and it having been tested in
previous cases, it was found that there was
no hope of securing a conviction, there was
no hope of successful prosecution. These
facts, I should inform the hon. members of
the House, were brought continuously to the
attention of the Minister of Justice.
In looking at one of the early files— this is
only one of several that has been built up
over a period of something less than two
years— I find that in July, 1964, by corre-
spondence we were representing to the Minis-
ter of Justice, who was then the hon. Mr.
Favreau, that an amendment should be added
to the code. Actually we went so far as to
suggest an amendment similar in language to
that proposed by the national Jewish con-
gress. That amendment, I might say, was
not a lengthy one. It is quite similar to the
language of the resolution, and it was pro-
posed by the national Jewish congress in
these words:
Every person who publishes or circulates
or causes to be circulated orally or in writ-
ing any matter of statement which is in-
tended or calculated to incite violence or
disorder against a group of persons by
reason of their particular race, nationality
or ethnic origin, colour or religion, shall be
guilty of an indictable offence.
We, as I say, urged upon the Minister of
Justice an amendment in language similar to
that. I think I would agree also with the pre-
vious speaker that we should not here today
attempt to do more than support the prin-
ciples of these resolutions, and I do not pro-
pose to discuss in detail the language which
has been set forth in the resolutions.
I support the principles which they both
express. I would, however, say that I think
there was some comment on the resolution
proposed by the hon. member for Forest Hill.
One of the hon. members, perhaps the hon.
leader of the Opposition, said it was loose
language. If he would care to look at section
166 of the Criminal Code he would find that
the language of that section is almost word
for word with the language used in the reso-
lution proposed by the hon. member for
Forest Hill.
I think the House is aware— and we should
be aware— that perhaps as a result of the
representations which have been made from
all across this country, a study was directed
by the government of Canada, and this has
been going forward. We have had persons
appearing from our province before the com-
mittee, giving evidence and expressing views
and furnishing such help in the matter of
documentation and material as was possible.
That committee, which has been con-
ducting its studies now for, I believe, well
over a year, is composed of Dean Maxwell
Cohen, of the McGill university law school,
who chairs the committee, Dr. Mark McGui-
gan, associate professor of law at the Uni-
versity of Toronto, and Dr. J. A. Corry,
president of Queen's University. I under-
stand that the studies of that committee are
about completed and that shortly it will be
reporting and making recommendations to the
government of Canada. I think our represen-
tation will be helpful in this area, too.
I would like to say with respect to the
suggestion that we should have provincial
legislation in the field of group defamation,
that my own opinion, for what it is worth, is
that this is rather ineffective. I think this is
in the field, and must be in the field, primarily
at least, of criminal law, and therefore should
be in the Criminal Code, particularly be-
cause that is where our criminal law lies and
it would have, of course, the virtue of uni-
formity in all the provinces of this country.
Group defamation has been studied and there
are some very recent and some very complete
studies on this subject. Manitoba has had a
law since 1934. Only one case has ever come
to the courts in Manitoba, and in that case
I believe an injunction was obtained. The
great difficulty with the civil action of group
defamation, if it seeks damages, is that it
must seek to determine what damages there
are. To enforce such a law and to make it
effective, I do not believe would be feasible
because the damages are difficult to assess.
The injunction may be considered as a strong
remedy, but the business of publication and
distribution crops up in other areas and one
is having to go forever to the civil court to
put down that sort of thing. It makes a very
unsatisfactory answer to the type of thing
that goes on.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral would permit a question?
214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On this question of damages, would not the
awarding of punitive damages have a very
salutary effect in some of these cases? It
does not necessarily have to be in proven
damages, specific damages. Punitive damages,
which our courts often award, have a very
good effect in some cases.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It could be argued that
this might be effective. The experience so far,
at least in those areas where the law does
provide the action for group defamation, does
not seem to be very satisfactory.
I should like to say that there is a strong
body of opinion that you cannot effectively
legislate against prejudice; and we do have
to bear in mind that there is a very fine line,
actually, between the great freedom of speech
and the freedom of expression in writing that
we prize and the thing that we are speaking
of here, which verges on vituperation, hate—
and, in one of the resolutions referred to, urg-
ing genocide and that sort of thing. You
might think there is a very vast difference,
but the line is fine. The difference is hard to
define and, in putting down a certain free-
dom, you endanger the freedoms we have
tried to maintain.
I think that there is a field here where
legislation should be enacted. We have urged
it. These resolutions have urged it. I think it
is possible to define that line and to enact
it into legislation. But I would say this
further: I believe the best answer, Mr.
Speaker, that we can give to the type of vile
and hateful and disgusting material which
we find occasionally in our midst, is the
attitude which I think it itself creates, that
these people are fanatical, that they are mad-
men in a sense, and that they only degrade
themselves and not those whom they abuse.
In our society, and in our House, we have
members of the races here abused. They
take their part with great credit in our public
affairs and in all our society across our land.
This is a very great and effective answer. I
believe that the publication of this type of
hate literature really, in a sense, degrades
those who publish it, and that our people
look at it and say, "It has little effect on us."
I do not think it will be successful.
But that does not detract for a moment
from my full support of these resolutions,
which say, Let us make representation, so
that we have legislation to make this crimi-
nal and to punish it and to put it down.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
I beg your indulgence to say to you, sir, that
amid the spirit of unanimity that pervades the
House by way of apostatizing the very vile
innuendoes and slanders that have been com-
municated abroad in our community and our
society— which all of us deplore with every
sinew of our body, as well as recognizing that
they are offensive to our reason and our com-
monsense— amid that spirit of universality of
feeling among the hon. members of this
House, I would not— speaking for myself and
indeed, I may say, speaking for others of my
own group— feel it meet and just that the
resolutions should carry without someone ex-
pressing some reservations about their effect;
and that, sir, with your indulgence, I intend
to do.
It is rather germane to note that, as re-
cently as last night, the Rt. hon. Prime Minis-
ter of Canada (Mr. Pearson) said in this very
city to a large and important gathering, that
one of the solutions for the success, or one of
the things that will promote the success of our
Confederation, will be each respective level
of government in this Confederation dealing
only with those matters which concern it. He
probably had in mind the government of On-
tario, if he was thinking of governments that
transgress the federal sphere of jurisdiction.
In that regard, sir, the reference to the
Criminal Code in these resolutions reminds
one that the criminal law of Canada is the
exclusive preserve of the Parliament of
Canada, and any legislation which will de-
clare to be illegal any form of behaviour and
conduct among Canadians from coast to
coast is the preserve of the Parliament at
Ottawa. Quite a different situation from the
United States of America, which prefers to
leave to the several 50 states jurisdiction in
that field of legislation proscribing behaviour.
Therefore, sir, there is one reservation about
the resolution: whether it is within our prov-
ince to presume to suggest to the legislators
at Ottawa what steps they should take in
the revision of the Criminal Code.
They are 265 people, led on all sides of
the House by men of initiative and intelli-
gence and ability. One would assume they are
aware of social problems; indeed, if one reads
the papers but cursorily, one is assured
that they are aware of the problem with
which this House now seeks to concern it-
self. Vastly different, of course, from the
resolution we had last year, moved by my
hon. friend from Wellington South (Mr.
Worton) concerning divorce, which he again
has put on the order paper. Vastly different,
for we know that the Parliament of Canada
will legislate in the realm of divorce any way
that the government of this province wants it
to legislate. Presumably, if the executive coun-
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
215
cil of this government said to the govern-
ment at Ottawa, "We want divorce to be as
easy as possible in Ontario, everybody should
be married four or five times," the Parliament
of Canada would hasten to enact legislation
to bring that about; because they have always
taken the attitude that in the realm of
marriage and divorce whatever a particular
province wants then that province can have.
I leave off that by saying that the divorce
Act, which governs the dissolution of marriage
currently, is called The Divorce Act (Ontario)
1930. That is a vastly different proposition.
On the other hand, one cannot easily
summon to mind, or one would have to strain
to recall any other field, in which one has
ever heard that publicly— which is one that is
ever heard publicly, I emphasize that— in a
time when we are governed by secret confer-
ence. One has never heard publicly that
The Department of the Attorney General of
Ontario, or the government of Ontario in the
last 20 or 25 years, has ever made any repre-
sentations to the government at Ottawa to
change the Criminal Code.
One does not recall that they ever did that,
failure to do so being cognizant of the very
tortuous manipulations in the field of securi-
ties which have led to great harm. I am not
trying to be contentious. The Criminal Code
should have been amended a long time ago
to bring within its ambit the clever manipula-
tor in securities who has done untold harm to
people, and yet the Criminal Code has not
been amended at our instance. Now we get
into an area where we presume to make
suggestions. I say that by way of contrast.
The reservation I make is to say to the
hon. Attorney General, in deference to the
opinion he has himself, that we go far, we
establish a precedent, by indulging ourselves
in this—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was wondering if the
hon. member might permit an inquiry?
Mr. Sopha: Go ahead.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I was
wondering if the hon. member has forgotten
the government of Canada has sought on
more than one occasion to get the Attorneys
General of the provinces in conference to dis-
cuss amendments to the code, that these
suggestions have been made and that one of
the conferences was very recent and many
amendments to the code were discussed. A
considerable amount of publicity was given
to those matters following the conference.
My point is that our participation has been
invited.
Mr. Sopha: I can think of many areas in
the Criminal Code where the officials within
the province who are charged with the ad-
ministration of justice are cognizant of
wrongs— matters that ought to be amended,
that might be revised— and I have failed to
note much initiative on their part that they
have made representations to have them
amended. The hon. Attorney General knows
better than I what goes on at these confer-
ences.
The second reservation, sir, is that of the
two resolutions, I beg leave to protest— and
I mean no discourtesy to the hon. member
for Forest Hill— that upon a careful examina-
tion, that of the hon. member for Downsview
is the better of them. I could have no quarrel
with the statement such as my hon. friend
from Downsview makes in his, that he would
make it an offence to advocate or promote
genocide. I would heartily support any law
in any form that would deprive people who
promote genocide of their civil rights, and
would jail or imprison them, and in a day
when capital punishment is being debated I
would not have many qualms about giving
some of them their own just deserts. The
world suffered much in this century through
two great conflagrations from those— one can
hardly think of an epithet to describe them
adequately.
I do have difficulty in supporting, sir, this
statement in the resolution of my hon. friend
from Forest Hill— his paragraph 1:
Everyone who publishes or circulates or
causes to be published or circulated orally
or in writing any matter intended or calcu-
lated to incite violence or provoke disorder
against any class of persons or against any
person as a member of any class in Canada
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to punishment.
One can say in contemplating that that we
have come a long way from the thoughts of
the. great philosopher Locke who was writing
at the time of the American Revolution and
the French Revolution. Locke, in his phi-
losophy, said it was meet and proper for
peoples as a whole— the inhabitants of a geo-
graphical area— if sufficiently provoked to put
down the tyrants by violence. They had the
right to rebel; they had the right to use vio-
lence. He said:
We come to a point in our society where
the people can tolerate tyranny no longer;
they have the right to rise up, put tyranny
and despotism down by force.
Supposing, for example, the executive council
of Canada sequestered to itself the military;
216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it got control of the armed forces, and it
threatened to use the military to maintain
itself in power, it threatened to set up a
military dictatorship under the military's
hegemony and aegis and put the rest of us
in chains. It is a class. We would have the
right to rise up against them and actively
promote revolution. I do not know how the
American people, in view of their develop-
ment—and I have watched the progress of
these resolutions in the state of New York,
and so perhaps have other hon. members-
could adopt that one of my hon. friend from
Forest Hill. It is a pretty far-reaching state-
ment.
For those who think in terms of civil liber-
ties it is proper and just that someone should
say here, and I do attempt to say it within
the limits of my capacities, that there is a
danger when we interfere with opinion. I
prefer to think— I have always thought, at
least in the last quarter of a century— that if
some person or some group promotes foolish
and unsupportable and unsubstantiated utter-
ance, then common sense puts it down, the
common sense of those who hear it. They
apostatize it themselves, they eschew it, they
avoid it, they put the name on it for what it
is— nonsense— and it dies out.
One of the worths of living in our society,
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, one of the
great privileges that comes to us, is that
within our democracy, which is the culmina-
tion of 1,000 years of struggle, we can even
let people be foolish. We can tolerate them.
There is room for them in the spectrum of
opinion. And I have this caution, too, not in
regard to promotion of hate against people
for their origin or for their religious beliefs,
but in regard to many social problems, many
that were thought foolish 50 or 100 years ago
are now commonplace.
To give the hon. members an example, just
recently I noted that a half a century ago the
great Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a dis-
senting opinion with his brethren on the
Supreme Court of the United States, the
majority of whom upheld the decision to de-
clare unconstitutional a statute backed by a
sovereign state that would have prohibited
the employment of children under 12 years
of age. The majority said that statute was
unconstitutional, that it would destroy the
fabric of free initiative within the community
to prohibit employers from employing child-
ren under 12. Oliver Wendell Holmes dis-
sented. He wrote a vigorous dissent, and his
dissents were never lengthy, and he would
have enabled that sovereign legislature to
pass the statute, but he was beaten down by
the majority of his brethren. Now we look
back a half a century later and we wonder
how could the majority of that court, the
highest court in the United States, ever enter-
tain the thought that it was wrong to prohibit
employment of children under 12 years of
age.
Such is the process of change in a democ-
racy. Our thinking changes. And the beauty
of it is that among reasonable men, among
men of goodwill and understanding and com-
mon sense the truth very nearly always tri-
umphs—very nearly always. We put aside
that which is insupportable, that which is the
product of the diseased mind. These people
who promote this hate literature— this fellow
Stanley and others of his ilk; though I notice
even he has reformed— even he has seen the
error of his ways, according to a recent news
report.
But these people have been put into limbo
—they are put outside the society in a
democracy. Remember, who will forget —
every one in this House lived in the age of
McCarthy— how everyone recoiled in horror at
the tyranny which that man provoked within
the United States. Everyone was in fear;
everyone in this country that thought about
it was in fear that that might seep across the
border and we might be subject to the same
kind of things that he was promoting in the
United States.
I merely repeat that goodwill, understand-
ing, and common sense, always win out;
for in the final analysis what happened to
McCarthy was that his own colleagues, in
a sovereign legislature like ours, suddenly
one day sat down and said, "Men of dignity
do not conduct themselves the way you con-
duct yourself. We cannot tolerate you." And
a Mormon from Utah, a God-fearing man,
a decent man, a man of breadth of mind
and understanding of the relations of man
to man, was the one who gave voice, articu-
lated the sense of the Senate of the United
States, who said, "McCarthy, you are not
fit to be among us." Common sense always
prevails.
We must guard against in any way limit-
ing the free speech of the individual. It was
hard fought and hard won, and human history
is the record of tyranny imposed upon people
by those who thought they knew it all. That
is as good a view of history as Toynbee's
explanation, or Springhurst's, or any of the
other great philosophers of history.
German history is a record of tyranny.
When a single group thought that they had
all knowledge they imposed their will upon
the great mass of mankind. In that regard
FEBRUARY 3, 1966
217
a great benefit was conferred upon me by my
bon. friend from St. David (Mr. Price), who
acquainted me with the works of Robert
Ingersoll, who died two years before this
•century began. Clarence Darrow was perhaps
the greatest lawyer of this century on this
continent. Darrow's philosophy, and his great
love of his fellow man, is traced to Colonel
Ingersoll who wrote these things in the last
century. Ingersoll said the only value worth
living for is liberty. The only value worth
living for is liberty. The only goal of human
endeavour is happiness. There can be no
happiness without liberty.
We must be careful, Mr. Speaker, in what
we do to limit the freedom of individuals.
I venture to predict I will support this
resolution, but I do so with reservations, and
calling attention to the dangerous ground
upon which we tread. It may be that out in
the province, among those whom we repie-
sent here, that there will be some who will
be glad that somebody on the floor of the
House said these things; that if, in other
words, we decide in this House that we are
going to make progress by taking steps to
limit the liberty of those who would promote
violence upon classes of individuals, or would
heap ridicule and contempt upon them, if that
is their social goal, then we ought to tread
carefully to ensure in the final analysis that
in effecting that goal and eradicating the vice,
which we would seek to do, we do not in so
doing destroy something that is precious.
Those are my reservations and I hope, in
saying them, I have not infringed upon the
common sense or the comprehension, of any
hon. member of the House.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): I move
adjournment of the debate.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I really wanted to make one com-
ment. In view of the really unusual nature
of these resolutions, and this whole debate,
I would be quite prepared to ask if this
matter could be brought to a vote. I suffer
somewhat the same reservations as my hon.
friend from Sudbury in some regard, and I
find myself in agreement with my hon. friend
from Woodbine in regard to some of the
particular wording of these resolutions, but
I do not think that is really the point we
are after in this discussion. I think we are
trying to indicate a basic attitude that we
have, and I think what we are trying to do
is to go on record as being unalterably op-
posed to this type of activity.
As far as the federal government is con-
cerned, and its drafting of whatever amend-
ment it may choose to draft, it will have at
its beck and call many experts; it has many
experts studying this question at the present
time. At a federal-provincial conference in
1964, I asked for this matter to be placed on
the agenda. Once again this was simply to
bring it to the attention of the federal gov-
ernment, and the people of our country, that
we do have very strong feelings in this re-
gard. It is against that background that I
would ask, Mr. Speaker, that a vote be
taken on these two resolutions.
Resolutions carried.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Tomorrow we will resume
the debate of Bill No. 6.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6:05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 9
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Betmteg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, February 4, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 4, 1966
Labour Relations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Gisborn, first reading 221
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Young, first reading 221
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first
reading 221
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading
(continued) 223
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 245
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 245
221
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Labour Relations Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, section 89 of The Labour Relations
Act provides that a municipal council by
simple by-law may remove its employees
from the provisions and procedures of The
Labour Relations Act. The amendment re-
peals the Act so that the municipal employees
would therefore be entitled to the same pro-
cedures and provisions as other organized
employees.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend the
Municipal Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement
System Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner),
notice of which has been given him.
Friday, February 4, 1966
In light of the fact that part of Sunnydale
township was annexed to Wasaga Beach on
January 1, 1966 without provision for repre-
sentation on the Wasaga Beach council, what
plans are being made to assure such repre-
sentation?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, part of Sunnydale
township was annexed to the village of
Wasaga Beach effective January 1, 1966.
The decision of the Ontario municipal board
was given after a lengthy hearing of all evi-
dence presented to the board. It was a
written decision of the board.
Now this decision of the board dealt with
the matter of annexation only, and the many
matters that are incidental to the annexation
are dealt with in detail in the formal order
of the board, which I anticipate will be
issued in the not-too-distant future.
I would refer to section 14 of The Munici-
pal Act, the particular subsection is 10-g,
and I would read that for the benefit of the
hon. member. The Act now states and I
quote:
The municipal board may by any order
made pursuant to an application under this
section or by subsequent order or orders
make all such provisions for the composi-
tion of councils and local boards, the
fixing of days for nominations either before
or subsequent to the day on which the
annexation or amalgamation becomes effec-
tive, the appointment of returning officers,
the holding of elections, the qualifications
of candidates and electors, the preparation
of first voters lists and assessment rolls,
the fixing of days for first meetings of
councils and local boards, and for such
other matters as it may deem necessary to
provide for the effective administration of
the enlarged or amalgamated municipality
or of any local board thereof.
That is the section of the Act. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, this gives the municipal board
very complete powers in regard to elections
and representations and the general adminis-
tration of the enlarged municipality.
At the present time, the Ontario municipal
board is waiting for the solicitors for the
222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
municipalities to bring in a draft order, at
which time the question of representation
and all of the other matters incidental to the
annexation will be settled, to ensure that the
people in the annexed area are given proper
representation.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The an-
nexation was as of January 1.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, that does not
matter. This is the regular policy of the
Ontario municipal board, and I have had
some correspondence with residents of the
area in question and I have so advised them.
As soon as the solicitors for the municipalities
involved take the next step, the municipal
board will issue its formal order in this
connection.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a
supplementary question?
Is the hon. Minister aware that the solici-
tors will not act for that annexed area because
they say it is no longer part of Sunnydale
township, and therefore the whole thing—
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I am not aware of that,
and if any solicitor is doing that I suggest
to you that the municipality better get them-
selves another solicitor. What else can we
do?
Mr. Speaker: Will the member complete
his other question?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a further
question for the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart), notice of which has been given
him.
Will the hon. Attorney General assure the
House that all persons having any knowledge
of the circumstances leading to and surround-
ing the death of former Guelph reformatory
inmate, Anatol Chemenko, on December 5,
1965 will be called as witnesses at the inquest
which has been adjourned until March 4 in
Kitchener?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, it is unnecessary to ask such a ques-
tion. It is our policy to always, at all inquests,
call all persons having relevant knowledge of
the facts and I assure this House that there
will be no exception in this case.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Except
when they forget.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a
further question? Is the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral aware whether or not any of the inmates,
the present inmates, might be released before
the 4th, and will steps to taken to ensure that
they might be there?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware as to the dates when inmates of this
institution, various inmates, may be released.
If they are witnesses, this would place no
restriction on their release. Certainly I am
sure the hon. member would not expect that
they be held as inmates of the institution. I
would think, and certainly be certain, that if
they are released as any other citizen they
can be subpoenaed and brought forward as a
witness to the incident.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral.
What steps is the government taking to see
the public is being guaranteed maximum
security by financial institutions, operating
under a provincial charter, who at the present
are giving up to 6^4 per cent interest on
guaranteed certificates, along with substantial
gifts on the buying of each certificate, or on
the opening of a new account?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure whether the hon. member refers to trust
companies— he says financial institutions. If it
should be a trust company, as I would assume
the question refers to such corporation, I
would advise the hon. member that trust
companies come within the provisions of The
Loan and Trust Corporations Act. That Act
provides for inspection and examination by
the registrar appointed under the Act, and
such examinations go forward continuously
from time to time.
Perhaps I might say this: I think the hon.
member is aware of the forecast of the legis-
lation to come into this House, amendments
to The Loan and Trust Corporations Act,
which will provide additional controls and
examination of this type of institution.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question. In the opinion of the hon.
Attorney General, woidd the government
come to the rescue of any trust company
operating under a provincial charter, as it did
with British Mortgage, providing it became
involved in financial difficulties?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is a rather broad
and somewhat hypothetical question. In the
long histories of trust companies none has
ever failed. The question was addressed to
the matter of guaranteed certificates. No one
has ever lost money under such a certificate
in the conduct of trust company business in
this province.
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
223
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond).
Of the 6,000 medical doctors licensed to
practise in Ontario in the last 15 years, how
many were from India?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, once again I am sorry I cannot
answer that question as this information is in
possession of the college. They will give it
to me as soon as they can prepare it, but I
point out again that they have a very limited
staff, and staff only geared to carry on the
normal operations. Therefore, it does take
them a little time to get the answers to these
questions dug out.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, with
your indulgence and the indulgence of all
hon. members of this House, I should like to
make known a very pleasant personal cir-
cumstance.
All hon. members are aware of the prac-
tice and custom of the Provincial Secretary
to issue scrolls of congratulations on out-
standing occasions the bulk of which revolve
on the occasion of 50th and 60th wedding
anniversaries.
The one that I hold in my hand is a rather
unique one. First of all it is signed by the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) person-
ally and for this the recipients will I am sure
be very appreciative; but the unique factor
of this certificate is that perhaps for the first
time in the history of the province the scroll
will bear the signature of the Provincial
Secretary one John Yaremko and the presen-
tation will be made tomorrow night to his
parents Mr. and Mrs. George Yaremko on
the occasion of their 50th wedding anniver-
sary.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Fifth order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the motion for
second reading of Bill No. 6, An Act to
amend The Medical Services Insurance Act,
1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
( Continued )
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I think I had left
off on the debate where we had been talking
about the need for the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond) to be more frank,
both in this Legislature and to the people of
Ontario. And I suggest that for some reason,
whether it is apprehension about his plans,
whether a distrust or a contempt for the
Legislature and the public, he is being ex-
tremely secretive about the whole negotia-
tion of medical insurance.
We do not know where the government
stands. He is not even authorized to say.
We have asked in the Legislature, "Where do
you stand? Where do you stand on univer-
sality? Where do you stand on portability
and comprehensive aspects on a province-
operated plan?"
And the hon. Minister goes up to Ottawa
silently, like someone creeping up there in
the dark. He goes behind closed doors, and
we do not know if he is fighting for the
people of Ontario or what he is doing in
there. And he comes back again, and says
to the press when he steps out, "Well, we
want to get some more clarification." And
he comes back to this House and insults this
House.
He insults this House when he is asked,
"What do you object to, if anything, on the
broad qualifications of the federal plan?" and
his answer is, "I can only say, Mr. Speaker,
that the whole matter is under discussion
with the federal authorities."
Really what he is saying is, "Let us keep
this thing under wraps; do not bring it be-
fore the public. Do not let us say where the
government stands. Do not tell the people
what we believe should be done about medi-
cal insurance." And even in the procedure
of this bill, sir, I notice the hon. Minister
does not stand up and introduce this bill to
us— stand up on this second reading and tell
us where he stands. Oh, no! He sits very
coyly, almost as if he is ashamed of the bill,
almost as if it has been a bad birth in some
way; he just sits there, not wanting to have
real responsibility for it, jotting down bits
of notes here and there and scribbling them.
Why did he not introduce it, if he was
proud of it, with a full burst? Why did not
even the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
introduce it? He has not said a word in
connection with where he stands and yet he
wants us to debate. He has given no flesh
to the bill, described nothing really about it
—as last year, when we found nothing about
his idea of premiums and so on. Well, sir,
I say this is an insult to the Legislature.
I had been talking, I think, about the fact
of the Ontario hospital services commission,
and I had noticed one of the fundamental
points that a former premier had in con-
nection with insurance— insurance to cover
224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hospital services for the people of Ontario.
In order to be able to have this on a sound
basis, Mr. Frost had decided that he was
going to get groups in on the Ontario hos-
pital services commission. I was not in the
Legislature at the time this was discussed
but in reading Hansard, I realized that he
had stressed the point that he needed groups
in.
Why did he need groups in, Mr. Speaker?
Well, it is obvious that if you have the
groups in you are going to get the healthy,
who are going to share with the individuals
who may be rejected as bad risks. This is
why he wanted the groups in. This is why
the Ontario hospital services commission has
been able to be a success. And yet, in the
medical insurance approach of the hon.
Minister, we do not know if he wants to
bring groups in or not. But if he does not,
and if he looks at other insurance procedures,
for example, PSI, who opened the door
wide to individuals, he will realize— and I
want to re-emphasize this, I have said it
before— that the government-operated scheme
is going to attract and take the bad risks,
and leave the cream of good risks for the
profit-making insurance companies.
Let me say, regarding the PSI, that it
opened its doors for individuals, for the public
enrolment plan. PSI's final report in 1964 had
this to say, after they had done this, and I
quote:
It has been a year of important decisions,
especially regarding the subscription rates,
because during the first six months of 1964
there has been $1.8 million more paid out
for medical care than received from sub-
scription income.
I will follow up on this later, referring to the
very succinct point that the hon. member for
Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop) made in connection
with poor risks being covered. I hope he will
be here to listen to that, because I thought he
got right to the heart of the thing.
An hon. member: He is here.
Mr. Thompson: May I say, sir, that last year
there were some who felt that we were just
concentrating on doctors and physicians and
patients in that relationship, and that we did
not see the broader picture of health cover-
age. And of course we saw this. We had
argued, for example, that Bill No. 136— we
had argued first of all when it was introduced
last year, that it was administratively in-
adequate and, even if it were rewritten to
eliminate the bureaucratic never-never land
it embodies now, it would still be inadequate.
And we said it does not go anywhere; it does
not lead to dental and optical care for child-
ren; it does not embody any preventive medi-
cine, it speaks vaguely about the general
check-up which the medical profession empha-
sizes as being so important. It ignores well-
baby care— this is a point I am quoting from
my own remarks last year.
It is silent on such matters as mental health,
home nursing, chiropractic care and other
therapeutic measures that are all part of the
health services spectrum. It ignores the whole
field of prescription drugs and makes no
provision for the inadequacies of medical and
health services available in different parts of
the province. It is silent on the subject of
medical and health care research. It makes
no provision for the incredibly rapidly chang-
ing technology of health care. It says nothing
about the kind of paramedical personnel who
can do so much to support available resources
of fully professional health care workers—
the dwindling resources and the need for new
resources.
We argued as well, sir, and I want to bring
this to the attention of the hon. member for
Forest Hill, in the Throne speech we outlined
that there had to be a phased-in programme.
We recognized that and we outlined what we
thought were the important things in that
phased-in programme. I turn to Hansard just
to re-emphasize that and I quote from my
own speech in the Throne speech last year:
There are priorities of course in this.
There are priorities for the whole health
care programme and we are proposing for
health care that it is unrealistic to suggest
that the full plan could be instituted at
once. Therefore it is essential that priorities
be assigned to the phasing in of the different
aspects of the programme.
Then I outlined what I considered were the
important areas to be phased in. One of the
things that causes some confusion is that I
suspect there will be another red herring
produced on the part of the government. I
notice the first approach was made by the
hon. member for London South (Mr. White)
in which he is suggesting that a shortage
of doctors exists because, he says, of the
Ontario medical association.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): I did
not say quite that.
Mr. Thompson: Let me quote the reaction
of Dr. Glen Sawyer, general secretary of the
Ontario medical association.
Mr. White: Well, that is quite different.
Mr. Thompson: Well, after all, he seemed
to be an injured party in the thing. He was
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
sorry the Conservative Party was so poorly
informed. He said the OMA has nothing to
do with licensing or training of doctors. This
is what Dr. Sawyer said: "It comes down to
the question of the government failing to
provide the facilities for training doctors."
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Thompson: No, sir, he did not clarify
it as the federal government. I know that is
the type of buck passing that is often tried
by this government. He was referring to the
Ontario government whip. I had my differ-
ences with the OMA; but at least I am
realistic about them, I am not blaming them
for the lack of facilities.
Mr. White: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, at no time did I say the OMA was
responsible. What I attempted to do was to
demonstrate that the several levels of govern-
ment and the university administrations were
not likely to be responsible because of the
unique situation in the medical profession, and
I said that I had come to the tentative
conclusion that the profession itself was in
some way responsible. I did not mention the
OMA at all.
Mr. Thompson: I accept the statement of
the hon. member. I would say that perhaps
one of the reasons I am sometimes confused
on the question of the shortage of doctors
is that we hear from certain hon. members
on the other side that really the government
has been doing a tremendous job and that
there is not a shortage of doctors.
We hear from the hon. member for
Beaches (Mr. Harris). I read his speech last
night, actually in the early hours of the morn-
ing. I want to tell him I enjoyed the speech.
He described how there has been $114 mil-
lion put in by the government, this wise gov-
ernment that looks ahead and sees the need
for doctors and for dentists, and he said that
there was a new school started at McMaster,
an expansion of the University of Toronto,
health science and dentistry at Queen's Uni-
versity; and then he went on to point out
that $30 million was spent for nurses' training.
Now, sir, after he has been saying that the
government has done great things in order
that there would not be a shortage of doc-
tors, I must say that he was not bashful at all
about saying it was the government that is
responsible for the training of doctors. May
I say to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr.
Rowntree) he had not any hesitancy to say
that it was the provincial government that is
responsible for the training of doctors. He did
not blur the picture and say it might be some-
thing to do with the federal picture. No, sir,
he said it was the provincial government.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
I did not use any such words at all.
Mr. Thompson: Then, sir, we find that the
hon. member for London South is suggesting
that really it has nothing to do with the gov-
ernment. I do not want to say it was OMA
that is responsible, but he is saying there is
a shortage, that everything is not rosy and he
is complaining that it is someone other than
government that has a responsibility for this.
In all this confusion I wanted to look for
facts and figures. I am inclined, Mr. Speaker,
sometimes to be a little suspicious that gov-
ernment members may embellish, and if I
could use again the word "embroider," figures
and facts. I decided I would have a closer
look at the situation.
I looked at statements by the hon. Minister
of Health, for example, that man who is so
sound on his facts, who comes from Ottawa
saying $14, and then very quickly says that
it was $17. However, I look to him for the
figures. I find that there are two Dr.
Dymonds. I do not want to say Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde, but I say there are two Dr.
Dymonds. One is the Minister of Health and
the other is the Ontario Medicare negotiator
at Ottawa.
Now the Dr. Dymond who is the Minis-
ter of Health is apparently very proud. The
Dr. Dymond who is the Minister of Health,
Mr. Speaker, is very proud of the doctor
population in this province. He told us
last year, and I want to quote this, "Ontario,
with one doctor to 776 population, has one
of the highest doctor population ratios on the
continent.
"This is bettered only by five nations in
the world," he thundered.
But the other Dr. Dymond, the one who
sneaks up to Ottawa and talks in the hidden
conference rooms up there, he is worried.
He is worried about the ability of the doctor
population of the province to provide medical
services for all the people of Ontario through
Medicare.
An hon. member: Will the real Dr. Dymond
please stand up.
Mr. Thompson: I do not like to use medi-
cal terms, sir, but is this a problem of schizo-
phrenia? The hon. Minister himself can an-
swer that.
I am happy that the Dr. Dymond in
Ottawa is showing some concern, because
226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Dr. Dymond who is the Minister of
Health has not demonstrated much concern
over the past several years.
Let us look at the facts. Since 1959 there
has been a steady and a sizeable decline in
the number of graduates from foreign medical
schools registering with the college of
physicians and surgeons of Ontario. Since
1957 there has been more than a 50 per cent
decline in die number of graduates from the
United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand
and South Africa registering here. Since 1961
there has been a sudden drop in the number
of graduates from American colleges and in
1964 not one American medical school gradu-
ate registered in Ontario.
In 1964 there were 412 new registrations in
the province; and erasures in the same year,
that is due to deaths, retirements, for due
cause, were 366. This left a net gain
in the doctor population of Ontario for the
year 1964 of only 46. Now calculating on
the basis of the hon. Minister's boastful doc-
tor population ratio of one doctor to every
776 population— the 1964 registrants would
handle 35,696.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is
pretty good arithmetic for the doctor.
Mr. Thompson: What is alarming for the
province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is the fact
that the population is increasing; and simple
arithmetic tells that the doctor population
ratio in Ontario is worsening. My office writes
to the college of physicians and surgeons—
and I wish the good hon. Minister of Health,
who is on the board, and the government who
provides the charter, would be writing a bit
more to the college of physicians and sur-
geons, and be a little more up to date on
statistics. But we have written to them for
statistics on registration erasures from earlier
years and one of my concerns is that the
college of physicians and surgeons, or the
government, or someone, should be having a
far closer look at the number of doctors who
are practising, who are graduating, so we can
get real facts concerning the need of doctors,
and the need of new training facilities in this
province.
When we asked the college of physicians
and surgeons for statistics or registration or
erasures from earlier years, we were in-
formed, and I quote:
The college has not maintained figures
on erasures and net gains or losses for the
years previous to 1964. To obtain detailed
information in this regard would be a
rather costly procedure.
I say it is going to be very costly to us if we
do not get some facts concerning this situa-
tion.
My concern is matched again, and I am
allied here with the Ontario medical associa-
tion. In a letter dated December 31, of 1965,
the association said:
It is urgently necessary to determine the
effect of doctor-patient ratio for patient
care in Ontario. These figures are required
to reinforce our request for the expansion
of medical schools, to discover fields of
medicine that are not being adequately
manned, and in order to indicate to new-
comers the areas where the need is
greatest.
I put the neglect of medical training right
square where it belongs, right in the govern-
ment's hands. I put the ignorance of doctor-
patient figures right where it belongs, right in
the government's hands. And you may be
wanting to use this to blind the people, in
connection with what the true facts are, by
the fact that you have ignored giving proper
training facilities in order that we can have
more doctors. You may try to use this as an
excuse in order to hold back the implementa-
tion of a universal comprehensive Medicare
plan in this province.
But I say, Mr. Speaker, it will not wash
on the people of Ontario.
Let me say that there is another answer to
this, just a partial answer; and that, of course,
arises from the questions which we have been
raising in the House in connection with the
college of physicians and surgeons' approach
to the acceptance of foreign doctors. I would
say that there are 150 doctors in On-
tario who have been denied the opportu-
nity to write college entrance examinations.
Many of them hold diplomas from medical
schools which have been recognized in the
college in the past, and some were contem-
porary colleagues of foreign doctors now
practising in this province. And it seems to
me it is an awfully confused standard that has
been raised.
In answer, the hon. Minister tersely, when
he is asked does he not think this looks a
little peculiar, gives only the answer "No". I
think that is an abdication of his authority. It
is an indication of his lack of concern with
the shortage of doctors, if there is a shortage
of doctors, that he is not going to the college
of physicians and surgeons to tell them.
"Let us have a clarification of the kind of
rules you have for the acceptance of men and
women who hold doctors' degrees; let us have
a clarification concerning this. What are the
rules in order that you can practise?"
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
227
They tell me that the schools which may be
barred can change from day to day. I know
it will create an outcry on the part of the
hon. Minister if we read that some of the
doctors have decided that the University of
Edinburgh no longer has the standard that is
required. But he is not going to be moved
when you talk of colleges in other countries.
He is not asking, "Let us have a close exam-
ination."
Some of these men have taught at the Uni-
versity of Edinburgh; some of them are
recognized in the United States and can prac-
tise. In six months they could be accepted,
and yet we hear moaning on the part of the
government whip here that we have a short-
age of doctors; and for these doctors who are
here, we have got a very blurred answer on
the part of the college of physicians and
surgeons as to why they can practise in other
provinces but not in Ontario. And why, at
one point, will they accept undergraduate
schools and, at another point say, "No, we
won't accept them"?
There is a very clear reason for this, and a
principle. One of the principles in this is to
get adequate medical services for the people
of Ontario. And this a good time to talk
about the inadequacy of the hon. Minister's
statement regarding the doctor shortage in
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister told the
House a few days ago that 6,000 men and
women were granted licences for practice in
this province over the past 15 years. And of
this number he said about 2,000 had received
their education outside the province. Now,
this is an impressive figure but it hides the
real story. The hon. Minister had admitted
that the college of physicians and surgeons
will not accept any medical graduates from
these countries— and I want to quote some of
these countries— this is their recent list; I have
not seen today's bulletin, they may include
some others today— but this is a recent list:
the countries of Central America, Communist
China, Republic of China, Egypt, India, Iran,
Iraq, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Pakistan,
Syria and Turkey. Now the hon. Minister
said that in the past two years the college has
accepted graduates from the British Isles—
I am glad to see this in— the Republic of Ire-
land, Haiti, Jamaica, United States and most
European countries.
The hon. Minister was asked if, in his
opinion, there were no universities in India
and the other countries that are excluded
that had good medical schools. And I would
think, when we have got a shortage of doctors
and we have men who are specialists, who
are over here and want to practise here, that
the hon. Minister would have said to his
colleagues at the Ontario medical association,
"Look at the cost that it takes to get doctors;
look at the need we have for doctors. Now,
you are saying that there are no universities
in India or in Iran or Pakistan that are up
to qualifications. What are the grounds for
it? How have you looked into this?" And he
would have come into this House with an
assurance that there are no good universities
in these countries.
The hon. Minister, when he was asked this
—he was asked if there were, in his opinion,
no universities in India and the other coun-
tries in the list that have good pre-medical
schools, and what was the kind of reply he
gave? The reply was, "really, in essence, I do
not know. I have never undertaken a study of
their standards."
The interesting point— and this is the con-
cern for us— to the hon. Minister, through
you, Mr. Speaker, is that he is meant to be
the guardian of the health of the people of
this province, and he is meant to be taking
every advantage of getting the most capable
people. Insuring standards, yes, but being
sure that standards are not being used some-
times just to bluff people and prevent them
coming in. You have to have clarification
that the standards which are used are not
just there to keep people out; they are
grounds for standards.
In short, the interesting thing is, Mr.
Speaker, that the college of physicians and
surgeons, has not made a real study of the
universities and medical schools in India, for
example. They sent off, I think it was, 40
letters; I may be inaccurate in the number
that they sent off to these universities but they
sent off a bunch of letters to them and they
got so many replies— very small, six replies,
a very small proportion of replies— and then
their study goes like this: I understand that
every now and then someone goes on a
safari or something away out into the coun-
try, and has some coffee with some of these
universities, and comes back and says that
they are not up to standard. They want to
know the proportion of doctors to patients.
In the United States it is even admitted
there are problems in setting up necessary
standards, of knowing the standards of coun-
tries throughout the world. In Britain they
have done this, and they have set an approach
to it. And yet we hear this encrusted,
entrenched group, the college of physicians
and surgeons, saying, with very limited
resources, "We know what the standards are
throughout the world and we will decide we
will throw out Central America, Communist
228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
China"— it almost looks to me as if it were
on a political basis as well as on a racial
basis.
May I say that that can be concluded be-
cause you are not going over to the college
of physicians and surgeons and asking them,
"Give me clarification about what you are
doing," because you are having to be pushed
by vehement doctors to go over and get
answers from them.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
The hon. leader of the Opposition must not
start-
Mr. Thompson: Well, I think I will. I
think I will have to take action.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Thompson: To push being an intensive
job on the part of the Opposition over the
years. To push you to recognize that we
need hospital beds. To push you to recog-
nize that we need doctors. To push you to
recognize your responsibility as Minister of
Health. It takes an awful lot of pushing.
An hon. member: It sure does.
Mr. Thompson: In other words, the hon.
Minister of Health is not talking from first-
hand experience of the standards that are
barring doctors. The hon. Minister of Health
does not know—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: How does the hon.
leader of the Opposition know?
Mr. Thompson: Because he does not give
us answers. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that
this is the real criticism of this hon. Minister.
When it comes to health he seems to be
struck mute, and we want answers.
The hon. Minister was asked by the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) what
students in the past two years have been ac-
cepted by the college from Jamiaca and
Haiti. The hon. Minister of Health should
be on top of this subject; he had to take the
question as notice, even though he had had
prior notice of the question, and even though
this question has been before the people of
this province for the past eight months, and
when he finally did give the answer he was
not sure but he thought one student had
been admitted in the past two years from
Jamaica.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. There was no talk about it;
I stated unequivocally that one student had
been admitted from Haiti and that the Ja-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister complete
his point of order?
An hon. member: He is finished. He stated
unequivocally that one student had been
admitted.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I stated unequivocally
that one student had been admitted from
Haiti and that we did not have any record
of the country of origin of the others since
they were graduates of the University of
London, England, and as such were admitted.
It would seem to me that this points up
quite clearly that the colour of a man's skin,
his political beliefs, his origin or anything
else has nothing to do with his admission.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I say that
as I understand it he did not say that one
had been admitted from Haiti; he said that
one had been admitted from Jamaica.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I stated one from Haiti.
Mr. Speaker: We have the word of the
Minister stating unequivocally that he did
mention Haiti.
Mr. Thompson: I think anyway, sir, that
we are glad to hear that he said one from
Haiti. But let me say it is significant that
Ontario is in the minority when it comes to
bringing in doctors from other countries,
very much in the minority. Six provinces in
Canada give foreign doctors a chance to
prove themselves by writing an exam and
these provinces accept the qualifications set
down by the august medical body in Great
Britain. There is a great irony in this sit-
uation.
At one time in the not-very-distant past
the college did accept doctors, and I am
re-emphasizing this point because to me it
shows the shifting standards from day-to-day.
At one time the college did accept doctors
from these countries which it now bars, and
the hon. Minister admits this. Many of the
people went to undergraduate schools at the
same time, or even before, people who are
coming to our country now asking for ad-
mittance. Many of those people are practis-
ing, and practising in very prominent
positions, throughout Ontario and the hon.
Minister would never say that they are doing
a first-class job for the people of this province
in health services.
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
229
So that the reasoning, in demonstration, is
shown to be completely invalid. Here are
these men at the college of physicians and
surgeons saying: "Look, we have decided that
these schools, these undergraduate schools
are not adequate; a man therefore should not
be allowed to practise here because he will
not be adequate in undergraduate training."
Yet we can look today at doctors who are
practising, holding prominent positions, and
they went right through these undergraduate
schools. The same schools. In some cases in
the same year. Does that sound logical to
the hon. members as a reason for barring
other doctors?
The tragedy of this is— and the hon. Min-
ister know this— that many of the foreign
doctors who are being barred are highly
qualified. I may even suggest, sir, without
any inference that I do not consider that the
hon. Minister has not got first-class medical
qualifications— I would be glad to have him
treat me for some physical illness at some
point if I had it— but I would say that some
of these doctors he is barring, some of these
doctors are more highly qualified and have
spent more time in research. They are so
highly qualified that our hospitals allow them
to treat patients in emergency wards and in
some cases they are teaching students. Many
of them have good specialist degrees.
Let me point this out to the hon. Minister.
This is something he should recognize about
these men we are barring. Some of them are
from the college of physicians and surgeons
in Scotland, a land dear to the hon. Minister
of Health. Others have passed exams set by
the educational council for foreign students
in the United States, a very responsible body.
They can go down to the United States and
practise. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the
hon. Minister, that is just what he is doing.
He is making it attractive for these men to
go to the United States. It boils down to
this— and I want to re-emphasize this— the
hon. Minister, the representative of the public
on the college, is not protecting the public
interest. He is mute on the matters of the
college that affect the public.
Mr. T. L. Wells (Scarborough North): Mr.
Speaker, I would like your ruling on just
what this speech has to do with the principle
of this Bill No. 6 that is before us.
Mr. Speaker: I may say that the principles
stated within the bill are quite wide. There
are three principles, I believe the Minister
stated yesterday, and as they cover the field
of medical insurance it does leave an opportu-
nity for the sort of wide-ranging remarks that
are being made. I have endeavoured to treat
the remarks of the members in the debate so
far as having this wider latitude, and unless
I find that they go too far afield I thought
it best to allow them to proceed in this
manner.
Mr. Wells: A full cliscussion on the college
of physicians and surgeons of Ontario is
allowed under—
Mr. Speaker: Yes. What the leader of the
Opposition is trying to do is to bring in the
need of medical doctors in order to look after
medical insurance.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad
that you are getting the point very clearly
that we do need more medical doctors.
May I now turn to the hon. member for
Scarborough North? One of the reasons I
think he may feel uncomfortable about this
newly amended bill, sir, is because he is one
of those fellows who, when the government
brings in anything says: "My party right or
wrong."
Mr. Speaker: Order, orderl I think the
leader of the Opposition should proceed with
the principle.
Mr. Thompson: I say one of the principles
is that it draws some enthusiasm from Con-
servative members and I quote the hon.
member for Scarborough North when this
bill was brought in, this previous bill, he
said, Mr. Speaker: "In my enthusiasm for
this bill," that is the previous bill I may add,
"I am merely trying to show that this is one
of the group of bills that stamps this govern-
ment with its true term, Progressive-Conser-
vative."
I would like to talk about some other in-
consistencies. The principle I am taking now,
sir, is the principle of inconsistency, a word
that was bandied about when we discussed
Bill No. 136 in the last session of the Legis-
lature. When the hon. Minister of Health
introduced the bill so enthusiastically, I think
the hon. member for Scarborough North was
impressed. It was contagious enthusiasm.
He thought: "My party right or wrong." But
I agree that might be off the bill a little bit
to go back and he does not want me to.
When the hon. Minister of Health intro-
duced the bill, he took five pages of Hansard
to do so. I am interested that Professor
Schindler has written up the abuse the hon.
Minister did to Parliament by throwing in
everything, bolts and nuts and your own
weird philosophy about how you looked at
benefits and you were transfixed and so on.
230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
That is abuse of the Legislature. This is
what he said as well, and I quote:
Another and logical step forward in a
progressive programme.
That is your quote.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Would the hon. leader
of the Opposition like my opinion of
Schindler?
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister does not
need to tell me. Schindler was against auto-
crats, so I know how he stands with him.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Thompson: But apparently he had
second thoughts and, Mr. Speaker, I want to
quote again.
Mr. Speaker: Order! May I ask the leader
of the Opposition to get back to the bill?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I realize when I
quote the hon. Minister on the bill I may
be off the bill a bit. With your indulgence,
sir, I will quote the hon. Minister again and
you can judge if he was off or not. He said:
Another and logical step forward in
a progressive programme.
When he introduced it to the Legislature, and
I admit that is a little bit off this bill to call
it a progressive programme and you were
quite right to call me to order, Mr. Speaker,
but apparently even the—
Mr. Speaker: I was calling the leader of
the Opposition to order about his remarks
with reference to Mr. Schindler.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I am sorry. But
apparently the hon. Minister has had second
thoughts about the progressive approach of
this bill, because the principle of the bill has
been radically changed; and perhaps his first
step in Bill No. 136 was not as logical as he
first thought.
The hon. member for Beaches is not here.
I was going to pay him another compliment
for his foresight, because he said in the
House, in connection with the other bill, and
I quote:
No one on this side of the House would
say that this is the last word in health care.
How right he was. Bill No. 136 was not.
The government is having another try this
year and they may take another shot next
year.
tNow the usually quick-witted— and I want
to come to him, I notice he patiently sat here
waiting for me «to refer to him again— the
usually quick-witted hon. member for Forest
Hill picked out what he thought was the key
provision of the bill that was introduced last
year. Let me quote:
This legislation provides for the pooling
of bad risks under the Medical Carriers In-
corporated provisions and enables the
private carriers to cope with the problems
of bad risks.
Well, that was not quite the way it was. We
found there was no real pooling. Bad risks—
and that means, in chief, people who are ill
—would have to pay the maximum premium
and others would get a lower premium. And
the government found, during the long hot
summer, that its whole system of standard
contracts was unworkable, something the
Opposition had tried to tell the hon. Minis-
ter for three weeks during the session.
My favourite, though, is the hon. member
for High Park (Mr. Cowling). He likes in-
surance salesmen. In fact he told the House,
and I want to quote:
I think they do a great job in this prov-
ince. In this great contribution they pro-
vide jobs, provide income tax, they pay
their way. Just because they happen to be
enthusiastic about the product they are sell-
ing that is no reason to deride them or
their product.
Apparently insurance salesmen, however,
were not too enthusiastic about the hon. Min-
ister of Health's standard contract.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): You should
know.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I did know. That is
why I was surprised at you expressing this
enthusiasm.
Mr. Cowling: There it compliments you.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. member for High
Park expressed passing interest in the Hall
report, and may I put that as a compliment
on the part of the hon. member for High
Park because, sir, this comprehensive report is
the most intensive study done across Canada.
He was unusual in that he was one mem-
ber from the Conservative ranks who even
paid passing interest in it. We are hop-
ing they will pay a great deal more interest
to it. The hon. member for High Park paid
passing interest to the Hall report but he was
dubious, and I want to quote. He said:
After all, the federal government may
some day institute a universal medical plan
on the basis of the Hall report.
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
231
And, using his quotes, he said:
Boy, oh, boy, Mr. Speaker, if we waited
for something lilce that in Ottawa we would
all have long white whiskers in this House.
Well, where are your white whiskers, hon.
member for High Park?
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Walker)
displayed little faith in his speech. He said,
and I quote:
The programme which is now before us
is as far as the government felt they could
go unless federal financing was forth-
coming.
Well, when I was asked where is the Ottawa
plan, I said that we know that the Ottawa
plan will develop if this province will stay
where it stands.
The hon. member for Oshawa went further
in talking about comprehensive Medicare. He
said he did not think this province would ever
have such a programme, and I quote:
—until the federal government presents a
co-operative financial programme to assist
in financing such a plan.
Well, Ottawa has offered a co-operative pro-
gramme, even though the senior Conservative
hon. members are never quite together on
what their approach will be to the pro-
gramme.
But we are still waiting to see, for example,
who the hon. member for Oshawa is going to
blame next. This programme that Ottawa is
offering, of universality, of comprehension, of
portability, it is offering to assist financially.
Where does the hon. Minister of Health stand
in connection with this?
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly),
a man who shows rare good sense on a num-
ber of occasions, said and I quote:
I have come to the conclusion that no
thinking person, no reasonable person,
would try to foist upon the people of
Ontario some kind of scheme that would
not work.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what
the government now admits that they tried to
do. And I expect the hon. member for Eglin-
ton, in his usual sensible and logical way, will
realize that he now will have to brand his
government as being insane, not thinking, and
unreasonable.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr.
Downer), a man who, I understand, has his
ups and downs in other arenas that he goes
into— and I note the hearty laugh from my
colleagues, so I suggest he has probably had
his downs— the hon. member for Dufferin-
Simcoe was in great form in the second read-
ing of Bill No. 136 last year. In that way that
he does, it always reminds me of the Senate
chambers, sir, in a way I will quote you; he
said:
Are we prepared to take one step at a
time and thus avoid costly errors in a field
where costly errors can mean millions in
dollars and open the way to we know not
what?
And then he added a lovely thought, which
only he can do. He said:
The hon. Minister of Health is giving us
a light so that we can go forward.
The hon. Minister of Health— the light that
failed.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe
warned us, in those stern tones that he can
produce. He said government regulations can
only provide average care for the average
patient in average communities under an
average range of circumstances. I wonder
what he thinks, now that the government is
offering Medicare insurance to all comers.
Perhaps the hon. Minister of Health will
adopt the hon. member's slogan in his adver-
tising campaign: average care. He will be
putting through that campaign, he will be
saying, "Average care for average patients
and average communities under average cir-
cumstances." And this will bring a real rush
of customers.
The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr.
Yakabuski), the sage of the Ottawa valley,
hit the nail on the head when he said, "The
Minister of Health, his associates and advisers,
have put a tremendous amount of thought
into the legislation before us now."
Unfortunately for this province that is
probably true-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would say to the
leader of the Opposition that I think perhaps
he is discussing last year's bill a little more
than this year's bill. In his remarks, I do not
mind him referring occasionally to last year's
bill but I think he should concentrate a little
more on the bill before the House.
Mr. Thompson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
think it is important that the House should
know how the hon. members have stood.
After all, they spoke last year; this was on
discussion of principle and I assume that the
hon. Minister is going to tell us the principle
has not changed that much, or perhaps he
will say he has had a retreat.
Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 6 is before the House
now.
232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I think the hon. Min-
ister will tell us, sir. I realize he has been
rather mute and silent about this bill but
I imagine he will tell us he really has not
beat a retreat from Moscow in this bill and
there is not that much change.
An hon. member: Ridiculous!
Mr. Thompson: It is ridiculous. The prin-
ciples—he is a man of principles, sir, that is
what I am trying to get at. If he says that
he stood for the bill last year he is not going
to change his principles this year.
Hon. Mr. Dymond. On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Is it me or is it the bill?
Mr. Thompson: Let me say, sir, that speak-
ing of principles I would like to switch to
another Conservative, and this is on the issue
of principles.
The former premier, the Hon. Leslie M.
Frost, introduced The Hospital Services Com-
mission Act in 1957. This is part of a prin-
ciple, the hon. Minister saying that the
hospital services commission is not com-
pulsory, and going into a strange attitude
about how he abhors compulsion. Yet with 15
or more employees, it seems to me, firms had
to join the hospital services commission. I do
not know how he can clarify in his mind that
that is not compulsion.
It was quite clear to the premier of the
province, the Hon. Leslie Frost. The hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) read the
discussion that took place between hon. Mr.
Frost and the hon. leader of the new party
(Mr. MacDonald). I would like to read that
again, it applies very much to the principle.
The former premier said at one point:
But perhaps in moving the second read-
ing of this bill—
this is on the Ontario hospital services com-
mission:
—I can make some comments from just a
little different angle. I move to do this
because I have received comments of vary-
ing points of view.
One of the points of view I received
from some people is the fact that this type
of legislation goes too far, that it is involv-
ing the government and the people in
commitments in what might be termed
business which goes beyond the realm of
government.
And in this Hansard debate the hon. leader
of the new party calls out "Socialism," and
Mr. Frost replied:
I may say I have always been open to
new ideas and I hope I will always remain
the same.
And then Mr. Frost said:
I think I have been practical in that
way. I have always been practical in regard
to these matters. I do not profess to being
a reactionary. I profess being a member
of the most progressive of all parties.
And he brings a little of other aspects into it.
But then he said:
You must remember that The Hospital
Services Commission Act wound up with
60 per cent of the people being enrolled
because they had to join.
Let that sear into the mind of the hon. Min-
ister of Health: "Had to join, had to join,
had to join."
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am getting it.
Mr. Thompson: I think the hon. Minister
is getting it, slowly; I hope so.
What was Mr. Frost's reason for this?
It was simply because he did not want
private insurance to get the cream of the
crop and leave the government and the tax-
payer with the bad risks.
Times have changed. I admired Mr.
Frost for standing against the pressures of
the insurance companies. I wish this govern-
ment had the same quality today. Things
have changed. The present government does
not know where it is going. It is the height
of inconsistency.
Since I am talking about principles I would
like to illustrate this, Mr. Speaker, with a
few quotes from the hon. Minister of Health
during the last session. In his remarks— and
this was on principle so I think I am quite
entitled to say that— in his remarks on second
reading the hon. Minister starts off with a
bang. He is quoting as he introduces the bill.
In order that we would have clarification
about this bill he says:
This is not Medicare. We have never
pretended it was Medicare.
First of all, I do not know what Medi-
care is. I take it that Medicare is a complex
of two words, "medical" and "care". No
government— I have said in this House
many times— no government can provide
medical care because no government is
capable of practising medicine.
At best, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister is
playing with words.
This is the man this government sends to
Ottawa to negotiate a national scheme. No
wonder, Mr. Speaker, no wonder in his own
words in the Toronto Daily Star, he said that
the government has not given him power to
make an agreement when he does not even
know what Medicare is.
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
233
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister
should be as worried as I am about what
kind of a programme we are going to end
up with.
Now the hon. Minister, Mr. Speaker, got
pretty tough when he was talking about
private insurance companies and I want to
quote him when he talked on the principle of
the bill last year.
We have told them, for instance, that
they must provide a standard contract for
all the people, that they must not cancel
it-
Hon Mr. Dymond: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House
makes no reference to private insurance car-
riers whatsoever. I fail absolutely, therefore,
to see where the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion is now speaking to the principle of this
bill before the House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I stand on
this: There is a bill with amendments before
the House. When we talked of principle last
year these are the remarks which the hon.
Minister of Health made, and unless he is
going to tell me that he has changed his
principle I feel that I am quite entitled to
continue talking on this. He says:
We have told them, for instance, that
they must provide a standard contract for
all the people, that they must not cancel
it, that they must guarantee to renew it,
that they must not sell at more than a gov-
ernment-approved maximum premium; and
all these things they must do on pain of
losing their licence.
That is pretty tough talk on the part of
the hon. Minister of Health to the insurance
companies.
Then the House adjourned. The summer
came, and the tough talking Minister sat
down with the insurers. They did not like
what he proposed and the hon. Minister
backed down, Mr. Speaker, completely and
utterly. He told them, in effect, the govern-
ment and the taxpayer will take the poor
risks, you fellows can have all the good risks
and the hospital group plans. He used this
shoddy escape to patch together his already
compromising medical insurance scheme.
He was frank, at one point when he talked
on principle in the bill that he did not have
the answers which the House needed to prop-
erly evaluate his scheme, and I quote what
he said:
I make no apology for that, that I do
not have the answers; and if I study it for
60 more years I do not expect to have all
the answers/
Well, Ottawa cannot wait for 60 years and
Ontario cannot wait for 60 years. Anyway,
I do not expect all the answers. A few days
ago I asked the hon. Minister a simple ques-
tion. I asked him what funds did he want
from Ottawa for a government-run scheme?
Which of Ottawa's four points could he not
accept? And the hon. Minister could not or
would not answer. Perhaps this summer deal-
ing with the insurance companies has been
too much for him. He chastized my colleague,
the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter),
who remarked he wants to do away with all
the choices that are now existent and intro-
duce only a single government plan.
Let me ask the hon. Minister on this point
of principle: Under his scheme what choice
is there for a family with a low income?
What choice does a family with a low income
have if it wants to get a subsidy? Indeed,
what choice does a family with a low income
have if it wants to get an individual contract
at $150?
Some people have said the philosophy of
the government is that we will say you can
have good health; but similarly, there are
others who will say you can have a Cadillac
if you want it. You are free to have a Cadil-
lac; the problem is can you afford to have
them? Can you afford to have good health?
The question is still in my mind that, even
with your $150, there are going to be people
who will find it hard, for financial reasons,
to get the benefit which they should have
in health.
Now the hon. Minister, Mr. Speaker, has
talked and talked and talked about compul-
sion; and, of course, I find this ironical on a
point of principle. The hon. Minister sits in
that government and he says he is not going
to force people to do anything to join the
plan; and yet standing, or sitting, right over
there,- there is a man who thunders out,
"They are going to integrate or else." Or
else bring in retroactive legislation if they
do not!
How does the hon. Minister mix with him?
On a point of principle it seems to me there
is confusion and contradiction on the part of
the government. He refuses, sir, the hon.
Minister of Health, to recognize that there
is compulsion. For example, my hon. friend
from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) tells me that there
is compulsion in the hog marketing board.
Ontario hospital insurance certainly has it;
education and numerous other areas. And,
of course, there is an area of compulsion in
having to pay taxes for these.
234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, sir, I want to come to the hub, to
the nub of my remarks in this.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Takes two
hours to get there!
An hon. member: What a hub that is!
Mr. Thompson: Well, let me go to the hon.
Minister again. The hon. Minister has said,
sir, when he was talking on principle on this
last year, and I want to quote— I want to be
accurate about what he said: "I say to you,
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Last year, sir, I was
not speaking on the bill that is before the
House today. What I was talking on last
year was passed by this House, sir. This bill
before us now proposes amendments to that
bill.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
Minister of Health saying that there is a
complete change of principle in this bill
from the one last year? Because if there is a
change of principle, and there is no simi-
larity then, sir, admit it. And if there is
similarity, and if there is the same principle,
surely I can quote the hon. Minister's re-
marks on that principle.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
leader of the Opposition had read the bill
before him, he would be able to discern the
principle because it is written in language so
simple "that a wayfaring man, even though
he be a fool, may not err therein."
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, let me say
this: As I understand it, these are amend-
ments to the bill and I am talking on the
bill in principle.
Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps we are
getting into too much debate back and forth
across the floor of the House when only the
person speaking should be debating the bill.
But I must also counsel the member now
speaking to the bill that I think perhaps he
should confine his remarks more to the bill
before the House, and compare the three
basic principles therein to comparable prin-
ciples in last year's bill. I do not mind him
comparing one bill with the other, but he
should limit his remarks about other things
that were in the bill last year and which are
not in this bill.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on this point of
order, Bill No. 6 is an amendment to last
year's bill.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Singer: It is not that the hon. Minister
of Health suggests a complete negation of
it. He has .not repealed last year's bill. By
having amendments he brings the whole
package back before the House.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, on a
fundamental parliamentary principle. The
act of amending a bill does not necessarily
open up the whole bill to complete debate.
Mr. Singer: That is nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is absolute fact,
sir; and I ask the Speaker for a ruling on this
matter.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member who
is now speaking to the bill to try to confine
his remarks more to the comparison of the
principles within this bill with those in last
year's bill. I do not mind members going
back and forth when talking about the same
principles but whenever they move into a
lot of other things I think perhaps we should
draw the line a little closer.
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate this, Mr.
Speaker, and I am sure that when the hon.
Minister was talking last year, on the prin-
ciple of the bill which he now wants to
amend, he was, as I said before when I re-
ferred to hub— I mean nub— when he speaks
he refers to the nub of the problem, and for
that reason, sir, I would like to quote some
of his remarks of last year, and he said:
I say to you, sir, the more government
takes away from people the more likely
they are to become enslaved. In the his-
tory of society-
Mr. Speaker: What has this got to do with
it?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the principle,
as I understand it, that the hon. Minister
was discussing, was compulsion. He was
showing the great danger of compulsion and
he made this rather—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The word compulsion
is not mentioned in this amendment before
the House.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister men-
tioned it in principle last year. And this is
what he said, sir, when he talked of principle
last year:
In the history of society all great nations,
all the great efforts of the past—
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
235
I agree with you* sir; you let him speak
last year on this, sir, so I assume that I can
requote what he said:
All the great efforts of the past, as I
read history, failed for two reasons. They
depended too much upon government.
They became enslaved. They became soft
and faded into oblivion.
If this, Mr. Speaker, is to give true
freedom to the individual, if the govern-
ment is to look after him as far as health
care is concerned providing he is capable
of looking after himself, then why not look
after him so far as his food, his clothing
and shelter and all the necessities, the
basic necessities, of everyday living are
concerned?
Now the key words from point of principle
are that the hon. Minister last year has said:
If government is to look after him as
far as health is concerned, providing he is
capable of looking after himself—
And if that happens the hon. Minister of
Health will see the decline and fall of the
Roman empire taking place in Ontario; and
yet, sir, that is exactly what he is doing in
these changes.
He is allowing anyone to buy a medical
care insurance programme from the govern-
ment, regardless of income. The government
is looking after the health of the people, and
how can the hon. Minister remain in his posi-
tion when he goes into this great mournful,
doleful prediction of what will happen if he
moves into it? I do not think he is moving in
half far enough on this; but I am saying that
he is moving slowly, he is being dragged into
the 20th century in connection with a concept
of health care.
The hon. Minister, again on this aspect of
compulsion, said: "I am not afraid of it." He
said, "I just detest the word." You remember,
Mr. Speaker, when he stood up that night
and almost exploded when he said it. He
said, "I hate the word."
Anyone who has been taught "Scots wha
hae wi' Wallace bled"— and you will have to
excuse the way I say it-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Thompson: But he hates the idea of
compulsion. Of course we have compulsion
in this society; I have gone into that. We
have compulsion in this medical care bill
that the hon. Minister is bringing in, as I
described; and he is really ranting when he
brings up that red herring.
The hon. Minister of Health has said at
another point: "This programme need not
cause any hardship. There is nothing about
the programme that may be developed. In-
deed," he said, "the opposite is the case."
And yet, sir, Ottawa has devised a pro-
gramme, a far superior programme, and has
promised to pay half the cost, but the hon.
Minister is now finding obstructions. He sees
mysterious, integrating, union pension plans.
He will not tell us in the House what the
obstructions are, but he whimpers it up in
Ottawa in the street there, or somewhere. He
does not come in here and tell us where he
stands and what the difficulties are. He hides
that.
He sees a shortage of doctors and hospitals
and, I re-emphasize, who is to blame for that?
Who is to blame? And yet, for years, he has
been crowing about how magnificent the gov-
ernment's programme in this field is. And he
is suddenly worried about priorities, and we
have been pushing him on hospital beds. I
can remember four years ago, at a night
debate, where he was saying the words, "hos-
pital beds". Now he is worrying about priori-
ties, and the principle of giving adequate
service to the people of Ontario. It is a
facade. The hon. Minister cannot bring him-
self to accept Ottawa's plan and the province
is suffering because of an indecisive Minister
and a reactionary Prime Minister.
Let me say it is the Canada pension plan
all over again. It is the hospital insurance
commission all over again. Mr. Drew held
back hospital services for the people of Can-
ada for years; and, similarly, this government,
when we get a great social reform, starts
raising red herrings about the need for doc-
tors and everything else. The hon. Prime
Minister flip-flopped around the place on The
Canada Pension Act and the hon. Minister is
quibbling around on this, like a frightened
nervous child, about Medicare. And I want
to talk about figures.
The hon. Prime Minister told us last year,
I am sorry, the hon. Minister of Health told
us last year that actuarial studies said people
who received assistance and bought their poli-
cies from the government would be involved
in the premium rate of $72 for an individual,
$144 for a couple, and $180 for a family.
Now he is charging less, and he has not said
how this will happen. Costs are confusing.
We noted last year that the Hall commission
figures indicated a total cost for a govern-
ment-run universal comprehensive Medicare
plan at more than $200 million. Now the hon.
Prime Minister is saying that it is going to
cost $280 million. It has been reported that
Ottawa will pay on the basis of $238 million.
I should note that the hon. leader of the New
236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Democratic Party had said that he could bring
in a plan; I admit it was in 1961 but I think
he said that it would cost $165 million.
The problem that we have here is that the
government has access to getting the figures.
We do not. We want to know what the plan
is going to cost. We want the hon. Minister
to tell us about premiums and other things
that flesh out a plan— not sit in silence, trying
to keep everything dark. Last year, he
blandly told us, and I quote from the hon.
Minister:
We changed our well-baby care provi-
sion because the pediatricians were at odds
with me on it. I bowed to their superior
knowledge since this is their field. We
came to the decision about our psychother-
apy provisions after discussing with repre-
sentatives of the Ontario psychiatric asso-
ciation and we are assured that they are
good provisions. And now limitations
which were prescribed by the regulations
for psychotherapy and well-baby care have
been removed.
Well, who is he bowing to? I think the
change that we want is a progressive change.
The hon. Minister moved a little bit pro-
gressively with well-baby care, with cutting
off the waiting period from the point of view
of pregnancy, but why did he make such a
hash of it the first time around? The hon.
Prime Minister got involved last year on sec-
ond reading of Bill No. 136. He told us the
bill had two principles, and he made it sound
as though the principles were carved in
stone. One principle was, he said, and I
quote:
That insurance carriers make available a
standard contract to all the people of On-
tario without regard to their state of health,
age or any other consideration.
And it was not the hon. Minister alone who
was going to get tough with the insurance
agencies. In the House, here, we heard that
the hon. Prime Minister was going to get
tough, too. He lectures us for bringing up the
fact that there are insurance offices in his
home town. Too childish, he said. But where
is the hon. Prime Minister's great principle
today? Gone. He told us, and I quote:
I can only assure him that the thinking
and the considering was done before this
bill was brought into the House.
Well, what is he going to say this year, when
we have to amend the mess which he has
brought up at this time? He chided us, and I
quote the hon. Prime Minister:
I can only suggest that as yet we have
not seen the leadership from Ottawa.
This was his excuse. We have not seen lead-
ership from Ottawa. Well, now he has seen
leadership, and what is he doing about it?
The hon Prime Minister talked about states-
manship last year when there was no concrete
federal proposal on the bargaining table, and
he said and I quote:
I would agree that Ontario plays a very
important part in the national scene as far
as an overall national programme is con-
cerned.
Well, what are his actions, when a national
programme is proposed? He gives a speech
in Montreal. It is odd how the new wave in
that province affects the hon. Prime Minister
of this province, and he used the wrong
figures — figures his Minister of Health
had been told were out of date— and he
leaves the impression with some that they
will have to pay $182 million more.
Mr. E. A. Dunlop (Forest Hill): The only
figures that have ever been announced.
Mr. Thompson: He will have to pay— he
left the impression that $182 million more
will have to be paid for Medicare than they
are paying now. He neglected, Mr. Speaker,
to say that our people are already spending
millions for medical care. And later he apolo-
gized. He was only using Medicare as an
example, he said. As a national statesman, he
did not set much of an example.
Then, last year, Mr. Speaker, we got down
to discussing the principles of Bill No. 136
in detail, and the socialist party and ourselves
proposed 21 amendments. The amendments
were about equally distributed between the
two parties, and in some cases they were
combined efforts. Now I appreciate that
we stood together, the socialists and our-
selves; we stood together on this point of
view and I think the bill today shows what
we achieved. The sections of the bill today
that you are bringing in were either suggested
or proposed by either one of the parties. And
what were the hon. Minister of Health's
reactions at that time? I think it illustrates
what kind of a Minister of Health we
have.
The hon. member for Sudbury and the
lion, member for Woodbine had introduced
a joint amendment effecting waiting period.
What did the hon. Minister say when he was
asked specifically about pregnancies? This,
and I quote:
In studying the matter, sir, we found
that it is customary in all insurance con-
tracts to state either a waiting period of
ten months, nine months, eight months in
the case of pregnancy.
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
237
And it is quite readily understandable when
the hon. Minister said that the insurance
principle is not in determining when preg-
nancy occurs, nor is the insurance principle
^concerned in the matter of providing the
care. The insurance principle, and I notice
this great emphasis on insurance principle, is
only in making provision for prepayment of
this care. And if insurance principle is going
to obtain, and if premiums are to be kept
to a realistic level at all, then certain safe-
guards must be built into all the contracts
and one of them has relationship to preg-
nancy.
Now the hon. Minister reduces premiums
and removes the special waiting period for
maternity benefits under the standard con-
tract. And it is a worthwhile change. But it
raises the question, Mr. Speaker: Did the
hon. Minister know what he was talking
about last year? What of this great love of
insurance principle?
Me is the Minister of Health, not the
Minister of insurance companies; and when
we talk of pregnancy and of mothers,
his reply is constantly not emphasizing the
health principle, but emphasizing the insur-
ance principle. We are glad to see he has
backed down on that one.
Another point I pointed out, and I quote:
No increase in fees at any time will be
enforced until approved by the medical
services insurance council.
And the hon. member for Woodbine added
the rider that doctors should be paid 90 per
cent instead of 100 per cent of the fee
schedule.
What was the hon. Minister's reaction to
that, sir? The hon. Minister's reaction is
really in two parts. Let me quote:
I submit to you that every self-employed
person, whether he or she is a professional
person or in the designated trades as I
believe it is called, whether in business
or commerce, or any of the service areas,
has a right—
this is the hon. Minister saying this:
—to set whatever rate he likes upon his
services.
And then, in another part, he said:
Has the OMA requested 100 per cent of
the fee? I would say "No." They never
asked for it at all. What I would point
out to my hon. friend from Bruce is that
only PSI, so far as I know among the
carriers of Ontario today, has an agree-
ment with a group of doctors known as
participating doctors who have agreed to
accept 90 per cent of the scheduled fees.
We did this deliberately, this fact of the
percentage of the fees. We did it de-
liberately to get the thing rolling.
Well, I would make these points: He did this
to get the plan rolling; that was at 100 per
cent. This was his reason, to get it rolling.
And I would take it then, if that was his
argument last year and if it still has any
validity, if he comes now down to 90 per
cent, I take it the new plan will not get
rolling— or else his argument last year was
just utterly facetious.
Second, he will let the doctors set their
own fee schedule, obviously, and he will not
have an agreement to stop extra billing. I
have heard nothing from him on that. Any-
one who thinks everyone will only have to
pay 90 per cent of the present OMA schedule
will be sadly mistaken, possibly, if he does
not put more clarification in this. And the
hon. Minister's figure of $150 per large
family will then become misleading at the
very least.
Last year, the hon. Minister had done noth-
ing. It is obvious he has changed the bill a
good deal. Has he had a change of heart, Mr.
Speaker; has he had a change of heart? The
man who said he was against any form of
compulsion therefore seemed to correlate
"universal" with "compulsion." The man
who said that, who tried to shift and twist
and wheedle around Ontario hospital services
commission. Keeping a blind eye to it and
saying it was not really compulsion for 15 or
more.
The man who can sit comfortably in that
government, with his remark about being
against compulsion, can sit comfortably when
we hear another clarion call as though an
army is going to come down about pension
plans and bring in retroactive legislation and
force people to comply about their security
measures! The man who can do that must, to
me, be a man who needs a lot of study. It is
for these reasons, sir, that I think it behooves
the hon. Minister to get up on his feet and tell
us where he stands.
He has hidden as though he was some
shivering, apprehensive little child, as though
the job is too big for him. He has hidden
away, when he is demanded by the public to
get up and tell us does he agree with the
federal plan or does he not? I think he has
a duty to perform in that, and if he does not
want to perform it, then I suggest he resign
and let someone else take over.
It is because of this sir, that I move,
seconded by Mr. Oliver— and I may say in
moving this that I am moving to a large
238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
extent the same motion that I did last year,
because with us the principle still holds firm.
We do not have to waffle or change. I have
put several things in and I have explained
them. For example, in my remarks on the
Speech from the Throne, sir, I have explained
that we were emphasizing phasing-in.
It was unfortunate the hon. member for
Forest Hill had not read that speech, because
he suggested we had no emphasis about
phasing-in. We talked about drugs and the
need for helping with prescribed drugs. This
is one of the phasing-in programmes. In order
to emphasize that, in case people had missed
it, these are in our resolution.
And therefore, sir, I move, seconded by
Mr. Oliver that the motion be amended by
striking out all of the words after the word
"that" and the following be substituted there-
for:
This bill be referred to the standing
committee on health and welfare at which
representatives of farmers, trade unions,
the business community, the medical pro-
fession and the public should be invited
with instructions to make recommendations
to the government and the House in
accordance with the recommendations of
the Royal commission on health services
chaired by the hon. Mr. Justice Emmett
Hall, in order that the bill should provide
a health charter for the citizens of On-
tario and without limiting the generality
of the foregoing the bill shall include and
be based upon the following principles:
1. A comprehensive government operated
universal health care programme.
2. The patient shall have the right to
be treated by a doctor of his choice.
3. The doctors shall be paid on a fee
for services basis and shall be free to
practice within or without the plan.
4. There shall be no means test.
5. Mental illness shall be treated on the
same basis as other illnesses.
6. Dental and optical services for child-
dren up to 18 years of age shall be in-
eluded.
7. Other ancillary medical and health
care services such as home nursing or
orthopaedic appliances, chiropractic serv-
ices, and payment of a part of the cost of
prescribed drugs shall be phased into the
programme as independent health services
in order that the programme shall be fully
comprehensive by 1971.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate very much that you
have interpreted the rules rather broadly for
a free-wheeling debate here. I hope that I
can succeed in dealing more centrally with
the principle of this bill, rather than wander-
ing around on the periphery of it in the
fashion that the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion has done.
In the course of his near two hours I think
one would have to concede that he has at
least alluded to, if not made, most of the
points that should be made in opposing
second reading of this bill. Unfortunately,
having made them he has so buried them
in irrelevancies that our problem is to rescue
them so that we can get them pointed sharply
at the government once again.
The hon. member for Grey South (Mr.
Oliver) says I have a job on my hands, and he
is quite right. They are buried so deep in the
irrelevancies that I have got a real job on my
hands. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, dur-
ing previous years in debating this issue we
have put a great deal of solid substance, in
terms of facts and relevant considerations
with regard to Medicare, and I am very glad
that we have done so, because without it the
hon. leader of the Opposition would be
almost as mute as the hon. Minister of Health.
His research staff has fine-tooth-combed all
of our speeches and he has regurgitated most
of them here once again this morning.
Now, if I may deal with one of the points
that was made and see if I cannot help to
rescue it a bit and sharpen it and point it in
the direction in which it should be directed;
and that is the argument the hon. leader of
the Opposition dealt with, away, way back in
the first three minutes of his speech, namely,
the question of compulsion. He said com-
pulsion is not necessarily a denial of freedom.
If you have a higher objective that society
has come to the conclusion should be met,
then it is not a denial of freedom if you
say to the people that everybody will be
compelled to share in the achievement of
that objective. These are not his words— I
would not like to thrust them into his mouth
—but this is my interpretation of that case.
Obviously, it is valid.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you
that it is relatively academic. The much
more valid contention in dealing with the
claptrap that we have had from this govern-
ment on the question of compulsion is to get
right down to the spurious presentation of it
that the hon. Minister started out with last
year, and he repeats this year. I trust I can
quote, Mr. Speaker. This is the hon. Minister
when he said:
I fully anticipate that there will be argu-
ment that everyone should be compelled to
come under our standard plan—
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
239
that standard plan is now discarded:
—and that this is the only equitable and
workable way in which complete and
adequate medical services coverage can be
attained. This really boils down to a
different basic philosophy. Some believe
that governments should regiment the
people, deciding what is best for them and
imposing that decision upon them by com-
pulsion. Others— and we subscribe to this
—believe that the same objective can be
attained without compulsion.
Having made that statement, Mr. Speaker, in
inimitable fashion this hon. Minister goes
on to contradict it:
We believe we have proven this in our
experience with hospital insurance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this hon. Minister knows
—everybody in this province knows— that that
is the case. The simple fact of the matter,
Mr. Speaker, is that the voluntary principle
in hospital insurance and in this bill is sheer
hypocrisy. There is a misstatement of fact
and the hon. Minister, with a shocking lack
of intellectual integrity, gets up and repeats
it as a misstatement of fact. This hon. Minis-
ter knows that the previous Prime Minister
of this province said hospital insurance
would be introduced into this province only
by saying to 60 per cent of the people, who
were in employee groups of 15 or more, that
their employer must enrol them in the plan.
Now when, Mr. Speaker, is the party on
that side going to at least get enough respect
for intellectual integrity that they will quit
this claptrap of saying it is voluntary? They
have been peddling it on the hustings for
years and they are peddling it still.
But, Mr. Speaker, what makes it even
worse is that they did not even have the
courage to do the same thing in this plan.
This is a reversal of what they did in hos-
pital insurance. In hospital insurance they
established a viable administrative unit that
would have low administrative costs, by say-
ing that 60 per cent of the people who were
in the group plan will be included in the
public plan right from the word "Go." What
has this government done? This government
has said, from the word "Go", that the 60
per cent of the people who are in group
plans will be excluded. This will be left as
the gravy for the private insurance companies
to claim; and the bits and pieces, the odds
and sods, the high risks this government is
going to collect together, may, after some
years, be worked into a viable administrative
unit.
What makes it even worse, Mr. Speaker,
is this: In addition to a fundamentally
different approach, they have imposed a
gross injustice on the very people who are
entitled, under another section of this Act,
to get assistance.
For example, a person who happens to be
in a group, and whose income is less than
$500 taxable, or $1,000 for a couple, or
$1,300 for a family— and, Mr. Speaker, there
are thousands of civil servants who get that
kind of income from the government — yet,
Mr. Speaker, these people are not going to
have an opportunity to get the subsidy. They
now have been handed over, enslaved if you
will, to the London Life. They used to be
with PS I, but this government last year, in
effect, euchred and manoeuvred the civil
service association into a position whereby
coverage for the whole of the civil servants
in this province had to be handed over to
London Life. And thousands, indeed there
may well be tens of thousands— I do not
know what the up-to-date figure is after some
modest increases in civil servant salaries in
the past year— I do not know what the up-to-
date figure is of those earning under $3,000,
or $3,500, or $3,800-in other words, those
who are entitled to a subsidy— but because
they happen to be in a group they are going
to be denied the opportunity to get that
subsidy, and this will be true of many other
groups across the province.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this proposi-
tion that we have something here that is not
compulsion is just sheer unadulterated rot;
and I trust that some time soon the hon.
Minister of Health— and I repeat it once
again— will have the intellectual integrity to
face the facts, instead of peddling that kind
of-
Mr. Bryden: Deliberate deception.
Mr. MacDonald: Right.
Now I want to get down to a basic point,
Mr. Speaker, in considering the principle of
any bill or any amending bill for the estab-
lishing of medical insurance. In considering
the principle of this bill, let us go back and
review why it is that governments have
gotten into this field. Why have events forced
them to get into the field of medical insur-
ance? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
the reasons are beyond dispute. The costs
through private carriers became too high,
and, therefore, too many people were not
covered. That is the simple reason as to why
events have forced governments to get into
this field. Society as a whole— and today all
political parties at least pay lip service,
whether they genuinely believe it or not, to
240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the proposition that this kind of exploitation
of ill health should not be tolerated and,
therefore, something has got to be done
about it.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the reason why
governments have moved into this field, I
suggest to you that the only justification and
purpose for their intervention is to bring the
premiums down to a level that will be within
the reach of all families within the province,
so that we can make certain that there will be
universal coverage, that there will be nobody
in this province who is going to find that he
cannot cope with the kind of doctor bills he
will have if ill health ever strikes his family.
On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you
that the government's bill of last year was a
fraud, and it was widely described as such
across this province. And what is more, Mr.
Speaker, without serious modifications the
amending bill that is before the House is
still a fraud.
The hon. leader of the Opposition at one
point, for example, said that the principle of
this bill is radically changed. I do not think
the principle of the bill is radically changed.
The underlying principle of this bill is funda-
mentally the same as it was a year ago;
and what is that principle, Mr. Speaker? I
acknowledge that the government has done
something by way of making medical insur-
ance coverage for a few of the most unfortu-
nate in the province— those in lower income
groups and those who are in receipt of cate-
gorical assistance— but these benefits have
been wrung out of this government only
through the most intensive kind of battling.
These improvements, Mr. Speaker— this is
the point, this is the underlying point in
principle— have been only incidental to the
basic objective of this government, and that
objective is that the provision of medical in-
surance in the province of Ontario is going
to be left under the domination of the insur-
ance companies and the medical association.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we can go even further
than that. One can say that this bill, this
government's legislation, was shaped in co-
operation with and designed primarily for the
protection of two vested interests in the
insurance field.
In case the lion, members may have for-
gotten, just let me go back briefly to review
this by way of documentation. I put on the
record in this House last year the minutes
of a confidential meeting which was the first
meeting at which the framework of this gov-
ernment's Medicare legislation was shaped.
And what was that meeting, Mr. Speaker?
That meeting was a meeting called by the
hon. Minister of Health in November of 1962
down in the Westbury hotel, where he laid out
the principles — and they are essentially the
same principles that we have before us here
still— and said to this meeting, "You go ahead
and work out the kind of legislation that will
achieve this objective."
And who was at the meeting, Mr. Speaker?
Was it representatives of the people of the
province of Ontario? Was it farmers or
labour or business, or any other group there
represented as a group? No. The only people
who were at the meeting were 24 doctors
and 11 representatives of insurance com-
panies. And they came forth with, in effect,
a draft bill, the details of what this govern-
ment could put into effect. And, Mr. Speaker,
Bill No. 163, the bill that this government
passed before the last provincial election, the
bill that the hon. Prime Minister went across
the province saying, "Done, done" on Medi-
care, was shaped by the insurance companies
and the medical association and other related
vested interests in the Westbury hotel and
related meetings.
Then what did they do, Mr. Speaker? The
government, by way of stalling to do more
study, set up a Hagey commission, a commis-
sion on which everybody on that commission,
with one exception, was committed to pri-
vate Medicare. In other words, they so
shaped the operations of the committee that
they could get nothing other than what they
themselves wanted in terms of their private
Medicare bill. And the Hagey committee
took some two years to study the situation.
They came back, Mr. Speaker, with nothing
other than minor revisions of the details of
what were in the secret report of November,
1962. It was a sheer waste of time and tens
of thousands of dollars.
Then the government mulled through this
and came up with Bill No. 136. In other
words, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 163, Bill No.
136, the bills that came down in 1963 and
1965, were shaped by the medical association
and the insurance companies almost exclu-
sively; and the representatives of the great
mass of people in the province of Ontario,
all of those organizations which represent
great numbers of them and are authorized
spokesmen for them, simply did not have an
opportunity to share in any meaningful way
in its formulation. They came and presented
briefs to the Hagey commission, but most of
the briefs were ignored because the frame-
work of the legislation had already been
established.
Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is that
this government has followed through on
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
241
precisely the same kind of approach all this
past fall. The hon. Minister of Health is not
the Minister of Health, he is a water
boy running messages from Queen's Park to
the OMA and the college of physicians and
surgeons of Ontario and to the insurance
companies and not much more. That is what
has been going on during this past fall.
There were two features of the bill last
spring that even this government recognized
were intolerable. One was the proposition of
a differential in standard coverage which
was going to result in the people whose need
was greatest, the aged and the ill, having to
pay the largest premiums for the standard
coverage and the premiums could be graded
down for others. Even, as I said the other
day, even the Toronto Telegram found that
this was intolerable and said so, though they
had been supporting the whole proposition
up until then.
Second, as far as the medical association
was concerned, the OMA had stuck to its
guns on its demand of a 100 per cent pay-
ment on its schedule of fees. This govern-
ment had obediently gone along with it. But
a great battle was put up in this House by
the Opposition parties and the government
recognized that something must be done
about it, so last fall, Mr. Speaker, the govern-
ment took the initiative to reshape the bill.
And who did they bring into their consulta-
tions? Did they bring in the churches which
were in favour of public Medicare? Did they
bring in the farm organizations which speak
for the hundreds of thousands of farmers in
this province? Did they bring in, for example,
the social workers and their organizations,
who had made representations? Did they
bring in, for example, the labour movement
in support of this?
No, Mr. Speaker, none of them. These
people speak on behalf of the people who are
going to benefit and who need Medicare. The
only people they brought in were, once again,
the insurance companies and the medical
association.
Now I am not objecting to the government
bringing in the insurance companies and the
medical association if it were a broad con-
sultation; but this government's legislation
was shaped by the vested interests, and even
after last spring this government went back
to have it reshaped once again by the vested
interests in the field. So that this is a piece of
legislation, to the extent that this government
thinks it can get away with it, to meet the
demands of the medical association and to
meet, even more important, the demands of
the insurance companies.
I was interested, for example, that the
OMA after having many meetings with this
government throughout the past fall, starting
with the hon. Prime Minister and the hon.
Minister of Health back in September and
with many civil servants in the intervening
months, concluded with another meeting with
the hon. Prime Minister in early January of
this year. How were all of these meetings
initiated, Mr. Speaker? Well, here is the letter
that went out from the OMA when they
called their council together for a meeting on
January 5 or 7, if I recall correctly. The
third paragraph:
Subsequently, the government of Ontario
gave notice to us that they propose to
amend certain features of Bill No. 136 be-
fore it was proclaimed. Since then the
board of directors and the executive com-
mittee had several meetings with different
representatives of the government.
Now what right, Mr. Speaker, what right has
this government, in this closed sort of fashion,
to deal only with the doctors in the estab-
lishment of a scheme when the doctors, as
they say in this letter of invitation, are com-
mitted to keeping a private Medicare rather
than the kind of public Medicare plan that
events are driving you to? Yet that is what
was done.
I have a quotation here, for example, from
an article written by Peter Thurling which
has a very intriguing little paragraph in it,
only two weeks ago in the Toronto Telegram,
on January 22.
Only two weeks ago Dr. Gordon Mylks,
president of the OMA, said that doctors
had met at least 12 times in private with
the government.
Then get this, Mr. Speaker: "And they had a
gentlemen's agreement with the Prime Min-
ister not to say anything." What sort of a
hugger-mugger game is this?
Mr. Bryden: It is nice to be on the in
group.
Mr. MacDonald: Exactly! They sit down
and they talk with the medical association
and then they, in effect, commit the medical
association to keep their mouths shut so they
will not let anybody in the province know
that this is going on.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is only the re-
porter's view.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the reporter's
view? This is Dr. Mylks' view.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member just
quoted Mr. Thurling.
242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I quoted Mr. Thurling
who in turn was quoting Dr. Mylks who hap-
pens at the moment to be the president of
the OMA.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: On how many steps
down the chain can the hon. member rely?
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. Minister deny-
ing that what I say is correct?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am saying it is not
evidence.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. Minister deny-
ing it is correct? Is he denying that the gov-
ernment did not, in effect, say to the medical
association that they should keep quiet and
not publish any news with regard to these
discussions?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am just saying what
the hon. member said in his argument.
Mr. MacDonald: What the hon. Minister
is saying is an irrelevancy. What I am saying
is that what the government did was to close
the OMA's mouths so that the public would
not know that the private discussions were
^oing on. So let us not go off into extraneous
points.
Mr. Speaker, I am the last person in the
world to underestimate the role of doctors in
medical insurance. Obviously, you have to
have doctors if you are going to provide
medical care to people. There is nothing new
about that at all. But I trust some time that
the little water boy for the OMA, who
happens to sit in this House as Minister
of Health, will recognize that the OMA
is dominated by medical politicians who in-
creasingly have not even got the confidence
of the doctors of the province of Ontario.
As a matter of fact, I was fascinated, Mr.
Speaker, to read this morning an article from
Ottawa with regard to a meeting yesterday
of the academy of medicine in that city—
where a resolution was introduced by an On-
tario doctor, Dr. Sam Mirsky. Just let me read
two or three paragraphs here so that I will
not break it up and the hon. Minister will
think it is out of context.
"The letter dated January 17th was sug-
gested by"— this was the letter that went out
from the OMA to the various people of the
province of Ontario, urging the doctors that
they should brainwash their patients into
opposition against this plan; a fantastic con-
cept of the ethics of a high profession. I wish
Duncan McPherson had done a cartoon. It
would have been a wonderful opportunity for
a cartoon of a person on the operating table
or in the doctor's office and the doctor with
some instrument in his hand saying, "Now,
you are going to oppose the government's
legislation, aren't you?" This is, in effect, the
kind of thing they were doing.
Well, what is the action now? This is what
was done by these medical politicians who
presume to speak on behalf of the rest of the
doctors. "I do not know anything more
abominable for our profession to do," Dr.
Sam Mirsky told the academy meeting as he
proposed a motion criticizing the content of
the draft letter. The newspaper report con-
tinues:
Steps should be taken in the future to
avoid such an embarrassing situation.
The medical profession was asked by
the provincial association to "engage our
patients in political discussion"; and he did
not think it was "a dignified way for the
medical profession to behave."
We may as a group want to enforce
ideas, but to indulge in politics and send
letters to patients is a pretty cheap way. It
smells of the lobbying you hear of in other
countries," said Dr. Mirsky.
Now lest anybody think that Dr. Sam
Mirsky was not speaking for the doctors who
were attending the academy of medicine,
only three of about 65 doctors attending the
meeting, voted against the motion criticizing
the OMA letter.
Now my point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this.
The OMA is becoming a discredited organiza-
tion in its tactics— even among the doctors.
I venture the prediction that at the January
7 meeting, that was held this year, the rank-
and-file members of the council of the doctors
in the province of Ontario did not authorize
this kind of thing. This is the kind of dicta-
torial move that is taken at the executive
board level, or the publicity committee level,
within the OMA. It is not representative of
the doctors in the province of Ontario.
Let us face that fact. Let the hon. Minister
of Health recognize the fact that if you
want to find out what should be done in
medicine you get out and talk to some of the
rank-and-file doctors instead of getting the
brainwashed views from the leaders of some
of the medical associations.
Out in the province of Saskatchewan, when
this battle was on, one would have con-
cluded that the overwhelming majority of the
people in the province of Saskatchewan were
opposed to it, at least the overwhelming
majority of the doctors. Now we discover, for
example, that 72 per cent of the doctors in
Saskatchewan are supporters of the plan.
For example, Mr. Speaker, instead of the
hon. Minister going over in a sort of a
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
243
slavish, sycophantic fashion with regard to
the Ontario medical association, why does
the lion. Minister not sit down with the
Ontario medical association or the college of
physicians and surgeons of Ontario and do
something about grasping the problems that
need to be solved if we are going to get
health services to the people of this province?
For example, instead of the hon. Minister
getting up here, as an honorary member of
the college of physicians and surgeons of On-
tario and confessing his ignorance—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I object
to that. I am not an honorary member. I am
by law a member of the college.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine, I accept it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot practise my
profession-
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, it
makes my point all the stronger, and I am
glad to have the hon. Minister underline it.
If he is a legal member, why does he not
stand up on his feet and accept the respon-
sibility for protecting the interests of the
people of the province of Ontario?
We have known for a long time that there
is a shortage of doctors. We have known
for a long time that the college of physicians
and surgeons is excluding doctors, and the
case is getting stronger and stronger that it is
done on something other than strictly quali-
fications. It is typical of the hon. Minister's
kind of neglect of important issues that when
we ask questions in this House, he as a
member, has not even satisfied himself as to
what the facts are.
He has now had six or eight questions
with respect to the position of foreign doctors
and on each one of them he has to say to us,
"I will get the answer from the college of
physicians and surgeons." As a member of
it, why has he not already got the answer?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, Mr. Speaker, in
the name of sweet reasonableness at least,
how in the wide world can one person keep
in his mind all of the answers to all of the
unpredictable questions that my hon. friend
and his socialist group are liable to put?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister sits on the council. He must have
participated in discussions with regard to
this.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid that now
we are getting into a field that really does
not come within the ambit of the discussion
today. We are getting into a question-and-
answer debate on the Ontario college of
physicians and surgeons. Now I would rather
the member came back to his original
thoughts with regard to the principles of the
bill.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, with
the greatest of respect, we have covered this
issue, and it has been pointed out many times
that you cannot have medical insurance un-
less you have got doctors; and it is idle for
the government to come in here with some-
thing that will be even more of a fraud if
we do not get more doctors so that we can
implement it. So things that are as close to
the issue as the proposition of why the hon.
Minister has not faced up to the limitations
that are being put on our doctor supply in
the province at the moment, I suggest to
you, is completely relevant to the principle
of this bill.
I will not digress at any great length, but
what I am saying is that the hon. Minister
has been abrogating his responsibilities. He
has been sitting on the council and he has
been hearing these discussions, presumably,
and he has not had enough initiative to find
out what exactly the picture is— so that
having sat on it and having gotten the details,
he would have them at his fingertips, to
answer our questions.
This is not a new issue. This is an issue
that has been written about in the press for
six or eight months, for a year, for a year and
a half. How long does an issue have to be
dealt with before this Minister becomes
aware of the fact that it is his responsibility
to get some information in connection with
it?
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to one or two
fundamental aspects of this question of pro-
viding medical insurance. They have to do
with the question of costs, and the arguments
that have been used that it cannot be dealt
with because the costs are prohibitive. This
is an argument that has been repeated down
through the years— "We have to go slow,"
or "It is going to cost too much," or "The
province or the nation cannot sustain it."
And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, once again,
that in my view the government has been
giving figures for per capita costs that are
ridiculously high.
The Hall commission report, for example,
fixes national averages for the year 1966 at
$24.91. Yet the Robarts government is com-
ing up with a figure of $40. Now I concede
that the $24.91 is a national average, and
maybe the Ontario figure may be $26, $28,
or $30. But the proposition that it is $40
244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is ridiculous. And, Mr. Speaker, just let me
show you how ridiculous it is at $40 per
capita. There are 6.5 million people in the
province of Ontario who are eligible for
coverage— approximately 6.5 million— I think
the latest figures on our population are closer
to 6.75 million. That would mean a total bill
of $260 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, since there
are 5,500 doctors in Ontario, this would work
out at a gross income of $47,200, or a net
income of $31,500, for every single doctor in
the province of Ontario— because the rule of
thumb used in the profession is that one
third of gross income can be deducted for
expenses, and that gives net income.
The latest figures indicate that the aver-
age net income for doctors in the province of
Ontario is in the range of $19,000. So what,
in effect, the hon. Minister of Health is say-
ing, what, in effect, this government is saying,
if it is going to cost $40 per capita, is that the
net income of doctors overnight inevitably is
going to increase by some $12,000. Now I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous.
It would not be tolerable if it did happen,
and it is not going to happen because the
figure is exaggerated.
However, Mr. Speaker, just let me show
you how ridiculous are the calculations of the
government. For the moment I am going to
accept their figure of $40. I invite the House
for a moment to follow some calculations
that may be a little difficult to grasp in a
single hearing, but I think I can get the
message across.
The total cost in the province of Ontario
for 6.5 million people at $40 is $260 million.
The latest figure out of Ottawa, as a national
average of costs on which Ottawa presum-
ably are willing to pay 50 per cent, is now
$34. Where this comes from, I do not know,
but let us accept it. That means that the
province of Ontario will get $17 per capita
subsidy; and that, for 6.5 million people
will be $110 million; this would leave, to be
raised in the province of Ontario, $150
million. But, Mr. Speaker, the government
estimates, in its present proposals, that it
will be spending, out of the Treasury, $70
million to cover the categorical assistance
and the low income groups— all the partially
subsidized groups. So if what has to be
raised in the province of Ontario is $150
million, and the government is proposing on
its plan to put in $70 million of public funds,
that means that the amount that needs to be
raised from all of the rest of the people of
the province of Ontario, to have complete
comprehensive coverage of a subsidy from
Ottawa, is only $80 million.
And what is $80 million if you break it
down into premiums? Well, Mr. Speaker, I
invite hon. members of the House to follow
these figures. I think they are relatively
simple. There are 6.5 million people in the
province of Ontario. But one million of them,
the government has indicated, are not paying
any income tax and therefore are going to
have their premiums paid for completely by
the government. That means 5.5 million
people to bear the cost. Now among those
5.5 million people, there are 816,000 who
are single persons, there are 335,000 who are
couples, and there are 925,000 who are family-
units. Accepting this government's policy that
the premium should be in the ratio of 1 to 2
to 2V2 for a single person, a couple, and
a family— for example the premiums are $60,
$120 and $150 under the present plan-
accepting that ratio, Mr. Speaker, I did some
calculations and discovered that if you had
a premium of $20 for the single person, $40
for a couple, and $50 for a family, they would
raise $77.1 million, just a little under the $80
million required.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if this gov-
ernment will now become part of the federal
proposal, and take the subsidy of $17 per
capita from Ottawa all they have got to do is
raise another $80 million, which is a premium
of $20 for a single person, $40 for a couple,
and $50 for a family, and they can have com-
plete coverage for everybody in the prov-
ince of Ontario.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
More socialism.
Mr. MacDonald: This is not socialism. This
is plain good business sense.
Mr. Dunlop: Is there not a difference?
Mr. MacDonald: No, there is no difference
between socialism and this; but there is a
difference between what this government is
trying to do and good common business sense.
An hon. member: Better watch that fellow.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday—
or the day before yesterday— when the hon.
member for London South was speaking, he
came up with an inimitable pronounciation of
an old word that I am always intrigued by,
the word "potpourri"; he described it as a
"pot pourri". I accept his pronunciation of it
because I think it has very appropriate over-
tones for reference in this particular case. I
want to suggest that what the government is
bringing to us here today is a "pot pourri,"
to be sure. On the one hand, in principle, it
FEBRUARY 4, 1966
245
it a mish-mash of private Medicare, public
Medicare, and mixed-up Medicare in between.
Mr. Bryden: Really mixed up.
Mr. MacDonald: That is its principle.
When you get to the administration, the in-
efficient costs of private insurance are going
to be carried on, for example, among the
60 per cent of our people who are out in
private coverage. Just let me digress here
for a moment, because it is interesting to
note that if 60 per cent of our people in the
province of Ontario— 55 to 60 per cent of our
people in the province of Ontario— are covered
in group plans which have been handed over
completely to the private insurance company,
if there are one million people who are
wholly subsidized— that is another 15 per cent
—if there are 800,000 people who are partially
subsidized as proposed by the government—
that is another 12 per cent— that means then
that there is going to remain 13 to 18 per cent
who are not covered at all, or who will be
on a direct-pay, individual kind of coverage.
In short, what we have got in the adminis-
tration then, Mr. Speaker, is this: We are
going to have a highly inefficient and costly
kind of administration. For 60 per cent of
the people who are under group coverage
with the private insurance companies we
have administrative costs which the Hall
commission documents as being high— 28 per
cent of every premium dollar. But you can
reduce this to four or five or six per cent by
a province-wide public plan.
I think I can conclude this in a few
moments if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker.
On second thoughts, since I have this amend-
ment to deal with I move adjournment
of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, before
moving adjournment of the House; on Mon-
day we will continue with the debate on
Bill No. 6.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 10
ONTARIO
Legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 7, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 7, 1966
Grand River conservation authority, bill to establish, Mr. Simonett, first reading 249
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 254
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading,
continued 257
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Renwick, agreed to 275
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 275
249
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 7, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome,
as guests in the Legislature today, in the east
gallery, students from Danforth technical
school, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of the corporation of the township of
North York, praying that an Act may pass
permitting it to require owners of certain
lands to enter into an agreement re condi-
tions relating to development of the land.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Motions.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South), that this
House now adjourn to discuss—
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
must wait for his motion until after the
routine proceedings of the day, that is after
the questions are made; then he would
present his motion. These are another type
of motion.
Introduction of bills.
GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act to establish the
Grand River conservation authority.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
this bill provides for the amalgamation of the
Grand Valley conservation authority and the
Grand River conservation commission.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker,
might I ask the hon. Minister a question?
Assuming that the bill passes the Legisla-
ture, does he contemplate a date by which
this amalgamation would take place?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes. There will be a
temporary amalgamation for three years and
it will be reviewed at that time; then it will
be set up as a separate authority.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart), notice of which has been given.
In view of The United States Department
of Agriculture's action in cancelling the regis-
tration of insecticides alderin and dielderin,
has the hon. Minister contacted the food and
drug administration in Ottawa with a view
to taking similar action?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that
the hon. member is referring to a news
release that was in Saturday's Toronto Globe
and Mail. I, too, read that article this morn-
ing with some concern. We were in touch
with The Department of Agriculture at
Ottawa and I would like to read this state-
ment, if I might, Mr. Speaker.
The food and drug administration of
Canada does not register insecticides but is
concerned with the tolerances of amounts of
pesticides in products. Registration of pesti-
cides is carried out under The Pest Control
Products Act, administered by The Canada
Department of Agriculture. We have been
in touch however, as I indicated already,
with both the food and drug directorate at
Ottawa and The Canada Department of
Agriculture relative to the recent announce-
ment that was contained in this press release
by The Department of Agriculture in the
United States. We have received an official
reply to our inquiry from The Canada De-
partment of Agriculture and it reads as
follows:
The United States Department of Agri-
culture has not cancelled all registrations
on alderin and dieldrin. On January 28
250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The United States Department of Agricul-
ture sent out notices cancelling the regis-
tration on certain uses of alderin and diel-
derin, principally on forage crops to be
used in animal feeding. This brought the
accepted uses in the United States basic-
ally in line with accepted uses in Canada
under The Pest Control Products Act, the
Canadian restrictions on the uses of alderin
and dielderin on forage crops having been
made known to the trade on August 30,
1965.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? As a matter of
interest, what the hon. Minister is saying
then is that the tolerance level in Canada is
now much the same as the tolerance level in
the United States in terms of usage. Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member would agree it is
just the other way around. We established
the tolerance usage here in Canada— I should
not say "we", in Canada The Department of
Agriculture made the rule on the use of these
two insecticides and The United States De-
partment of Agriculture has now brought its
standards in line with our regulations, as
announced on January 28. There could have
been some misunderstanding here, I believe,
in that they are not totally barred. If one
reads the press release carefully, it almost
looks to be a contradiction, even in the press
release. It looks as though it was a blanket
application and yet it really is not; it is only
on specific crops that the reference is made
to not being able to use it.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Attorney General
(Mr. Wishart), in three parts.
Will the hon. Attorney General appear
personally in the supreme court of Ontario
tomorrow when the Oshawa Times attempts
to obtain an order prohibiting all picketing
by the members of the newspaper guild and
other supporting unions and directing the
reading of The Riot Act?
If so, will the hon. Attorney General
oppose this application?
If not, what steps will the hon. Attorney
General take to prevent an outbreak of
violence?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for
Riverdale, the Attorney General will not
appear personally in this matter, but The
Department of the Attorney General will in
any event be represented by senior counsel
on the application tomorrow before the
supreme court of Ontario.
The hon. member for Riverdale is no doubt
now aware that the action to which he has
referred is between Canadian Newspapers
Limited as plaintiff and five named individ-
uals as defendants. It is a civil action be-
tween the parties, in which the Crown would
ordinarily have no status.
However, in this proceeding, which is part
of the action, an order is being sought to
direct the activities of the sheriff of the
county of Ontario and the Ontario provincial
police force. We will appear through counsel
on their behalf, although they are not parties
to the litigation. We will state our position
to the court at the hearing at which time all
the facts of the matter will be before us.
The outbreak of violence to which the
hon. member refers in the latter part of his
question presumes that some persons will
take the law into their own hands. I have a
great confidence in the common sense of our
citizens, in the rank and file of the labour
unions and in the leaders of labour and man-
agement, who are responsible men.
Every responsible citizen has a duty to see
that the law is respected, observed and main-
tained. Our whole society, our civilization,
our way of life, is based upon the rule of law
and respect for the law. We are proud of the
reputation which our courts and judges have
established and maintained for fairness and
impartiality throughout our history as a
nation.
Any person who defies the law, every per-
son who says it is to be disregarded, flouted,
disobeyed and set at naught, everyone who by
word or deed seeks to bring about disrespect
for the judgment of the courts of the land is
seeking, whether he knows it or not, whether
he realizes it or not, to destroy the society
under which he lives and by which his own
rights as a citizen of that society are main-
tained and guaranteed. He can only be de-
scribed as an enemy of the state, and in the
end result he is his own worst enemy for if
one law can be defied by force because one
group does not like it, then no law is safe. If
one decision of our courts can be torn up and
disregarded by one group of persons, then
the whole of our law and all the decisions of
our courts are brought into disrepute and the
end is anarchy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: When that day arrives,
those who have first lifted their hands against
the law are the first to suffer when their rights
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
251
and their freedoms are no longer protected
under the rule of law.
Surely this is the lesson which history
teaches. Therefore, it behooves every man
for his own security, for the future of his
children and the reputation of his nation, to
see that the law is respected and obeyed. A
man or woman who does not understand that
is foolish. Those who know it to be true and
still persist in efforts to destroy the mainte-
nance of law and order are enemies of society.
Above all, it is the duty of the state to see
that law and order are maintained and that
law is upheld. No government worthy of the
name can do otherwise and it has the right to
expect the support of every citizen since it
acts in the interest of all.
All of the rights which labour has won
down through the years are enshrined in our
law, buttressed and secured by the courts and
by the rule of law. No responsible labour
leader, no member of any political party,
would wish to see that security weakened by
counselling that the law be disregarded. The
whole edifice of our labour relations Acts is
built upon the foundation of law and they
who, like Samson, would use their strength
to pull away the pillars of the house, should
first pause to think of the awful consequences,
that they may bring the whole structure down
to destroy themselves along with it.
We may not like a particular law; we may
honestly believe it should be altered by every
lawful means, and such means are always in
the hands of the people. But no one has a
right to set himself up above the law and he
who does must face all the consequences of
his unlawful action.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.
Attorney General permit a supplementary
question?
If the hon. Attorney General has no status
in the court tomorrow other than to repre-
sent the sheriff and the Ontario provincial
police, who will represent the public interest
in that court hearing tomorrow morning, to
prevent a continued abuse of the process of
the court by the Oshawa Times?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, when the
hon. member says an abuse of the court, I
take immediate issue with him.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South: That is
what the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr.
Walker) said.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I take immediate issue
with him because the court cannot be abused.
To say that the court is being abused is to
imply that the court is either not impartial
or wrongly informed and that those who are
appearing before it are giving false informa-
tion to the court upon which to get its
decision.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): That has
happened.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Both parties— all parties
—will be represented before the court. For
the hon. member to say that the court can be
abused is to imply that he has no faith in the
impartiality or in the wisdom of the court.
I think it ill behoves the hon. member, a
member of the legal profession, to stand up
and make such an implication in this House
or anywhere else in the land.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.
Attorney General-
Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps the supple-
mentary question has been asked and that a
satisfactory answer has been given and I
would not like to see the question develop
into a debate.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I had not really finished
answering the question.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, he has not even started
answering the question. All we have heard
so far is a lecture.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The Department of the
Attorney General will be represented. The
Attorney General will be represented by
senior counsel. I do not propose, as I stated in
the answer to the original question, to say
what the answer will be at this moment, but
hon. members may rest assured that it will
be fully explained and publicly made apparent
in the court rooms of this land.
I would remind the hon. member that
while I am aware that the Attorney General
in Great Britain does appear personally, as
he does in some other areas of the Common-
wealth, the Attorney General in those juris-
dictions is not an elected person, he is
appointed. He is not a political person. I
am, by force of my election to this House,
such and a member of this government; and
no matter how the Attorney General in this
House might wish to remain clear of political
influence the public is bound to gain the
impression, if he appears in court, that he
appears speaking not only on behalf of the
government, but there is bound to be the
implication and the imputation that he speaks
with a political bias.
I think it is important—
252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The hon.
Minister from St. Patrick's (Mr. Roberts)
did it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think it is important,
and most important, that the high civil ser-
vants, the high law officers of the Crown, be
there and represent the Attorney General, but
that they be free to act as such and that the
Attorney General personally do not take part
in hearings which may have a political impli-
cation.
Mr. E. VV. Sopha (Sudbury): Hire a down-
town lawyer tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There will be no down-
town lawyer.
Mr. Sopha: We are glad to hear that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We are making progress.
Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Davis). Have the
regents of the colleges of applied arts and
technology arranged to meet formally with
representatives of all the municipalities in
Ontario that have applied for a college before
making location decisions; and, second, does
the report of the meeting of the board of
regents last week call for the opening of the
first colleges in 1966?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, the council completed their
meetings late on Friday and their initial re-
port to me has not been presented as yet.
As soon as I have this information I will
make it available to the hon. members of the
House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, might I take that
to mean the report would be tabled in toto?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not mean that,
Mr. Speaker. It means that I shall provide
the information. The council, as the hon.
member knows, is an advisory body to the
department and to the Minister. I shall pro-
vide information relating to the questions that
the hon. member has asked just as soon as I
have the information.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond), notice of which has been given:
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
whether the Ontario hospital services commis-
sion was asked to study unified and com-
bined billing procedures for hospital and
medical services? What were the findings of
the study? Are the findings in the form of
a report to the Minister? If so, does the
hon. Minister intend to table the report in
this House during the current session?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question
is "no", the OHSC was not asked to conduct
the study which the hon. leader of the Op-
position mentions.
The organization and methods section of
government carried out a study to determine
the best organizational pattern for medical
services insurance and during this study the
organization and methods section discussed
with OHSC the feasibility of certain common
procedures. The present pattern of organiza-
tion is the one which was recommended
not only by the organization and methods
section but by outside consultants as the best
for our purposes. This also answers the second
section of the question from the hon. member.
The third section: The Ontario hospital
services commission did not submit a report
and therefore the answer to the last part
of the question is since there is no report it
cannot be tabled.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker: I have a
question of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), notice of which has been given:
Did the Prime Minister and/or the hon.
Minister of Health meet with representatives
of insurance companies last week? If so, what
was the purpose of the meeting? What
recommendations respecting medical services
insurance were presented to the hon. Prime
Minister and the hon. Minister of Health
by the insurance company representatives at
the meeting; what specific complaint did the
insurance company representatives raise in
connection with the proposed medical service
insurace rates introduced in this House by
the hon. Minister of Health?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of Health and I
met on Wednesday last with several members
of the board of directors of the Canadian
health insurance association, which is an
association of insurance companies dealing in
health insurance. As to the purpose of the
meeting, I can only say it was arranged at the
request of the association itself and I would
say perhaps there were certain questions they
wished to put before us because of the effect
of what the government might be doing will
have on their business.
In regard to the two latter parts of the
hon. leader of the Opposition's question, I
can only say that in the course of the year
I entertain quite a few delegations in my office
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
253
and certainly in may cases I do not think
they would be particularly pleased if what-
ever we happened to be discussing were
made public. However, I am able to tell the
hon. leader of the Opposition, in answer to
these two parts, they made no recommenda-
tions respecting medical services insurance
and they made no specific complaints in
connection with the proposed rates.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Education,
copy of which has been submitted to him:
Are the postgraduate fellowships provided
by the Ontario government made available
to universities on a quota basis for post-
graduate students enrolled or seeking to enrol
in that university? If so, what is the quota
for the various universities in Ontario; and,
if not, on what basis are these postgraduate
fellowships made available?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the province
of Ontario graduate fellowships in amounts
of up to $2,000 per student have been pro-
vided now for three years. The number of
awards has increased from 782 in 1963-64 to
1,149 in 1964-65 and to 1,572 in 1965-66;
and we estimate that it will be approximately
2,000 in 1966-67. The number of awards at
each institution is based on a quota system
and the quota at each university is based r>n
the proportion that the actual graduate enroll-
ment of the preceding year in the eligible
disciplines, as reported by the individual in-
stitutions, bears to the total provincial gradu-
ate enrolment in all these disciplines. The
allocations in these could vary by one or two,
but the allotments for 1966-67 will be
approximately as follows: Carleton, 87;
University of Guelph, 16; McMaster, 164;
University of Ottawa, 176; Queen's Univer-
sity, 174; University of Toronto, 810; Trent
University, 3; University of Waterloo, 174;
Waterloo Lutheran, 10; University of
Western Ontario, 240; University of Windsor,
60; and York University, 35.
Now these could, subject to the informa-
tion we get from universities, vary slightly
from institution to institution.
I might also add, Mr. Speaker, just as a
note of interest, that we have increased the
total amount that can be available for those
proceeding to their Ph.D. from $4,500 to
$6,000, so that a student is now able to re-
ceive $6,000 when he is going for the doctor
of philosophy degree level.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Reform Institu-
tions (Mr. Grossman), in two parts.
What is the diet of severely disturbed in-
mates placed in detention while in detention;
and what is the difference, if any, between
that diet and the diet of inmates punished by
solitary confinement while in solitary con-
finement?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, in answer to part
one of the question, what is the diet of
severely disturbed inmates placed in deten-
tion, while in detention?— An inmate in de-
tention may be placed on either regular diet
or special diet, the decision being made by
the superintendent.
Special diet is comprised of meat loaf,
bread and tea. This special diet has been
evaluated by our administrator of food serv-
ices, Mrs. I. Beal, who is a graduate dietician.
It contains all the protein, carbohydrates and
vitamins which are required for adequate
nutrition. As a matter of fact, it is nutrition-
ally far superior to that which is recom-
mended by the Canadian council on nutrition.
Its ingredients for a one-day serving are two
ounces of powdered milk or eight ounces of
whole milk; three and a half ounces of grated
potatoes; three and a half ounces of finely
chopped carrot; one ounce of tomato juice or
puree; three and a half ounces of finely
chopped cabbage; four ounces of ground
beef; two ounces of shortening; one ounce of
white or whole-wheat flour; one half ounce
of salt; one tablespoon of chopped onion; one
egg; five ounces of cooked beans.
Insofar as part two of the question is
concerned— what is the difference, if any,
between that diet and the diet of inmates
punished by solitary confinement, while in
solitary confinement?— I am afraid I must say
that here again I find confusion in the term-
inology, which I attempted to clarify in the
House last Friday when I dealt with deten-
tion, segregation and solitary confinement.
I pointed out at that time that there are two
forms of solitary confinement— detention and
segregation. It would appear to me that in
part two of the question, the hon. member
must be referring to segregation.
In all cases of segregation, as in detention,
the decision regarding regular or special diet
is made by the superintendent.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Minister permit a supplementary question?
Does the special diet to which the hon.
Minister refers have some special attributes
which assist an emotionally disturbed person
or a person with suicidal tendencies to over-
come those propensities?
254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obvi-
ously this is a question which really does not
apply to the original question. If the hon.
member wants a scientific answer to this
question by one of our psychiatrists or psy-
chologists, I would be pleased to get it for
him. I would merely point out that we are
one of the few jurisdictions, if not the only
jurisdiction in Canada, which has replaced
what was for years a bread-and-water diet
and which is in existence in practically every
other institution in Canada, including the
federal, with this special loaf.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the annual report of the liquor control
board of Ontario, ending March 31, 1965.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell). He is not in his
seat. Do you wish me to ask it?
Mr. Speaker: So that the Minister may
take it as notice.
Mr. Young: The question is: Would the
hon. Minister inform the House if tradesmen
are now being laid off with the statement
that it is contrary to the policy of the depart-
ment to retain employees who are beyond
the age of retirement when these men will
not be eligible for pensions for one, two or
three years?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by Mr. Worton that this House
do now adjourn to discuss a definite matter
of urgent public importance in relation to
a grave matter of civil disobedience and dis-
respect for the law in relation to the strike
now in progress of employees of the Oshawa
Times.
Mr. Speaker, if I could substantiate with
you why I am making this motion-
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
has submitted his motion to me for approval,
and after making his motion, I have to render
a verdict which he and the members of the
House can either find acceptable or chal-
lenge.
Mr. Thompson: Surely, sir, you would want
to hear my reasons for making the motion?
Mr. Speaker: No, that is not the regular
practice for following motions on adjourn-
ment of the House to discuss a matter of
urgent public importance.
Mr. Thompson: I think it is very hard, sir,
for you to decide whether the motion should
be accepted unless you hear the reasons on
this.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl For the benefit of
the House, I would like for a moment to
review the rule for the leader of the Opposi-
tion, which is in our book on parliamentary
procedure in Ontario, by Mr. Lewis, on page
39.
A member who desires to place before
the House a matter which he regards as a
definite matter of urgent public import-
ance, may move the adjournment of the
House for the purpose of discussing it.
Such a motion must be made after the
daily routine of business has been dis-
posed of and before the orders of the day
are read, and a notice in writing of the
matter the member proposes to discuss
must be supplied to the Speaker. If the
Speaker decides that the matter is of
sufficient importance to justify the move,
the member then moves adjournment of
the House and on this motion can dis-
cuss for a period of ten minutes only the
subject he is interested in. Then any other
members may also discuss the motion for
ten minutes.
I would like also to finish another paragraph
on this rule which I think is quite relevant
and important.
A motion for adjournment under this
rule must be restricted to a single, specific
matter of recent occurrence, and having
been discussed cannot again be brought up
during the same session. The Speaker may
decline to receive a motion for adjournment
under this head, if in his opinion the sub-
ject proposed to be discussed is not definite,
urgent or of public importance, if it is a
subject which could be discussed at an
early date in the debate on the address in
reply to the Speech from the Throne, or
the debate on the Budget, or some other
business relating to it that may come before
the House.
In view of that rule and also in view of
another aspect which I am going to mention
to the House in my ruling on this motion, I
have come to the decision that the motion be
not allowed at this time.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask you, sir, surely
with your impartiality you would want to
hear the reasons why I am making this motion
before you pass judgment? It looks as though
you have prejudged the issue before I have
presented the motion.
Mr. Speaker: No, I have not. The leader of
the Opposition is misinterpreting the rule.
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
255
I am not prejudging what he is about to
say in discussing the motion. I am simply
making the ruling on the motion for adjourn-
ment and am not prejudging what the mem-
ber might want to say regarding the motion.
Mr. Thompson: I am not going to speak
regarding the motion, Mr. Speaker,—
Mr. Speaker: I have to deal with the sub-
ject-matter of the motion as the leader of the
Opposition has submitted it to me and then
give my ruling on it, and that has been the
regular practice in this House over the years.
Mr. Sopha: Surely you should hear the
hon. leader of the Opposition briefly, sir,
before ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I may say that I had some
difficulty in coming to a decision in this par-
ticular matter because the subject-matter of
the motion does appear to be urgent, to be of
public importance and perhaps definite. How-
ever, when I realized that there is an appli-
cation pending before the court pertaining to
this whole matter which was asked today by
the member for Riverdale, I realized that the
matter then was obviously sub judice—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I do want to point
out also that as soon as the matter is out of
the hands of the court it can be adequately
dealt with in the Throne debate, which is
proceeding at present, or in the Budget de-
bate, which is about to begin within a few
days. I would also remind members— and I
think this is important— that if they debated
it today for only ten minutes, which is very
restrictive, it would prohibit them from dis-
cussing it again in this session in a debate
for a no-time-limit reply.
I think that should be ample reason for
the members to realize that it would be better
not to discuss it at this time. But I have no
alternative but to deny acceptance of the
motion at this time because there is an appli-
cation now before the court. If I am going
to follow former rulings and practices that
have come before this House, I have no
alternative but to make that ruling.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, and for the purposes of the record,
Mr. Speaker: Would the member state his
point of order?
Mr. Sopha: Would you tell us, for the
purposes of the record, why your ruling did
not apply to the hon. Attorney General who
made a five-page statement on this precise
matter?
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General, as I
understand it, was answering a question by
the member for Riverdale which is entirely
a separate matter. There was no motion before
the House. He was answering a question, and
a supplementary question. I take that as being
entirely different to the motion, which is now
before the House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this was a
question approved by you? Surely, if you are
going to give the hon. Attorney General
the right to speak on this when it is before
the courts, I fail to see why the leader of
the Opposition cannot have the same con-
sideration.
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
has had a motion to adjourn the House
to debate this subject, which is a totally
different thing to the question being asked
of the Attorney General.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, your argu-
ments are not impressing me; because it is
suh judice you say.
Mr. Speaker: I have made my ruling, and
if the members of the House do not care
to accept it they have the opportunity to
challenge it.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, can you tell me where in the rules it
says that the motion that is put to you cannot
be argued, either prior to or immediately after
you make your ruling? I am not suggesting
that the substantive part that will follow
later can be argued now; I am asking that
when you are asked for a ruling, and when
you are about to. give it, why is there not an
opportunity given to those members who
make the motion to present arguments as to
why the motion should be granted? I fail to
find any ruling on that, sir.
Mr. Speaker: I have never found it the
practice of this House to debate the motion,
because in debating the reason for having the
motion you are debating the motion. In my
time, in this House, the Speaker has always
rendered a ruling whether he accepts the
motion or not; and if I had telephoned the
member, which has been the practice in the
past,, before the House sits at three o'clock,
that I did not accept his motion, then he
could not even rise and make the motion.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order—
256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: I would also like to refer the
House to the mb judice rule, which is also in
our book on rules and parliamentary practice
on page 29—
Mr. Thompson: Are you speaking to the
hon. Attorney General?
Mr. Speaker: Order! It says:
A member, in addressing the House,
should always bear in mind that certain
matters are not to be alluded to in his
speech and one of these is matters await-
ing a judicial decision.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, why did you
not rule the hon. Attorney General out of
order, then?
Mr. Speaker: Does the leader of the Oppo-
sition challenge the ruling?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I do.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I raise on a
point of order before you put the question-
Mr. Speaker: There are no more points of
order. Call in the members.
Mr. MacDonald: I cannot explain the
position of the party vis-a-vis your decision
before we vote?
Mr. Speaker: No. The Speaker's ruling is
not debatable and I made a ruling.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not debating it.
Mr. Speaker: Well, the Speaker's ruling has
been given and the leader of the Opposition
has challenged the ruling so I have no alter-
native but to take a vote.
Call in the members.
As many as are in favour of the Speaker's
ruling will please say "aye." As many as are
opposed, will please say "nay." In my opinion,
the "ayes" have it.
Those in favour of the Speaker's ruling
will please rise.
As many as are opposed will please rise.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the mem-
bers to desist from talking while the clerk
and assistant clerk are taking the vote.
NAYS
Farquhar
Gaunt
Gordon
Newman
Nixon
Sargent
Singer
Smidi
Sopha
Spence
Thompson
Trotter
Whicher
Worton-17.
AYES
NAYS
Allan
Bales
Brunelle
Ben
Braithwaite
Bukator
AYES
Bryden
Carruthers
Carton
Cass
Cecile
Cowling
Davis
Davison
Demers
Dunlop
Dymond
Edwards
Freeman
Gisborn
Grossman
Hamilton
Harris
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Victoria)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kerr
Knox
Lawrence
(St. George)
Lewis
(Scarborough West)
MacDonald
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Noden
Olde
Peck
Pittock
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Reilly
Renwick
Reuter
Robarts
Roberts
Rowntree
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Walker
Wardropc
Wells
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko
Young-57.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "ayes>
are 57, the "nays" are 17.
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
257
Mr. Speaker: I declare the Speaker's ruling cepts of rehabilitation in correctional insti-
upheld. tutions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day I am very pleased to
announce that another agreement to build
a modern detention centre has been reached.
As hon. members are aware, during the past
few months two previous agreements have
been signed. The first one was with the
counties of Hastings, Frontenac, Lennox and
Addington, and Prince Edward, and the
second with the united counties of Durham
and Northumberland; Peterborough and Vic-
toria.
The present agreement was reached be-
tween the city of Hamilton and the county
of Wentworth. This will replace the 90-year-
old jail, on Barton street in Hamilton, with
an up-to-date detention centre. The proposal
put forward by these authorities has been
accepted by this government as one which
qualifies for the 50 per cent capital grant by
the province towards the construction of a
regional detention centre. The date of the
signing of the agreement will be announced
shortly.
In announcing this latest agreement, I
wish to pay tribute to the people in these
communities for the great leadership they
have provided and the informed interest
they have shown in this area of corrections.
I would like to commend the efforts of the
special jail committee, appointed by the
Hamilton council on the recommendation of
their mayor, which was set up in June of
1964 to consider the advantages of a modern
detention centre. This committee was com-
posed of five citizens and three council mem-
bers. They met with representatives of
Wentworth county and The Department of
Reform Institutions, and the recommendations
were later submitted to the Hamilton council.
I also wish at this time to pay tribute to
the leadership of Mayor Victor Copps of
Hamilton, Warden Lome Freeman, and the
reeve of East Flamborough, Kenneth Harper,
both of Wentworth county. They have,
throughout all our discussions, shown the
greatest consideration and co-operation.
In drawing up their plans for the replace-
ment of the jail, the representatives of Hamil-
ton and Wentworth have consulted with us
at all stages and they will construct a deten-
tion centre with the assistance and expert
advice of our regional detention centre plan-
ning committee, in keeping with this govern-
ment's progressive programme of replacing
the old local jails with modern institutions
more capable of carrying out the best pre-
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion regarding the comments?
Mr. Speaker: It is not customary during a
ministerial statement, but if the Minister
cares to answer a question I shall allow it.
Mr. Gisborn: I assure you, sir, it is short.
There is quite an omission in the statement.
Could he tell us if they have decided on a
location for the building?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, at this
stage of the agreement, it has been the policy
to avoid the discussion of locations, although
I am sure that the authorities concerned have
pretty well established where it is going to
to be. They have not so advised us. We
have an idea, as I say, that they do have one
in mind, but I am not at liberty at this time,
Mr. Speaker, to advise the hon. members as to
whether this is definite or not.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Resuming the ad-
journed debate on the motion for second
reading of Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
( continued )
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, when the debate concluded on Fri-
day I was in the process of elaborating on
an argument, and was about to consider the
question of the amendment that is before
the House.
I would like today to briefly recapitulate
the main points that I was presenting to the
House and then proceed to the amendment.
I will do so by a listing of these points.
First, from the outset the government Med-
icare legislation has been shaped by, and de-
signed to serve primarily, the interests of the
medical association and the insurance com-
panies. The present amending bill is once
again shaped in accordance with the dictates
of these vested interests at the expense of
providing the most efficient and inexpensive
coverage for all the people of Ontario. The
government has bowed to the public outcry
against paying 100 per cent to the OMA
schedule of fees, but the bill has gone far
to compensate for this so-called "cut" by the
258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
assurance that the government payment for
all medical welfare cases will be on the full
90 per cent, instead of pro-rating at approxi-
mately 30 per cent as has been the case in
the past.
Furthermore, the government has not done
anything to get an assurance from the OMA
that extra billing will not take place. Simi-
larly, Mr. Speaker, the government has bowed
to the refusal of the insurance companies
to provide coverage for the aged and ill at
something other than the highest premiums
on standard contracts. Instead the govern-
ment has generously assumed full responsi-
bility for providing a standard contract,
thereby leaving the insurance companies with
the low risk coverage while accepting all the
highest coverage themselves.
Second, the estimate of the government of
an overall $40 per capita cost is ridiculously
exaggerated. If this estimate is valid it would
mean an overnight increase in income for
Ontario's 5,500 doctors to just beyond
$47,000 gross or $31,000 net as compared
with the latest income tax statistics which
reveal the incomes of doctors already as the
top among professions in the range of
$19,000.
Third, even with the exaggerated figure of
the government accepted as valid for pur-
poses of calculation, these calculations indi-
cate that, with the current offer of financial
assistance from Ottawa, it would be possible
to provide complete coverage for everybody
in Ontario at lower premium rates than now
being offered to the most heavily subsidized
groups under what has become dubbed
"Robartscare". The estimate of the govern-
ment of $260 million total cost, that is 6.5
million people at $40 per capital, would be
met by $110 million subsidy from Ottawa,
that is 50 per cent of the national average of
$34— a figure now emerging more and more
from Ottawa.
Of the remaining $150 million that would
have to be raised in the province, the gov-
ernment is proposing to spend from the pub-
lic Treasury some $70 million, so that there
would be only $80 million to be raised in
premiums. That can be covered by a pre-
mium of $20 for a single person, $40 for a
couple and $50 for a family as compared with
the government figures of $61, $120 and $150
on their standard contracts or under the sub-
sidized proposals $30 for a single person and
$60 for a couple or a family.
Mr. Speaker, these calculations simply re-
veal the indescribable pot pourri that
"Robartscare" is. In principle it is a mon-
strosity; partly private, partly public and
partly a mishmash of both. The result is
high administrative costs throughout the
whole plan. For example, the 55 to 60 per
cent of our people under group coverage are
left wholly at the mercy of the private car-
riers. Even the low income groups caught in
the group coverage as a condition of employ-
ment will be denied a subsidy to which they
are otherwise entitled.
In striking contrast to what we did when
setting up hospital insurance, all of this group
will be left to the private carriers instead of
being brought in to provide the basis for a
viable, efficient administrative unit. In short,
more than half of our people will be left to
carry the burden of the high administrative
costs of private insurance, which represents
about 28 cents on every premium dollar.
For the 1.8 million people who are going
to be covered by this government, represent-
ing 27 per cent of our population for whom
premiums will be wholly or partially subsi-
dized, again there will be unnecessarily high
administrative costs in the government plan.
How high, it is impossible to predict at this
point.
Finally, there will be some 13 to 18 per
cent of our people left to individual coverage
either from the private carriers or from the
government standard contract, a figure which
indicates just how difficult it is going to be
for Ontario to meet the qualification of uni-
versality in order to get the federal subsidy.
In summary then, Mr. Speaker, what this
House is being asked to consider and accept
is a plan shaped primarily to meet the inter-
ests of the insurance companies and the
OMA and the mythology which each of these
vested interests perpetuates for their own
benefit. The government proposes to impose
upon us a hodge-podge of a plan in which
administrative costs will be high across the
board, and premiums will be three or four
times what they need to be under a compre-
hensive universal plan operated through a
government agency with the federal grants
now under consideration. It is incredible that
this government should be such a slavish
minion to the vested interests in the field, at
the expense of both the medical needs and
the pocketbooks of the people of the province
of Ontario.
We in the New Democratic Party will fight
this fraud, this poor substitute for the real
thing— and that is a dictionary definition for
a fraud— not only because it is poor in itself,
but equally important, Mr. Speaker, because
if this government were to give the kind of
leadership the present situation demands the
real thing is now within our grasp.
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
259
Events at Ottawa have forced the Liberal
government, after nearly 50 years of procrast-
ination, to the threshold of action. I acknowl-
edge, as this government has contended, that
Ottawa is still waffling. The hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Thompson) pleads, for
example, that the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) should not, in the secret con-
ferences at Ottawa, whittle away at the uni-
versality principle. I wish I were confident
only this government were whittling away at
it. The Liberals at Ottawa are already talking
in terms of whittling it down to 90 per cent
for qualification on the federal grant. In
short, the danger arises from both provincial
Tories and federal Liberals, neither of whom
have had any firm conviction on this issue,
as experience down through the years has
proven.
But instead of welcoming Ottawa's waffling
in order to justify its own half-baked plan,
this government should now be taking the
kind of lead which would give not only the
people of Ontario but all of Canada a first-
class Medicare plan along the lines mapped
out by the Hall commission report.
What is the situation at the moment, Mr.
Speaker? Following the federal-provincial
conference of Health Ministers last week
three provinces— Newfoundland, New Bruns-
wick and Saskatchewan— have accepted the
federal proposals. The premier of B.C. has
indicated that minor changes needed in their
plan in order to qualify for federal grants will
be made. The Quebec plan conforms with
all the federal requirements, it only remains
to work with the fiscal equivalent.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the indecision of
Ontario stands to date as the main roadblock
to this nation finally being able to achieve
this major piece of social legislation, which
has eluded us for generations. Ontario is the
one province that can put an end to Ottawa's
waffling. With a firm commitment in prin-
ciple from Ontario the overwhelming
majority of the Canadian people would be
in on the federal plan and the federal gov-
ernment could waffle no longer.
That is what this government should be
doing. That is what we in the New Demo-
cratic Party plead that this government do.
Forget their outmoded ideologies; quit pay-
ing lip service to the mythology of the OMA
and the insurance companies; give the leader-
ship which events demand of them in the
interests of the people of Ontario, and be-
yond Ontario to the people of this whole
nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with the hope that the
government can be persuaded to this, I turn
to the Liberal amendment. Perhaps I do not
need to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, but
we have had some confusion regarding pro-
cedure on second reading, so just let me
pause for a moment to discuss it.
An amendment on second reading is of a
very special type. It strikes out all the words
after "that" in the motion, "that the bill be
now read for a second time," and substitutes
words which are designed to defeat the
motion. But when you put the question, Mr.
Speaker, in accordance with your ruling last
year, which was approved by this House
and is to be found on page 4424 of Hansard
for June 21, 1965, it will be put in the tradi-
tional form which you have restored to this
House, namely: Shall the words proposed to
be struck out stand as part of the bill? Or
more simply, shall the bill be now read a
second time?
We, Mr. Speaker, shall vote "no" because
we are opposed to second reading of this bill.
If that motion is defeated, then all the words
after "that" will not stand as part of the
motion, they will in effect have been struck
out and the Liberal amendment offers a sub-
stitute wording which will then come before
this House. When, and if, it does, Mr.
Speaker, we shall oppose the Liberal amend-
ment and I want to give my reasons.
Basically what the Liberal amendment
calls for is further study, that the matter be
referred to a standing committee in order
that still another opportunity will be given
to a wide range of community organizations
to present their views. But as the hon. leader
of the Opposition has already reminded this
House, this has already been done, not only
before the Hagey committee, but before the
Hall commission, which has provided us with
the detailed stages of implementing full
medical insurance. After 50 years of govern-
ment procrastination, Mr. Speaker, the last
thing in the world we need is further study
of medical insurance. This issue has already
been studied to death. We do not need any
more study.
Programme for action has already been
mapped out by the Hall commission. All we
need is a government with the conviction to
move, particularly now that it is possible to
move with the federal proposals, to achieve
this. Obviously our chief requirement is to
have an official Opposition that does not con-
fuse the issue with proposals for retreat to
more study. I cannot help but wonder
whether the kind of amendment that has
been presented to this House was not even
suggested by the federal Liberals in order to
justify their continued waffling.
260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But, Mr. Speaker, the amendment intro-
duces a second confusion on the tactical
level. Certainly all those who accept the Hall
commission's blueprint for full medical insur-
ance—covering eventually drugs and dental
and optical needs, as well as other ancillary
medical and health care needs, such as home
nursing, orthopaedic services, chiropractic
services, and so on— are not opposed to these
items in principle. But, Mr. Speaker, surely the
only practical way of achieving that ultimate
goal is to take one step at a time. The first
step is to establish universal coverage for
doctors' bills and that step can be taken
now. A study which takes us back for still
more wallowing around, in consideration of
later steps that are years ahead, can only
divert attention from the immediate step and
postpone the achievement of progress that is
now within our grasp. It would be difficult,
Mr. Speaker, to conceive of an amendment
that is more tactically inept than the one
which the Liberals have put forward.
What this Legislature needs now is an
opportunity to force this government to take
that first step without any more delay. This
amendment gets them off the hook, so that
we will be stuck with this government's
highly unsatisfactory proposals. It is a per-
fect example of how the Liberals bungle
their job of official Opposition, and through
their ineptitude, leave this province to suffer,
without any relief, the inadequacies of Tory
legislation.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, if the
Liberal amendment is put to the House, we
shall vote against it. We shall do so in the
hope that a majority of the House will clear
the Liberal amendment out of the way and
make it possible for an amendment that
meets the immediate need. I hereby give
notice, if this opportunity arises, that I shall
move an amendment which offers this sub-
stitute wording:
That this House believes that the needs
of the people of Ontario cannot be ade-
quately met by mere tinkering with The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, and
proposes as alternative that the Act be
replaced by legislation:
(a) establishing a universal, comprehen-
sive medical services insurance plan under
public administration which will qualify
for federal assistance under the announced
policy of the federal government, and
(b) containing such additional interim
provisions as may be deemed necessary to
provide protection for lower income groups
pending the coming into force of a joint
federal-provincial plan.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that such an amend-
ment will provide—
An hon. member: Why does the hon.
member not move a sub-amendment?
Mr. MacDonald: One cannot under the
rules of the House.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is
why the whole thing is just an essay in fancy.
Notice, we cannot even vote on it.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, we may not be able
to vote on the Liberals'. Why does the hon.
member not get to know the rules of the
House?
Mr. Singer: He is going to make the first
vote with us-
Mr. MacDonald: Such an amendment will
provide an opportunity for a clear-cut vote,
calling for Ontario's immediate commitment
for participation in the federal plan now
under consideration, and at the same time
providing the necessary interim steps to assure
coverage for lower income groups pending
the commencement of a joint federal-provin-
cial plan on July 1, 1967, Canada's 100th
birthday.
Mr. E. A. Dunlop (Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, during the past few days, in the
debate on second reading of the bill before
us, we have been treated to something of a
display of verbal fireworks. It was introduced
in remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion by what might be regarded as the fuse.
It was rather long and it sputtered a bit.
We then came across the full pyrotechnic
spectacle in the remarks of the hon. leader
of the ND Party and like pyrotechnic spec-
tacles, it really introduced nothing of sub-
stance and left nothing behind it, except a
certain after-image in tired eyes, in this case
tired ears.
Mr. Speaker, one wonders why the hon.
leader of the Opposition and the hon. leader
of the ND Party have opposed the govern-
ment's bill so vociferously, so vigorously and
in some instances, so vituperously. I imagine
it is because they are afraid that a plan which
does not conform to their preconceived
views of a universal compulsory Medicare
programme is going to succeed— a plan which
is not the star to which they have attached
their particular political wagons. I think
their fear of the success of the government
plan is very well founded. It is popular, it
meets the needs of those most in need— the
aged, the infirm and those with low incomes
—and it will be seen by the majority of the
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
261
people of this province as appropriate to the
circumstances of this time.
I think the hon. leader of the Opposition
and the hon. leader of the ND Party are not
cruel men and they are not cynical men.
Yet I submit that it is a cruel delusion to
suggest to the people of Ontario that simply
implementing a plan of universal compulsory
Medicare will provide for the distribution of
medical services of a high standard to all the
people. I am sure they are not cynical and
have not based their opposition on some
attempts to gain more votes in the future; in-
deed, I think they are sincere in all that they
have said and I fear only that they are out
of touch with the realities of the situation
and of the day.
Mr. Speaker, what are these realities? In-
deed, they themselves have mentioned some.
The first is that almost 85 per cent of the
people of Ontario already are covered with
some form of medical service insurance. The
second reality is that the plan before us will
meet the needs of the aged and the infirm
and persons of low income, who no doubt
form a substantial proportion of that 15 per
cent who are still without coverage. Thirdly,
there is the reality of cost.
I believe that the $50 million to $60 million
which the government's proposal will cost in
a year is quite justified, indeed, essential.
But I believe the $252 million a year which
I estimate that a universal compulsory plan
would cost is not justified at this point of
time; the plan which would require the
Treasury of Ontario to furnish $133 million
and which, under the present but rather
obscure offer from the government of Can-
ada, would require that government to furnish
a further $119 million.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some
fun with figures. The leader of the ND Party
had some fun with figures on Friday but I
fear that the answers that he achieved were
in error, at least I cannot achieve the same
answers. Speaking in Montreal some weeks
ago our hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
estimated that a universal compulsory plan
would cost $280 million a year, assuming for
the purposes of easy calculation that the
population of Ontario is seven million— it is,
actually, according to the latest DBS statistic,
6,832,000— and that the per capita cost of
medical services insurance would be $40. That
estimate of $40 per capita was based on the
assumption that the presently uninsured group
would use medical services at the same rate
as the presently insured group and that 100
per cent of the doctor's bill would be covered.
Under the present proposal to meet 90 per
cent of the doctor's fee the per capita cost
will be reduced to $36. Well, then; if we
multiply $36 by seven million, we reach an
estimated cost of $252 million. In these
kinds of projections and estimates the fact
that that is $8 million less than the esti-
mates used by the hon. leader of the ND
Party is really not of very great significance.
What is of significance, Mr. Speaker, I think,
are the following calculations.
In an effort to suggest that the govern-
ment's mathematics were unsound and that
the government cared more for the welfare
of the doctors than the welfare of the people,
the hon. leader of the ND Party went through
calculations purporting to show the aver-
age gross income of doctors under the
government plan would be some $47,000 a
year, yielding a net income of some $32,000,
being two-thirds of the gross. These figures
he contrasted with the most recent average
income of doctors as found in Dominion
bureau of statistics' taxation statistics, being
some $19,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I have gone through these
calculations over the week-end and I find
this: There are 9,691 doctors on the rolls of
the college of physicians and surgeons. Not
all of these doctors are in practice. I am
told that PSI has 6,500 participating doctors;
and, on the basis of very considerable experi-
ence, PSI believes that 85 per cent of the
practising doctors in Ontario are among their
participants. Thus we can estimate quite
firmly that there are about 7,600 practising
doctors in Ontario. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we
divide that into $252 million we find that
the average gross income of doctors would
be $34,500, yielding an average net income of
about $23,000, again two-thirds of the gross.
Had I used 6.5 million as the population of
Ontario, as the hon. leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party did, instead of seven million, of
course, that would have yielded a still lower
figure.
Nevertheless, the estimated average net in-
come of some $23,000 is not greatly out of
line with the Dominion bureau of statistics'
figure of some $19,000, particularly when you
remember that the DBS figures are perforce
several years out of date, and it would be
several years before there was total participa-
tion in any scheme of medical services in-
surance.
More particularly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that this calculation indicates quite clearly
that the government is not proposing, as the
hon. leader of the ND Party would suggest,
some new and special bonanza for doctors.
The government's interest is in the welfare of
262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the people of this province. It does suggest to
me, however, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of
the ND Party is perhaps not always as care-
ful as he might be in selecting the data which
he uses for his calculations upon which he
bases his conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition argues that, as almost 85 per cent of
the people of the province already have
medical services insurance, the costs are
already being met and it would make little
difference if the whole plan were to be trans-
ferred from the private to the public sector.
As an exercise in pure economic theory, I
could agree with him. But as a measure to be
taken by responsible government, I simply
cannot agree with him. I am sure he would
not suggest that all that need be done is to
request individuals and employers hencefor-
ward to pay their premiums to the Pro-
vincial Treasurer of Ontario. I am sure he
would realize that to transfer medical serv-
ices insurance from the private to the public
sector would require the imposition of new
taxation. I am afraid he would not perhaps
recognize that there are at this time other
objects of public expenditure of greater
immediate importance when reaching budget-
ary decisions, and when determining the im-
position of new taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that I believe
that the $50 million or $60 million that the
government plan would probably cost is an
entirely justifiable expenditure by this gov-
ernment, and to be voted by this Legislature
at this point in time. I do not regard the $252
million that a total scheme would cost can be
justified at this point of time.
Let me cite in the health field alone
certain matters which I believe have a higher
priority in expenditure, and I mention first
the field of medical education. I am told that
the capital costs alone for the medical schools
in this province in the next seven years will
be some $300 million.
I have no idea what the operating costs
will be. I have no idea what the capital and
operating costs will be for the education of
nurses and pharmacists and other health
workers. But I am quite certain that they will
be enormous and they will have to be met.
So far as specific programmes in the health
field are concerned, I believe that a scheme
which would provide nursing home care for
those persons who no longer require to be
treated in hospital but who, for one reason or
another, can no longer be treated at home,
has a higher priority than universal, com-
pulsory Medicare. There are other examples
that can be found, such as, I think, better
access to capital funds for hospitals, but I
will not pursue this field.
The hon. leader of the Opposition would
probably suggest that, in the fullness of time,
the government of Canada will provide the
necessary funds and that it need not be a
great worry to this province. Well, certainly
for 50 years the party that now enjoys power
in Ottawa has shown some interest in medical
services insurance; and certainly, since some
few weeks before the last federal general
election was called, they made noises which
were quite indicative of impending action
such as perhaps next year; perhaps the year
after; perhaps some time.
That government will probably achieve,
this year, a surplus on the national accounts
basis and will have to consider how such
surpluses are to be distributed in the best
interests of this country and its people.
Indeed, the Canada economic council believes
that, if the goals it has set are achieved,
there can well be a very substantial surplus
at Ottawa, on a national accounts basis, by
1970. But in placing Medicare at the top of
its list of political priorities, I believe the
government of Canada has misjudged what it
must best do to meet the needs of the people
in a growing Canada. Perhaps they will make
an offer so attractive in the Medicare field
that this government, and no other govern-
ments, could turn it down. But I am sure this
government would like to be sure that the
government of Canada has considered the
priorities, and considered them with great
care and insight— and on the basis of a real
study of the needs of the people, the pro-
vincial governments and the municipal gov-
ernments.
Speaking at what the hon. member for
Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) described last week as a
great gathering in Toronto, the Rt. hon. Prime
Minister of Canada said that he really had no
wish to see the government of Canada inter-
fere with the provinces but he did not want
to give up the government of Canada's
rights to help them with the things they
needed to do. Perhaps he believes that Medi-
care has the highest priority.
Certainly someone told me, after the July
Dominion-provincial conference last summer,
that the definition of co-operative federalism
might be put thus; that the Prime Minister
of Canada says we don't care what the prov-
inces want to talk about, we want to talk
about Medicare. In any event, I would cite,
as higher priorities than universal com-
pulsory Medicare, some of these things: Aid
to higher education; a well-balanced drive for
medical manpower, of which we are going to
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
be desperately short in the mid-1970's unless
the drive is launched today, as every doctor
who is going to graduate in 1971 is already in
medical school; a plan for manpower develop-
ment; greater abatements of taxation to the
provinces to meet their needs and that of
their creature municipalities; and selective
reduction of certain taxes. These are reasons
why we should not simply look to Ottawa
for sufficient funds to finance a total Medicare
programme but we should also look to them
for a planned use of the national accounts
surplus which they may well develop.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the amend-
ment before us will be defeated; but I would
hope indeed that all hon. members of the
House, even those sitting opposite, will in
fact vote for second reading of this bill as a
responsible measure fitting into a programme
of development of both health services and
the potential manpower and other essential
services of this province in a truly responsible
fashion.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
when I heard the hon. member for Forest
Hill speaking on this bill, I rather gathered
from his remarks that he felt that govern-
ment moneys could be spent on more im-
portant things than going all out for a com-
plete comprehensive health scheme in Ontario
and Canada. That, I gather, is his opinion;
and I want to say to this House, Mr. Speaker,
through you, that I completely disagree with
him.
Mr. Dunlop: You surprise me terribly.
Mr. Trotter: There is nothing more impor-
tant than the health of our people. It is our
greatest resource. It is up to us to see that
our people are healthy and, if they are in ill
health, to restore them to good health as
quickly and as inexpensively as possible. And
there is only one way to do it, and that is
to have a comprehensive universal health
scheme. Anything less is just not good
enough. It is obvious through the years that
I have had the opportunity to discuss this
principle in this House that the present Tory
administration has no desire whatsoever to
bring it about.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of
Health was once speaking in regard to this
principle, at a time when he was running for
the leadership of the Tory party, he let the
young Progressive-Conservatives know that
he wanted nothing to do with such a scheme.
Then, before the last election, we went
through all the time and expense of discussing
Bill No. 163 which, at that time, was obvi-
ously a phony bill, and meant for an election
on a phony campaign. When the election
was over, and we came and discussed and
went through the whole routine of Bill No.
136, it was obvious that it also was a phony
bill that the government had no intention of
putting into effect. We told them at that time
that they obviously were just putting on a
show to literally bring about a fraud.
That term has been used on many occa-
sions on this side of the House in referring
to the legislation as in Bill No. 136. I remem-
ber how shocked the government benches
were when the hon. leader of the Opposition
last year called it a fraud. But that is what
it is. And now that we have Bill No. 6,
which is a supposed amendment of Bill No.
136, all we have left of last year's bill is five
sections-sections 7, 22, 23, 26 and 27. In
other words, the whole bill is completely
changed and it is a ridiculous way to bring
before this House a chopped-up piece of
legislation such as we have before us today.
The hon. member for Forest Hill, Mr.
Speaker, has said that this bill as we now
have it before us will bring medical services
to all of the people. He said that about 85
per cent of the people are covered. Now I
say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it will no more
bring medical services to all of the people
than did the previous Tory legislation we
have had. It is true the Tories are slowly
beating a retreat. They have had to concede
a bit at a time and if we were to burn all
their speeches that they have made in the
past few years, including your speeches, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, it would make the biggest
bonfire since the English warned of the com-
ing of the Spanish Armada. Bit by bit they
have retreated on the principle of medical
insurance and we on this side of the House
will not be happy, will not be satisfied, until
they are in complete and absolute retreat.
It stands to reason, Mr. Speaker, by the
logic of events, because of the demands and
needs of our people, that we are going to
need a comprehensive universal scheme. All
this present bill does is subsidize the insur-
ance companies, and yet if a worker with a
family wants to be subsidized, he literally has
to take a pauper's oath. This is an insult to the
dignity of our people. To say that once a
family man is making $3,600 he no more
needs a subsidy for his insurance bill is non-
sense. Even the social planning council of
Toronto in 1964 said that the minimum in-
come for a family of four was $4,319. That
is about $83 per week and yet that family is
not quite $1,000 over the minimum that is
set by this government.
264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It .is obvious that we are not helping the
people who need it most, and that is the great
number of people who over the years have
managed to pay their bills, but who today,
with the high cost of living and with the high
cost of drugs, are simply not going to get the
services they require unless they take a
pauper's oath.
Let us bear in mind that it is not only the
premium of $150 that they will have to pay
under this legislation for medical services, but
they still have the hospital premiums, they
still have the dentist bills, they still have drug
bills, and so we are not beginning to meet
the needs that are definitely required.
The hon. member for Forest Hill said 85
per cent of our people are covered. Certainly
on a national scale the Hall report said that
about 41 per cent of our people across Can-
ada are being ignored. There are approxi-
mately 8.2 million people who are not receiv-
ing adequate insurance. It is true there are
people who have insurance but that insurance
does not adequately cover them.
For example, about four years ago, a sur-
vey was carried on in the city of Hamilton
as to how much of the medical bills of an
individual are paid, even though insured.
They found in Hamilton by far the best was
PSI, but even PSI only paid 58.7 per cent of
the doctors' bills. The Travellers' Insurance
Company was the worst in Hamilton; it paid
30 per cent. In other words, a lot of people
are supposedly insured but when they come
to collect on their policy they find they do
not get nearly the adequate insurance they
are supposed to have.
To say that we are adequately insured is
wrong; to say it is available is ridiculous. It
is available— and this is said many times, Mr.
Speaker, in this House by many people— it is
available if you have the money. Bear in
mind that a good many thousands of our
people simply do not have the money.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when this govern-
ment will ever come to the realization that
its duty and its first obligation is to the
people of the province of Ontario, not to
the insurance companies or to the doctors.
Far too much attention has been paid to that
strongest of all lobbies, the insurance com-
panies, and that extremely strong lobbv, and
good friend of the hon. Minister of Health,
the Ontario medical association.
Just for a moment, let us take a look at
what another doctor says— Lord Cairns, who
in 1963 was the president of the Royal
college of physicians and surgeons in Great
Britain. He was one of their top doctors.
This is what he said of the medical insurance
scheme in Great Britain:
Patient and doctor have been served
well by Britain's health plan. The plan has
fostered better treatment, hospitals and re-
search.
To interject here, Mr. Speaker, I think that
is very important to emphasize. So many of
the doctors of the Ontario medical associa-
tion ask: "How are you going to supply the
doctors?" and "How are you going to treat
them all?" Yet Lord Cairns said such a plan
in Great Britain fostered treatment, hospitals
and research. And Lord Cairns goes on:
As to relations between doctors and
patients, the British medical association set
up a committee that took a lot of evidence
over three or four years and had a poll in
the newspapers. The committee did not
think the relations between doctors and
patients had materially altered and I agree.
One effect of the national health service
was to improve medical services so more
doctors were needed than ever before and
there are more doctors practising now than
ever.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if
we had a proper scheme where the sick
person did not have to worry about bills, it
would make for a far better atmosphere for
better doctor-patient relations. The doctor
knows that the patient need not worry about
the bills. I rather suspect that many a patient
might have recovered except that he died
worrying about how he was going to pay for
the operation or for the hospitalization before
we had a scheme. This is true. You find that
more illnesses— some Tory over here men-
tioned "nonsense"— are probably caused by
worry or brought on by worry than anything
else, and this is the one way to clean up that
worry that many patients are bound to have.
I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
Minister of Health knows that probably
better than any other hon. member in this
House. This is why it is hard for me to
understand that he can persist in trying to
fight a theory in government, and a theory
in good health, that is bound to come, and
that is the universal comprehensive care
within the means of all. How is it, Mr.
Speaker, that a relatively poor province like
the province of Saskatchewan can charge a
family $24 per year for medical coverage and
yet we talk about $150? Obviously it is be-
cause of Tory thinking, of an unwillingness
to bring about the legislation that is needed.
Mr. Speaker, over the years we have talked
and argued about these schemes and we are
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
265
making very little progress. It is true that
the welfare patients are covered but they
were covered in the first place. It is true that
the government is now going to take over the
high risk, what the hon. Minister of Health
has called the high-risk patients, and indeed
we are so very kind to the insurance com-
panies to do this.
He tells us that he is giving the people
freedom of choice, that they do not need to
join the scheme if they do not want to. Well,
it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the old and
the sick are going to join, and the taxpayer
is going to pay, but the healthy man, the
fellow who is 21, will obviously stay out.
Then, if he becomes ill, he will enroll when
the first enrolment period comes up. In any
theory of insurance you make your money
on those who are well, and you lose it on
those who are sick; but if you welcome only
the sick you are obviously going to have a
tremendous loss.
Even PSI recently— approximately a year
ago— carried out a pilot programme up in
Owen Sound on drugs, making it voluntary
so you could join if you liked or not; and
they lost a tremendous amount of money
and they had to cut it off.
When British Columbia introduced its hos-
pital plan it originally followed the principle
of making things voluntary; and it found
what should have been obvious, that the sick
joined and the healthy stayed out. So it was
not too long before British Columbia, in
order to avoid losing dollar after dollar, had
to make the plan compulsory. Whether you
call it universal or you call it compulsory, it
is obvious that it has got to cover all of our
people eventually.
To keep the people covered by group in-
surance out of this system is unfair and
foolish. It means that somebody who is in a
group may be paying taxes for a better
scheme than he is in; and yet he cannot join
unless he pays the group premium and unless
he pays the premium for the government
scheme. This is a ridiculous set-up and again
it is something that is kept on simply, I say,
for the main reason of pleasing the insur-
ance companies.
We know, in the history of health insur-
ance, that insurance companies make rela-
tively little money out of health insurance
programmes. What they mainly want health
insurance for is to get their feet in the door
to sell other policies. Believe me, Mr.
Speaker, the insurance companies, as far as
this government is concerned, have not only
got their feet in the door, they are living
with the government over there; as a result
the government have a policy that always
favours the insurance companies. Despite
the hue and cry and the demand for improve-
ments in medical insurance, this government
has been entirely and completely loyal to that
particularly strong lobby; indeed, the insur-
ance companies may be well pleased with
the present administration we have here in
the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour
this point any longer but I must again re-
emphasize that over the years this government
has not treated the people of this province, or
this Legislature, fairly. We have had to go
through a series of debates of bills that were
obviously never going to be properly imple-
mented; nor is it fair to say that the federal
government is not going to bring about the
medical insurance that they are now prom-
ising.
It is obvious it is coming because the
people of Canada are demanding it. No gov-
ernment can stay in power, or attain power,
unless it serves the people of Ontario or
of Canada by bringing about this necessary
legislation. The province of Ontario has a
tremendous opportunity, if need be, to em-
barrass the federal government, to urge it
to do something; but all they are doing, liter-
ally, is delaying the day when all Canada
has the much-needed legislation of health
protection.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of
sadness that I see once again the principle
of the old Bill No. 136, repeated in Bill No.
6, before this House. My hon. leader covered
very well the principles as advocated in the
amendment, and I have made reference to
them, as I have spoken here to you today.
And I again emphasize that, in the logic of
events, it is obvious that it is coming; and
it is obvious that it is necessary for us to
have an overall health scheme for the people
of our province. And I would urge the gov-
ernment to bring that day about in the im-
mediate future.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview) Mr. Speaker, I
rise to take part in this debate today, and
I am sorry that the hon. member for Forest
Hill is not in his seat at the moment because
he wanted certain answers. He wanted to
know why we oppose this bill so vigorously
and I think that part of my function is to tell
him.
One of the reasons, of course, is that we
believe that this bill is one which makes for
gross inefficiency, and I want to elaborate on
that. We oppose it because we believe that
the government across this House has not yet
been able to hear the voice of the people of
266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ontario. The insurance companies and the
doctors have been talking so loudly that this
government has not been able to hear the
people.
In two surveys which I took in my riding
over two years, and in other surveys which
have been taken at various times and in
various places, we know that over three-
quarters of the people of this province do
want a universal, low-cost Medicare plan.
And those people are today looking to this
Legislature, asking why this high-cost volun-
tary plan is being foisted upon them once
more— because this plan is only a refinement
of Bill No. 136. It is no improvement as far
as the people are concerned but it is an
improvement as far as the insurance com-
panies are concerned. This, I think, our
people are realizing more and more.
I call this plan grossly inefficient, because
of the system of multiple carriers it has set
up first of all. The multiple carriers will be
advertising on newspapers, radio, television;
they will have a sales staff. The private
companies will be going after the young and
the healthy and their families for coverage,
pointing out to them the fancy packages they
have, where the medical insurance is tied
in with life insurance, just as our civil ser-
vants had it tied in last year— tied in with
other kinds of benefits so it would be im-
possible for them to separate the medical
coverage from the other bits of the package.
So that kind of pressure is going to be on,
and that kind of salesmanship is going to
add to the total cost of the whole plan.
Then, of course, there is the other matter
which is inevitably going to figure large
here. The profits of the private insurance
companies must be paid. They are not going
to operate this plan without profits; a factor
which does not intrude into a publicly oper-
ated plan which can be run at cost for the
people. All of this adds up, as I said, to gross
inefficiency — where, according to the Hall
commission report, 28 cents out of each
premium dollar is going for administration
costs. The experience in Saskatchewan, as
this House has heard time after time, is that
a public plan can be administered for about
six per cent or less. And if a difference be-
tween 28 per cent and six per cent, Mr.
Speaker, does not spell gross inefficiency, I
do not know what does.
Then, of course, the government plan is
going to be costly because it is going to set
up new machinery. In this House last year,
and again this year, on this side of the
House, we have stressed the fact that the
Ontario hospital services commission is
due now. It has the names of our people,
our families, on filing cards. It would be a
simple matter to add the tab to the card
showing that this person is covered by medi-
cal insurance under a public plan. It would
need more people, certainly, to administer it,
but it does not need the duplication of effort
that is going into the kind of a plan which is
now proposed.
This proposed plan, Mr. Speaker, consti-
tutes a betrayal of the people of Ontario be-
cause of this gross inefficiency; and because,
secondly, it is going to cut the people off from
the $17, or whatever the subsidy might be,
from the federal Treasury. I detected, in the
speech of the hon. member for Forest Hill,
something which made me sit up and wonder.
He talked about priorities and then he talked
about what might happen if we were tough
bargainers, if we might get better terms from
Ottawa. So I would like to ask the hon. mem-
ber, and perhaps the hon. Minister in his
absence, if in fact this Legislature is being
used as a bargaining tool against the federal
government? If it is, then this is not the role
of a sovereign Legislature of this kind, to
become a bargaining tool in a fight between
two levels of government. Certainly we ex-
pect the hon. Minister to bargain, and to
bargain in a tough way to get all he can as
a subsidy; but to use the Legislature as this
suggestion seemed to — I make no charges
here because I want an elaboration of it—
but if that is the case then I think we ought
to think twice.
The Ontario people are going to pay their
share of whatever federal subsidy is paid
across the nation, and for the people of
Ontario to be cut off that subsidy, while pay-
ing for others, is injustice— and it is something
that the government of this province can
never justify to the people.
In the third place, this plan is a betrayal
of the people of Ontario, because the group
plans which are going to be run by the pri-
vate companies are not adequate to the needs
of the people. The government is offering
certain benefits through their section of a
plan, but when it comes to the group plans,
some of these are good but many of them are
very inadequate. Many trade unions bargain
something in the way of fringe benefits, and
they get a group plan in the realm of security,
medical care, or pensions, or something else.
But generally their first little bit of fringe
benefit is pretty small; and they have to bar-
gain twice, three times, half a dozen times, a
dozen times, before they get those bene-
fits up to where they think the standard is
adequate and where this bill would say that
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
267
the standard is adequate— that is the standard
in the public part of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize the fact
that even though many of these people with
group plans have some benefits, those bene-
fits are not adequate; and in many cases they
are completely below the standards which the
people of Ontario should enjoy.
Then, of course, because of the mixture in
these group plans, the people can hardly
separate what part is Medicare, what part is
pension, and what part is something else.
And if, for example, our own civil servants
want to opt out of the private plan with the
London Life and join the public plan, it is
not going to be easy for them to do this. I
am not sure that the legislation would allow
it; and if it did, the private carrier would try
to persuade them that they are paying less,
and yet no figures are now available to know
exactly how to break down those things; so
that transfer of people to the public plan,
becomes very difficult. The whole result
seems to be that the people of Ontario will
be fleeced through the insurance companies,
if this plan goes into operation. But, worse
still, they are also going to be fleeced by their
own government through its part of the plan,
the public sector of the plan.
As far as the price is concerned, the hon.
member for Forest Hill brought forward cer-
tain figures today which he quoted to us; he
said that there are so many doctors in the
province who belong to the college. I do not
know enough about this field, perhaps, to be
able to give the proper figures, because he
may have had them; but I do ask him if he
included the doctors who are on salary in
institutions, in universities, the people who
are in the public service, the retired doctors
—I presume he has. The figure which the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) quoted the other day was 5,500
doctors in Ontario, and I quote now from an
article by Perry Anglin in the Toronto Daily
Star of January 22, 1966:
Taxation statistics for 1964 published by
The Department of National Revenue
showed that Ontario's 5,456 medical doc-
tors and surgeons make a total net income
of $106,173,000, an average of more than
$19,000 each.
So, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will have to
get the experts together but this seems to be
authentic from The Department of National
Revenue. These are doctors actually practis-
ing in the province. They do not, I presume,
include those who have been retired and
those who are on salaries in institutions and
universities and other places. So that before
the hon. member quotes figures like these,
perhaps he had better do a bit of double
checking on the sources of his information.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the people
of Ontario have spoken to this government
and that the government has not, it seems,
been able to hear.
I have here two or three documents which
I want to put on record— a letter to the hon.
Prime Minister written a year ago, which has
a pertinent point of view in it. Dated May 18,
1965:
We believe any Medicare legislation must
have, as its basis, universal coverage. This
is essential if it is to provide maximum
service at minimum cost. With universal
coverage, we are convinced that a much
wider range of benefits could and should
be provided.
Signed: The Ontario federation of labour.
In a brief presented this year to the govern-
ment by the farmers union of Ontario we
have, on page 12, these words:
We would express our disappointment
in the Medicare bill which was passed in
the Legislature in the last sitting. As the
members of the government are no doubt
aware, the bill that was passed did not
meet with OFU approval since it was
neither comprehensive nor universal. We
would reiterate our request for changes in
this so that our people may be offered a
comprehensive, universal Medicare plan
within the reach of everyone. OFU protests
the fact that some people will be serviced
by private carriers and others under a
public commission. This is direct discrimin-
ation against the partially or wholly sub-
sidized people, dividing them into first and
second class citizens.
We would like to draw to the attention
of the Prime Minister at this point that
during our presentation a year ago he
promised us that the departments of his
government were available to us at any
time. But during the Medicare debate last
year when we endeavoured to get in con-
tact with the Minister of Health by tele-
phone so we could arrange an appointment,
the Minister did not even return our phone
call and has not to this day. Many of our
groups from across the province sent tele-
grams to their members of Parliament and
some still have had no reply in this matter.
Walter Miller, the vice-president of the On-
tario farmers union, the day after the debate
started in this House on the present bill,
made a public statement demanding again the
universal and comprehensive Medicare plan
at low cost to the people.
268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Last year, as the Medicare bill was reach-
ing its final stages, there took place a dramatic
event in front of the Parliament buildings
where representatives of the clergy of this
city and surrounding areas moved in to
conduct a vigil. The message that they were
giving the people of this province, and the
hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of
Health, was a very simple message— that they
wanted the kind of Medicare plan which we
have been outlining here. They did not like
Bill No. 136, and the bill which we are now
discussing is in that category.
I have here a statement by the Rev. W.
Clark McDonald, chairman of the board of
evangelism and social service of the United
Church of Canada, and the Rev. J. R. Hord,
secretary of the board, February 5, 1966. I
think we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that
that vigil in front of the Parliament buildings
last year changed the character and nature
of the debate which we were then under-
taking and the character and nature of the
whole Medicare issue across this province. It
was changed by that act from a political issue
to a moral issue, and we had representatives
of many churches there including Roman
Catholic.
Today again I see some representatives of
the clergy in the gallery and I hope they are
here to silently protest the action which the
government is again contemplating. I believe
they are here for that purpose.
Now I want to place on the record this
statement which I mentioned:
We wish to point out glaring deficienccs
in The Medical Insurance Act which is be-
fore the Ontario Legislature. The amended
bill is an improvement over Bill 136 but
it does not meet the requirements as re-
quested by the general council of the
United Church of Canada:
1. The Ontario plan is not universal.
Since participation is voluntary, the experi-
ence of Alberta would indicate that one
seventh of our population will not be cov-
ered, especially those who find premiums
too high but who are not eligible for sub-
sidization.
2. The Ontario plan is too costly. The
only way to bring down cost is to make it
universal and government-operated. The
present competitive system of private carri-
ers is very expensive. The Hall commission
reports that the cost of servicing health in-
surance plans under a voluntary plan such
as in Alberta is almost four times that of a
government-operated plan in Saskatchewan.
3. The Ontario plan will be very costly
to the taxpayer for the services rendered
under the medical services division. The
taxpayer will have to carry the high-risk
health cases and leave the best risks to the
private carriers. The insurance companies
will get the cream of the business.
4. The Ontario plan does not meet the
standard proposed by the federal govern-
ment. Indications are that Quebec will
soon adopt a plan which will be universal
and have lower premiums. Pressure will
then be brought upon the government by
the citizens of Ontario to adopt the
national standards.
We would appeal to the Legislature of
Ontario to enact a plan that is national,
universal, comprehensive, government-
operated, and tax-supported with modest
premiums for individuals and families.
This is the statement from the board of
evangelism and social service of the United
Church of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have today reached the
situation where we have to make a choice. I
would have hoped that the federal govern-
ment long before this would have placed
upon the statute books, or at least placed
upon the desks in Ottawa, legislation which
would call the bluff of this government. All
the federal government needs to do to put
this government and other governments
across the country on the spot is to put on
the table a bill which indicates what it is
prepared to do and then it can say to the
provinces, "This is it." If it has made its
estimate of the cost per capita and is willing
to pay half those costs, then let the federal
government say so and let it introduce the
legislation. At that point we will believe
that it is sincere and that it means business
in this matter.
But this kind of delay, coupled with the
kind of amendment introduced into this
House, makes one suspicious that the right
wing of the Liberal Party is now delaying
the bill and postponing the day when it has
to face up to the realities of the Medicare
situation.
So I say to my hon. friends that they
should convey to their friends down in
Ottawa the fact that as soon as their bill is
in effect placed before the House of Com-
mons then this government is on the spot in
Ontario. It will have to act.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Why do
you not go down yourself and see them?
Mr. Young: The hon. member is closer to
them than I.
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
269
But as we look at the situation we are just
wondering whether again, after all these
years of promising the people of Canada that
they are going to bring in legislation, they
are still postponing action. You remember
last year during a certain federal election
campaign, we heard one of the Ministers
of the Crown say to the people, "We want a
mandate so that we can bring Medicare to
Canada." The same statement, of course,
was made before the 1963 election.
They have a mandate, it is a tenuous one,
I admit, but they have a mandate, and they
said they were going to govern as if they
were a majority party in Parliament. All
right, they will have the support of the New
Democrats and I am sure of some other
groups within that Parliament to bring this
legislation in.
and let them bring it
do, then this govern-
face the people with
plan which it is bring-
Let us see action on
not hear any more of
provincial, provincial
nobody is getting any-
Let them bring it
now, and when they
ment will hesitate to
this kind of cockeyed
ing before this House
both sides and let us
this federal blaming
blaming federal, while
thing done.
In the face of the kind of public opinion
that is building up in this province, I cannot
help but think of those lines in Scott's The
Lady of the Lake when I look at the hon.
Minister of Health here— Fitzjames— you re-
member the picture of him, Mr. Speaker;
perhaps you will remember that well through
your experience as a teacher:
His back against the rock he bore
And firmly placed his foot before
Come one, come all,
This rock shall fly from its firm base
As soon as I.
This hon. Minister has dug into his position
and he is wielding his sword on behalf of
this legislation. But what the hon. Minister
forgets—
Mr. Dunlop: Claymore!
Mr. Young: All right, claymore. But what
the hon. Minister forgets is that he is fighting
for the wrong people. He has got the insur-
ance companies and doctors behind him and
he has the people in front of him. Remember
the clan—
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Claymore is the word.
Mr. Young: Roderick Dhu's clan popped up
there, you know, in front of him: and when
the Scotsmen appeared that is when he said,
"Come one, come all!"
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Scotland still stands.
Mr. Young: But the fact is that Stuart was
able to destroy Roderick Dhu and destroy
the freedom of that clan, the people who
were standing before him.
Well, this is what is happening, and this
Minister had better remember that he was
elected by the people, not by the doctors and
the insurance companies.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will be standing long
after the hon. member.
Mr. Young: Oh well, perhaps I should
qualify that through you, Mr. Speaker. But
in any case he is supposed to be responsible
back to the people of this province, and they
are the people that he ought to be wielding
his claymore on behalf of— if I can finish
with a preposition in that awkward sort of
way.
Mr. Speaker, this age of technology de-
mands that our society accept high levels of
responsibility to its people. Figures have
been thrown at us, time after time in this
House and throughout the country, that have
shown us that every citizen of this country
ought to have an opportunity for certain
things; education is one of them. And we
are told that the more education or training
our people have, the wealthier our country
becomes, and that any civilization which
fails to train its brain and skill is going to
go down— in comparison with other civiliza-
tions that accept this kind of responsibility.
This matter is also true when it comes to
the health of our people. A healthy nation
is a productive nation, and public health is
just as important, Mr. Speaker, as education.
Mr. Justice Hall in a speech which he
made on November 28, 1965, before the
working conference on the implications of a
health chart for Canadians, said this:
It is estimated that, in 1963, 100 million
man-days of labour were lost to the labour
force in Canada through illness, with a
consequent economic loss of $1,630 million—
or about 3.8 per cent of the gross national
product for that year. Now, not all of
this loss could have been prevented. There
is a staggering loss which ought to cause
the nation to seek out ways to reduce it.
The economic loss due to strike action
of the labour force in 1963 was 917,140
man-days. This was less than one per
cent of the economic loss through illness
in the labour force during the same period.
270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These two sets of figures are unrelated, but
thought-provoking nonetheless.
In the same year, the Canadian school
children in grades 1 to 13 lost 4.4 per
cent of all pupil-days on account of illness.
I have not been able to calculate this loss
in economic terms but you will appreciate
that it is one of major proportions.
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us recognize
this staggering fact, and realize that a healthy
nation is a more productive nation, in addition
to being a far happier nation; and people who
are healthy enjoy life and work better. So it
behoves us to make the advances in medical
science available to all our people, regardless
of cost.
The hon. Minister has gone some distance
in this direction here, and part of our people
who have low income will be subsidized. But
he has not gone the distance he ought to go;
and in between the doctors and their patients,
in this beautiful doctor-patient relationship,
there is the insurance company, in too many
cases.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what function does
the insurance company really play here?
What is its purpose? It collects from the
people and then it pays the doctor, but this
is the same function which is going to be
performed by the public part of the plan.
Why the duplication? And the company is
going to do it less efficiently and at greater
cost— 28 per cent versus six per cent.
The people can pay into the government
fund, and the government fund can pay the
doctors, and the doctors will get their pay,
but why have this other party in there stand-
ing between? One of the fundamental quar-
rels that we have with this philosophy is that
insurance companies are concerned primarily
with paying after the fact, after the illness.
They are not concerned with preventing the
illness, and a health plan which is meaningful
for the people of Ontario must be concerned
with prevention. That is why the hon. Minis-
ter, I suppose, has introduced the idea of
the medical examination at regular intervals.
But this is not universal in the private plans.
The whole plan of prevention is one that
should be built into a common-sense medical
plan.
So I quarrel seriously with this aspect of
the private sector of the plan. They stand
between the people and healing. They are,
in effect, a toll gate between the great body
of medicine, the knowledge we have, the
scientific advance, and the people. Years ago
we got rid of the toll gates on the highways
and are rid of most of the toll gates in educa-
tion, and it is time those toll gates fell in this
field.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks
today, I want to call upon the people who
sit in the seats of this Legislature. I do not
know whether or not the suspicion that came
into my mind, when the hon. member for
Forest Hill was speaking, is right or not, that
this is a matter of bargaining, but for the life
of me I cannot understand why this govern-
ment is bringing in the high rates without the
federal subsidy. How can they go before the
people of this province and justify it in the
next election? How can it be done?
Perhaps the hon. Minister is building in an
extra amount so that, just before the election,
the price can be lowered. This is not an
unknown device in politics in the province of
Ontario. But why the people should be
squeezed as hard as this, so that there will
be something to give them later on, I do not
know. This is hardly understandable. But I
say to the hon. members in this House that
they will not be able to justify to the people
of Ontario, when the next election comes,
charging $150 per family when the thing can
be done for one-third that amount.
Even if some of the figures of my hon.
friend were right, the premiums could not
possibly get to the amount that has been sug-
gested. How can this government tell the
people that it wants a mandate when it is
coming to them with this kind of price, and
when other provinces are going to be much
less? How can it tell them we are refusing
to take the federal subsidy because we are
clinging to our allegiance to the private in-
surance companies?
Mr. MacDonald: Imagine a Scotsman
doing that.
Mr. Young: I find it hard to understand
how the claymore can be wielded to justify
this kind of attitude.
So I simply ask the hon. members of this
House, the backbenchers and all the rest,
particularly on the government side, to talk
to their Minister, give him a little political
common sense, tell him the problems they are
going to have to face when they go back to
their ridings.
Mr. I. W. Thrasher (Windsor-Sandwich):
We have no problems.
Mr. Young: The hon. member has no prob
lems; well, that is wonderful. All right, tell
them about the arithmetic of this thing and
then work within the caucus to get some
changes in this legislation, to bring it into
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
271
harmony with the federal plan so that Ontario
gets the advantage of the federal subsidy.
Now, if the hon. members cannot persuade
him, if that Scots stubbornness is going to
stay here, and he is going to keep his back to
the wall and fight this through on behalf of
the friends behind him, then it might make
good sense if the hon. members would simply
move him out of there and bring a man into
that position who would think in terms of the
people and the needs of the people of Ontario
in the days to come. In other words, sweep
away this bill or sweep away this Minis-
ter, because this bill is a betrayal of the
people of Ontario.
An hon. member: Both!
Mr. Young: I hear the word "both," and
that might be the only way it is going to be
done. So let us get rid of them both! Mr.
Speaker, I oppose the principle which is laid
down in the bill before us.
Mr. R. J. Harris (Beaches): Mr. Speaker, for
several reasons I feel I should participate in
the second reading of Bill No. 6 for a few
minutes this afternoon. Probably the most
important is that if we as legislators do not
make the correct decisions in the important
area of a person's health, all of us are going
to suffer in the long run. I am sure that
when the hon. member for Yorkview, in
his opening remarks, said that the amend-
ments contained in Bill No. 6 are not an
improvement over Bill No. 136, he was in
error because I submit there certainly is a
vast improvement in these amendments that
are before us today.
Mr. Young: Fundamentally the same bill.
Mr. Harris: Many years ago we came to the
conclusion that every child has a right to
education, every person has a right to food,
everyone in trouble with the law has the
right to legal counsel, and certainly every-
one who is sick has the right to medical care.
As the representative of a riding where I
know the average head of a family takes
home considerably less pay than his counter-
part in the suburbs, I have found that many
of these people have been forced to gamble
their future health requirements against their
present economic requirements. It has always
been my view that these people should not be
faced with this dilemma and from personal
experience with constituents I know that
many times after a person has been ill or
injured and then subsequently cured, his re-
lief at being cured is tempered by the anxiety
about the bills that he faces.
Certainly the average citizen today realizes
that part of his tax dollar now goes into
supporting hospitals and supporting research
laboratories and supporting new medical
schools, and all that this citizen asks in re-
turn is to have available to him and to his
family the skills of the medical profession for
a fair premium.
The point made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition in his opening remarks on Thurs-
day regarding compulsion and what he be-
lieves is best for all our people, to my way
of thinking is not the question at the moment.
I will say again, and I think I said it last
year, it is much better if we can obtain the
same results without forcing anyone to do
anything against his will and that, I submit,
Mr. Speaker, is what this Bill No. 6 will do.
Again on Friday I was pleased that the
hon. leader of the Opposition referred to
some of the remarks I made last year during
the second reading of Bill No. 136, because
there were a few others I made at that time
that he did not refer to. I think it is fair to
say that last year in May when we were
debating Bill No. 136 I had some concern
that the bill did not meet all the needs of
the people, but at that time I did express
the view that I was confident the bill was a
step forward and if changes were necessary
this government would initiate them. In par-
ticular I said, and I believe the hon. leader
of the Opposition did refer to this particular
quote, that: "I have faith in the executive
council that sits on my left, and that if this
bill does not work out in the first instance,
they will certainly amend it to make it work
out."
I say, Mr. Speaker, that my confidence was
merited and Bill No. 6 does show that this
government does not have a closed mind on
the needs of the people of this province but
is continually assessing their needs and mov-
ing to improve them.
Let us just for a moment compare this
government's speedy action to what took
place in Saskatchewan back in 1944. Mr.
Douglas promised free medical health to
everyone without any cost and he is quoted
as saying that "benefits of medical services
would be available to all without money and
without price."
But it was not until 1961 that this service
came to the people of Saskatchewan and that
was 17 years later, and as we all know it
certainly did not come free. I might mention
that later in that same 1944 campaign the
socialists said, and I quote again: "State
medicine and hospitalization could be furn-
ished for slightly more than $8 per annum."
272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We all know that was not a true state-
ment, but it was worked out in the fuzzy
world of socialistic economic theory. One
then begins to wonder about some of the
figures that were bandied about here on
Friday morning by the hon. member for York
South.
My hon. friends in the Liberal Party, as
previous speakers have said, have been
promising us something in this sphere since
1919. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in
view of the 17 years it took the ND Party
and the nearly half a century it has taken
the Liberal Party to face up to this problem
that this government is by comparison mov-
ing extremely rapidly and extremely compe-
tently.
Referring to some of my remarks last May
on page 3258 in Hansard, I said that I was
concerned about the welfare of my con-
stituents and that the passage of the bill at
that time would bring relief to many of them,
Mr. Speaker.
I also said I would rather move slowly and
bring in a prudent health care plan in stages
and make sure the people who are most
urgently in need of physicians' services are
going to be looked after first. I am still of
that view, Mr. Speaker, and the present
amendments assure that this is going to be
done. Again I will say that if events prove
more changes are needed we can be confi-
dent that this government will make the
changes.
Last year I had some concern that in
the area of government subsidy a percentage
of public money could go to private com-
panies, but this concern of mine has now
been completely eliminated in this bill. As
section 5, subsection 1, points out in deal-
ing with the availability of standard con-
tracts:
This standard medical services insurance
contract shall be made available to all
residents and their dependants without
regard to age, physical or mental infirmity,
financial means or occupation and only by
the medical services insurance division.
I am particularly pleased that this will be
operated by our own division of government.
Mr. Speaker, just for a few moments re-
fering to several other sections of Bill No. 6,
in regard to section 13, subsection 20, I am
pleased that the doctors of this province will
be assisting the government by accepting 90
per cent rather than 100 per cent of the
Ontario medical association schedule of fees.
I expected a few chuckles from the Opposi-
tion, but I assure you that will be the case.
Mr. Singer: Do they have any choice?
Sounds like a little bit of compulsion.
Mr. Harris: During recent weeks we have
all read a good deal in the press about the
requirements the federal government has laid
down in respect to what a province must do
in order to obtain a subsidy from Ottawa.
We all know that the provincial Health Minis-
ters met early last week, and that three prov-
inces have accepted the federal government's
scheme, two are on the verge of accepting
and five are uncommitted. Mr. Speaker, we
are uncommitted, and in my view, rightly
so.
Mr. Singer: That is a good view, to be un-
committed.
Mr. Harris: There are many unanswered
questions, as both the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. Minister of Health have pointed
out, and we in this province must have these
questions answered to our mutual satis-
faction. I believe we should wait, at the very
least, until the committee of the Legislature
in Quebec makes its report to its own gov-
ernment, before we commit ourselves any
further. Now when the executive council of
this government has these questions answered
to their satisfaction, I believe they will do
what is required and co-operate with the
federal government, as they have always done
in the past in co-operating with them on other
contentious matters.
The hon. member for York South, about
an hour ago, was referring to Quebec's posi-
tion, and I am sure that in his assessment of
Quebec he cannot possibly be any more
correct than any of the rest of us in this
House. I do not know where he might get
his information, so in view of that, we must
wait until we know what Quebec is going to
do.
All of us, no matter what our political label,
are striving to provide our people with the
finest medical coverage that we can afford.
In the field of hospital care, through the
Ontario hospital services commission, we have
now covered over 99 per cent of our popu-
lation. Lot us not forget the success we have
had in this area. I feel certain, Mr. Speaker,
that when this medical plan outgrows its birth
pains it will have to merge with our hospital
plan.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Bill No.
6, An Act to amend The Medical Services
Insurance Act, 1965, I submit, is another for-
ward step in this government's progressive
programme, which has as its ultimate objec-
tive health care of the highest possible order
for all our people. I commend the hon. Min-
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
273
ister of Health for bringing this legislation
before us at this early stage of this session.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, the
amendments that are before us today surely
came about for two reasons. The first because
after the passage of the bill last year it became
apparent even to the government that the pro-
visions of this Act were unacceptable to the
majority of the people of Ontario. They had
the opinion expressed forcibly through the
press and from a number of other organiza-
tions representing agriculture, the church,
labour and many groups of ordinary citizens.
Naturally the opinions of some smaller groups
were very much in favour of this bill and
these opinions are still influencing the views
that the government holds in these amend-
ments.
The second reason the amendments are
before us is that the hon. Minister of Health
and his advisers, attending the conference last
July, I submit to you, sir, were convinced
that by July 1, 1967, we will have a plan in
Canada which will give comprehensive, uni-
versal medical care on a portable basis to
the citizens of this country. He surely advised
his hon. colleagues in the Cabinet; or perhaps
it was the other way around, that we had
to get ourselves into a bargaining position so
that, dragging our feet though we may, when
the deadline comes, as it surely will on
July 1, 1967, when we, ourselves, will be a
part of this universal plan, we will have
been able to make the best bargain that
canny Scots Minister is capable of.
Now he is our bargaining agent, together
with his advisers, when he approaches the
federal government, and no matter what is
said on the other side about the inability of
the federal government to make this plan
stick, I submit to you, sir, and to the House,
that it is a definite plan and one that will be
in effect when that day comes. So let us see
what our positon is with regard to the federal
requirements, which will give us this universal
plan in Canada in our centennial year.
We are familiar with the four requirements.
I believe that this amendment does increase
the comprehensiveness of the Ontario plan
to some degree. Without going into it in
detail, it is true that it will give better ob-
stetrical benefits, certain dental benefits and
some others which will improve the plan to
some extent, without of course touching on
some of the other important requirements,
such as assistance with the payment of drugs,
with optometrical care and many other fields.
So some attempt has been made to improve
our bargaining position as far as a compre-
hensive plan is concerned.
Portability is something that does not con-
cern us at this point. The main responsibility
for this must surely come from the federal
level, because as the months grow short to-
wards the deadline there will have to be a lot
of bargaining, maybe some wheeling and
dealing, so that a citizen of Canada can
finally have uniform coverage no matter
where he moves within this country.
Universality is the third requirement and
something that we have discussed on many
occasions in this House. The federal govern-
ment has been criticized for being too flexible
in this plan and in some others in the past.
Universality to me, means, that every citizen
will take part and I firmly believe that this
is what we should achieve in this province.
We have seen the hon. Minister of Health,
probably supported by some of his colleagues
from other provinces in discussion with the
federal authorities, change this concept of
universality to some extent. He has said that
surely the 99 per cent coverage of Ontario
hospitalization should be regarded as uni-
versal and this was agreed to by the federal
authorities. Then, having put that wedge in
the door, he has driven it home further and
further, until my understanding of the present
state of this horse trading is that universality
now means 90 per cent of the citizens of any
participating province would have to be
members of an approved plan.
In Ontario this means that either 650,000
or 700,000 citizens will not have medical
coverage, or at least they could be excluded
from whatever plan we arrive at finally, and
still the federal government will contribute
one-half of the cost of the plan, or at least an
average of one-half of the cost across Canada.
But we have seen some of the problems that
have arisen with .our hospitalization plan
that has now achieved virtual universality.
Surely there are other members of this
House who have had to deal with unfortunate
constituents who took the provincial govern-
ment at its word and realized that they did
not have to join the hospitalization plan. Wc
have been in a position where we have had
to deal with the hospital services commission
for them when they have been struck down
by disastrous illness and almost equally dis-
astrous hospital expenses. I do not believe
that we can afford to go into a plan which
does not cover all of our citizens.
When I talk about universal plan, I believe
that it should cover 100 per cent of the
people in this province. I do not believe that
the figure of 90 per cent should be further
negotiable and I would do everything I could
to drive from the mind of the hon. Minister
274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Health any residual thought that he may
have that this figure could be reduced so that
more and more we could move away from
this very valuable concept.
The idea of universality is related to the
fourth, and perhaps most difficult for our hon.
friends opposite, requirement of the federal
plan, that it is to be a government-operated
plan. In my view this means that the branch
of The Department of Health that is going
to administer the plan that is before us in the
amendment now is the type of administration
that I would call government-operated. I
understand that a good deal of money has
already been invested in supplying suitable
facilities for this branch of the department.
It is largely, of course, a duplication of what
some privately sponsored plans already have
as far as the building the billing computers
and the connection with the medical profes-
sion are concerned. Nevertheless, we are
duplicating it in order that we can apply the
provisions of the plan that were first laid out
last year and are being amended today. So
this surely is what is intended when the fed-
eral government says that it is to be govern-
ment-operated. That means that a Minister
of the government has the main responsibility
for its day-to-day administration.
Now how are we going to dicker in the
business of inaugurating medical insurance in
Ontario, if the federal government requires
government operation? Let us see where
flexibility fits into this. We know that already
the civil servants of this province and the
hon. members of this House can be, and many
are, covered by a plan that is administered by
a consortium of insurance companies headed
by London Life Insurance.
By no stretch of the imagination can we
say that London Life is government-operated;
as a matter of fact I have heard some people
say— probably unfairly— that the reverse is
true. So here is a very large group of citi-
zens of this province who have no option
really, if they are going to have proper medi-
cal insurance at all, than to be covered by this
privately operated plan which is surely a
profit-making plan and therefore could not
possibly be accepted by the federal authori-
ties.
But there are some other insurance groups,
within the province of Ontario, that are giv-
ing extensive coverage to a good many of our
citizens. Last year hon. members may have
heard me talk about the co-operative medical
plan set up on a county basis; and since the
hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of
Health have already indicated that they are
members, first, of PS I and, I believe, secondly,
of the London Life plan, I would say that I
have had satisfactory coverage for myself and
my family with this co-operative medical in-
surance plan. And, interestingly enough, they
have been able to provide myself and my
family with this suitable coverage at a fee
that is very closely related to the one that, as
has been suggested by the hon. Minister of
Health, would soon be applied in the prov-
ince of Ontario under government sponsor-
ship. It is, of course, much cheaper, more
reasonable, than the one that is provided by
PSI, the other large and important organiza-
tion that is giving this coverage in Ontario.
I would say that these co-operative groups,
if any could be considered an extension of
government operation, might very well fit in.
I believe that they have the interest of the
citizens as their basis of operation.
Let us compare this with PSI, which has
the large bulk of the coverage in Ontario. I
think you know, Mr. Speaker, that it is essen-
tially an organization that was set up by doc-
tors in order that the doctors themselves
could offer a convenient plan of prepayment
to the citizens of Ontario; and, although PSI
is not profit-making, they do have the high
overhead which is almost identical, certainly
very similar, with the facilities that the gov-
ernment is presently setting up with the new
branch of The Department of Health. But
the big difference is that it is a doctors'
organization; and surely, when it comes to
discussions with the government on changes
of the rate structure, they will be speaking
for the doctors and not for the citizens who
have their medical coverage with this organi-
zation.
So how is the federal authority going to
deal with this situation? I suppose, once
again, that because they have the responsi-
bility for implementing a plan that must
surely be national in scope by July 1, 1967,
they will approach the Health Ministers with
as much flexibility and understanding as is
possible. And I believe that they have already
said that he would accept PSI as the govern-
ment carrier under certain circumstances.
The fact remains, however, Mr. Speaker,
that we are setting up a parallel structure,
which gives us all of the machinery to step
into the requirements of the federal plan as
soon as the hon. Prime Minister and his
Cabinet decide that the time is right. It
may have something to do with the position
that was taken by the hon. member for
Beaches who spoke a moment ago, that we
in the province of Ontario must surely leave
ourselves in the best bargaining position
possible. I do believe that this is what is
FEBRUARY 7, 1966
275
motivating the hon. Minister of Health; I
clo believe that he is ready to go, at the
urging of his Cabinet colleagues, for some-
thing that approaches universal comprehen-
sive coverage. But I think he wants to keep
himself in a good bargaining position.
While this may sound good to the re-
actionaries of the province, those who feel
that universal coverage somehow weakens
the moral fibre of the individual, I would
agree with those who say that Ontario has a
special responsibility that far transcends this
horse-trading that the hon. Minister has been
participating in. I think that Ontario has to
lead Canada, as the most prosperous and
most populous province, into this national
plan that is going to be inaugurated in
Canada in the year that is directly ahead of
us. I feel that the present amendments set
up an expensive duplication of service.
It may well be that we can approach the
90 per cent coverage that the federal people
require, with the co-operation of PSI that has
given good service in the past. It must
surely, however, be our goal that a govern-
ment-sponsored and government-operated
plan avail itself of the facilities that are
presently being set up by the branch of the
department of the hon. Minister. I believe
that the standard contract for everyone in
Ontario should be available only through the
medical services insurance division of The
Department of Health.
Earlier today, a question was asked of the
hon. Minister having to do with the
feasibility of the hospital services commission
taking to itself the responsibility for the
administration of this plan. I can hardly
believe that a careful investigation of this
proposal would indicate that we should set
up an entirely new branch to deal simply
with the administration of another type of
insurance. Surely co-operation would be
possible here so that we, as citizens, would
not have to pay two premiums, one for hos-
pital insurance and the other for medical
insurance; this could be combined so that
the citizens would know where they were
as far as their expenses were concerned, and
surely the overhead associated with it would
be reduced.
The machinery and general structure, then,
is available. The hon. Minister, through
these amendments, has manoeuvred Ontario
into a reasonably good bargaining position.
He knows that eventually we must go in to
the plan that is going to be in operation in
Canada. We all know that Ontario pays more
into the federal coffers than any other prov-
ince. And we will never be in a position,
surely, where we will not be able to have
our share of federal participation in Medicare
so that we will be paying money into the
federal Treasury which is then distributed to
approved plans elsewhere in Canada. On
the other hand, there would be nothing un-
fair in the federal government proceeding in
this way.
When hospitalization was first introduced,
there were some provinces which were, at
that time, not participating; and it really was
the finances of the situation that drew the
provinces of Canada into a plan which has
worked so well and been so well received by
citizens in every province. We are in much
the same position; we are going to be a part
of the plan.
Ontario has an opportunity, not to be the
first in Canada to take part but to be an in-
fluential leader in the introduction of com-
prehensive medical insurance that we all feel
and believe is necessary, not only for Ontario
but for Canada.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with this
debate. On Wednesday the Budget will be
brought down. I am proposing that we sit
on Tuesday and Thursday nights of this
week and, starting next week, we will sit
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings. I
would like to continue with the method de-
veloped in the last year or so, of dealing with
the private members' business, and we will
take an hour in the afternoons— from five
to six on Tuesdays and Thursdays— to deal
with those orders, as long as there are orders
there to be dealt with. There has to be
some degree of flexibility in that regard.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 o'clock, p.m.
No. 11
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 284
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading,
continued 287
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Gisborn, agreed to 298
On notice of motion to appoint select committee, Mr. Thompson 298
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Thompson, agreed to 307
Recess, 6 o'clock 307
279
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome as
guests to the Legislature today, students from
the following schools: In the east gallery,
Western Ontario agricultural college, Ridge-
town, and in the west gallery, Oak Park junior
high school, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that when this House adjourns the present
sitting thereof it do stand adjourned until 2
o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, this motion is to provide for a 2
o'clock sitting tomorrow afternoon when the
Rudget will be introduced.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves, seconded by hon. Mr. Robarts, that
this House will tomorrow resolve itself into
the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. As
I understand rule 114 of the House, we can-
not move into committee of supply until such
time as the Speech from the Throne is con-
cluded.
Mr. Speaker: I would say to the member
that it has been the practice over several ses-
sions now that the Throne debate continues at
the same time as the supply and the Rudget
debates are proceeding. Whether or not it is
against the written rules to do so, I am not
in a position to say.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Who is?
Mr. Speaker: It has been the practice of
the House and, of course, we rule in the
House according to the usages and practices
of the House, as well as the written rules.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would simply like to
support the Speaker in his comment that
while this rule is there, over a period of years,
going back to the last administration which
was supported by the party opposite, they
used to pass the estimates in one night. We
now take a period of months in order that
these things may be examined.
Mr. Singer: Twenty-three years.
Mr. Speaker: Order:
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It is a fact, nonetheless.
This has necessarily meant that these two
debates tend to overlap. The reason in hav-
ing the overlap is that the debate on the
motion in reply to the Speech from the
Throne traditionally permits any member
of the House to deal with any subject he
wishes. The same is equally true of the
debate on the Rudget. If we were to wind
up the Throne debate tonight, for instance, I
am quite certain there would be many hon.
members in this House who would be left
without a vehicle to make the speeches they
might like to make. While it is not the tidiest
procedure in the world to have two debates
of this nature in process at the same time, it
does give every member two opportuni-
ties to speak on whatever subject interests
him. That is why, over the years, this course
of action has been developed.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will read
out rule 114. It says:
The committees of supply and of ways
and means are appointed on motion with-
out previous notice at the commencement
of each session as soon as an address has
been agreed to in answer to the speech of
the Lieutenant-Governor.
My only point is, sir, if we are not going to
abide by the rules we need a committee to
examine the rules, in order that they can be
changed.
Mr. Speaker: I pointed out to the member
that we also rule by the usages and practices
of the House. It has been the practice for
many years now to have the Throne debate
as well as the Rudget debate proceeding at
the same time.
280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Therefore, in view of that fact, I would
rule the motion in order.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves that this House will tomorrow resolve
itself into the committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett), notice of which has
been given him.
Has the hon. Minister considered the possi-
bility of co-operating with the state of New
York in their project of developing a safer
car?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given
for such action. The project mentioned by
the hon. member is being financed by a
legislative appropriation by the state of New
York.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a
supplementary question of the hon. Minister?
Would the hon. Minister welcome overtures
from the state of New York in regard to such
co-operation; or even seek such?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is rather hypo-
thetical. I would hardly know how to answer
it. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that The Depart-
ment of Transport has had continuing concern
with the many aspects of highway safety
including vehicle design and maintenance. If
some useful findings should come out of this
project, I can assure the House that our
department will give them very careful and
detailed consideration.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner), notice of which has been
given. It is in three parts.
1. Was the order-in-council, 4619/65, De-
cember 16, 1965, which varied the decision of
the Ontario municipal board dated April 27,
1964, by changing the effective date of the
annexation of part of the township of Sunni-
dale known as Oakview Beach to the village
of Wasaga Beach from January 1, 1965 to
January 1, 1966, made under the authority
of section 94 of The Ontario Municipal Board
Act?
2. Tf so, is the hon. Minister aware that
by subsection 15 of section 14 of The Muni-
cipal Act, the said section 94 does not apply
to a decision of the municipal board provid-
ing for an annexation or amalgamation?
3. If not, under what authority was the
said decision of the Ontario municipal board
varied by the said order-in-council?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member's question, I may say as to the first
part of this question, order-in-council number
4619/65 was not made under the authority of
section 94 of The Ontario Municipal Board
Act.
The second question: The Minister is aware
of the provisions of subsection 15 of section 14
of The Municipal Act, that section 94 of The
Ontario Municipal Board Act does not apply
to a decision of the municipal board providing
for an annexation or amalgamation.
The third question: The decision of the
Ontario municipal board was varied under the
inherent powers given to His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, as to any
tribunal in order that its powers should not
compel the impossible.
In regard to order-in-council 4619/65,
which was dated December 16, 1965, it was
obviously impossible that the annexation could
take place on January 1, 1965, because the
time had already elapsed, during which the
decision was ineffective because of a notice
of objection which had been filed under
subsection 16 of section 14 of The Municipal
Act. Since the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor is given power to confirm the
decision, he must have the power to confirm
the decision so that it is rational and sensible
and does not compel the impossible.
An order-in-council merely confirming the
board's decision without variation, on its face
would have been meaningless. It could not
set time back, as this is impossible. In order
to avoid confusion among all parties, the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
acted under powers that he must have to
enable him to make an effective order.
The question is merely a technicality in
any event, as section 42 of The Ontario
Municipal Board Act is as follows, and I
quote:
42: The board may rehear any applica-
tion before deciding it or may review,
rescind, change, alter or vary any decision,
approval, or order made by it.
Tf the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council had merely confirmed the board's
decision, there would undoubtedly have been
a review and a variation of the decision to
make it applicable. It was to avoid the inter-
vening confusion that it was made clear in
the order-in-council that the effective date of
the annexation should be January 1, 1966.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
could ask the hon. Minister the courtesy of
a copy of his answer so it might be given to
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
281
certain interested parties in the gallery later
on?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: I would be glad to do
that.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question to ask of the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan). Would the hon.
Provincial Treasurer inform this House why
the province levies, under The Tobacco Tax
Act, two different rates of tax on identical
commodities? A pouch of tobacco that sells for
less than 50 cents is taxed at the rate of one-
half cent per ounce, or three per cent, while
the identical tobacco in one-half or one-
quarter ounce cans is taxed at the rate of one
cent per ounce, or six per cent.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's
question, I may say that the retail sales tax
on tobacco products was replaced on January
1 last by the new tobacco tax. This tax has
been in effect in several other provinces for
some years and is generally based on
quantities. We endeavoured to keep the tax
under the new Act at the same amount on
various tobacco items as it had been under
The Retail Sales Tax Act. It was not possible
to have the tax exactly the same on all
classes and types of tobacco and still main-
tain the simplicity desirable under this new
Act.
I believe that it is reasonably close in those
items which make up a large percentage of
the volume of sales, but I realize that there
are some smaller lines where it does not
work out as closely. These are still being
studied to see if there can be improvements
or simplifications.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? I believe the hon.
Provincial Treasurer's assurance in this House
at the time of the passage of the bill was
that the half cent rate would apply to the
larger packages and the low price tobacco.
Could the hon. Provincial Treasurer inform
us why he changed his mind?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to inform the hon. member that we are doing
our very best.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I have another
question of the hon. Provincial Treasurer, for
which I have already given notice, regarding
the combination liquor store and beer ware-
house recently erected at Parkhill. Would
the hon. Minister inform the House from
whom was the land purchased on which this
warehouse was built; what was the cost of
the land; who was the architect who de-
signed the building; what was the total cost
of the building and who are the operators of
the warehouse?
Mr. Speaker: This question was not
properly directed. I had it directed to the
Provincial Secretary.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): 1.
Ralph M. Gray; 2. $4,000; 3. W. E. Andrews;
4. $68,416, the contract price to be subject
to minor variations, debits or credits, when
the final settlement is made; 5. The liquor
control board of Ontario, as with all other
combined centres.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree), notice of
which has been given.
Is the hon. Minister aware that Mrs.
Margaret Cooper, a leader in the unsuccess-
ful efforts of the Ontario county nurses to
get a union, has been fired as the Uxbridge
area public health nurse leaving two schools
without a public health nurse?
If so, what does the hon. Minister intend
to do about this action?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the case to which
the hon. member makes reference. The
matter is presently being investigated by an
officer of my department.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, there is a ques-
tion of which I gave notice yesterday to the
hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Connell).
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
if tradesmen are now being laid off with the
statement that it is contrary to the policy of
the department to retain employees who are
beyond the age of retirement and that these
men will not be eligible for pension for one,
two or three years?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer is "no".
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond), in fact two
separate questions for the hon. Minister of
Health.
The first: Has the hon. Minister considered
establishing any formal course of appeal from
decisions on certification of foreign doctors
made by the college of physicians and sur-
geons? If not, will the newly proposed coun-
cil on the healing arts perform such a
function?
282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne
it was announced that it was the intention
of this government to establish a committee
to inquire into all matters pertaining to the
preparation, education, training, licensing,
control and disciplining of all those involved
in the practice of the healing arts. These
terms of reference apply to the committee. I
do not propose to take any action at this
session of the Legislature which might
prejudge its recommendations.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question: Am I then to understand
from the hon. Minister that the aggrieved
doctors can take their case directly to the
proposed council?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not know how the
committee will choose to function— whether
they propose to have public hearings. I
would suggest that we will have to wait
until the committee is set up and then be
guided by their determination in this matter.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Health, of
which he has had notice.
Does the hon. Minister intend to change
the regulations of The Ontario Hospital
Services Commission Act to permit partici-
pation in the Ontario hospital insurance plan
by non-residents employed in the province?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is "no." It is not intended to change
the regulations to permit participation of
Ontario hospital insurance plan for non-
residents employed in the province because
the provisions of this Act are aimed at resi-
dents only. If the persons to whom the hon.
member has reference are Canadians, resi-
dents of other provinces, their hospitaliza-
tion in vogue there will apply in Ontario
because there are reciprocal arrangements
between the provinces. If they come from
foreign countries, of course, their hospitaliza-
tion will not apply here or they will not be
eligible for Ontario hospital insurance until
they have established residence.
Mr. Trotter: One short supplementary
question: What of the individuals, Mr.
Speaker, who perhaps live in Detroit but
work in Canada? These people are having
the OHSC deductions made at the source
and do not get their money back. What can
be done for them?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would have to look
into this, Mr. Speaker, but my first reaction
is that they are eligible to be exempt from
deduction of hospital insurance. I cannot
state that as a fact at the present time. Had
I known of this question, I woidd have found
the correct answer.
Mr. Trotter: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the
hon. Minister would supply that information
because this is going on. People in Detroit are
being charged and do not get their money
back.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Would the
hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) inform
the House as to what transpired in court this
day in respect to the application brought by
the Oshawa Times?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, the motion was adjourned until
Thursday of this week, February 10, at 11
o'clock in the morning on the request of the
applicant; however, with all parties con-
senting.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member
for Tiiniskaming (Mr. Taylor), I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development (Mr. Randall), of which he has
had notice.
This is in two parts and is as follows:
Will the hon. Minister table the so-called
secret report by his department concerning
U.S. action with respect to U.S. -controlled
companies in Ontario?
What steps does the hon. Minister propose
to take as a result of this report?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, in answering
the hon. member's question, a report will not
be tabled. I note that the hon. member re-
ferred to the so-called secret report concern-
ing U.S. guideline policies which does not
exist, therefore no action is contemplated at
this time.
Mr. Farquhar: Mr. Speaker, again in the
absence of the hon. member for Tiiniskaming,
I have another question of the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development, notice of
which he has received.
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
of the total cost of publishing and distributing
the booklet "Ontario 66", and what methods
does the hon. Minister intend to follow to
secure proper distribution?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, a total esti-
mated cost of publishing and distributing
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
283
80,000 copies of the book internationally is
$90,800. And the revenue from domestic
distribution is estimated to be $10,000.
The second question— in selecting the
names of the people to whom "Ontario 66"
was to go to, the following procedures were
followed: (a) a selection was made of the
names of suitable departmental contacts in
foreign countries; and (b) three foreign speci-
alist firms in the U.S., the U.K., and the
Netherlands were retained to select the
names of suitable individuals, in respect of
geographic areas, to receive "Ontario 66."
Distribution is to financiers, industrialists, aca-
demics, publishers, some professions, to
research scientists, economists and planners,
governments and large libraries, business,
trade and professional associations, and U.S.
labour organizations. And distribution by
country is as follows: United States, 24,000;
United Kingdom, 13,000; Germany 13,000;
France, 7,000; Switzerland, 1,000; Scandi-
navia, 4,000; Belgium, 2,000; Holland, 2,000;
Ontario, 1,000; Quebec, 1,000; remainder of
Canada, 1,000; Japan, 2,000; the Far East
1,000; and a reserve of 8,000.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that a letter went
forward to all the hon. members of the
House outlining the reasons for "Ontario 66"
—which is part of our advertising programme
-as we designed it for the past year and
carried it forward into this year. We thought
a direct approach was necessary to reach
people who would be interested in investing
in the province of Ontario, or buying prod-
ucts from Ontario.
One of the most difficult things to do in
foreign advertising is to have enough money
to cover all of these markets. For instance,
in Norway we want to reach only roughly
2,000 people, and to do this it would cost us
$20 a head.
So, Mr. Speaker, by using not the shotgun
approach but the rifle approach, we picked
the people who are most apt to have an
interest in what we have to offer here in the
province of Ontario.
I might also say that the replies and the
correspondence we are getting from people
who have received it is very encouraging.
The best selling book in Canada reaches
5,000 copies; already we are close to the
5,000 so I think we have a best seller on our
hands. We are not giving them away; they
are being sold for $2 a copy and are offered
in lots of 25 to any industries or any indi-
viduals who want to buy them. As hon. mem-
bers probably noticed, by the reports in the
newspapers, one of the banks bought 1,200
copies and others are following. So I think
"Ontario 66" is doing a good job for the
province of Ontario.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Health, notice
of which has been given.
Would the hon. Minister comment on the
remarks of Dr. B. A. Hoddinott, chief psy-
chologist at Thistletown hospital, to the
effect that mental health agencies in Ontario
are "a disjointed, entangled jungle of agen-
cies"? I quote from his speech.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have no
verification of the fact that Dr. Hoddinott
used these words other than what appeared
in the press; and, with the tremendous pres-
sures under which all our members of the
fourth estate are constantly put trying to
report meetings of this kind, they are not
always apt to catch the exact words.
However, taking this report at face value,
I would suggest that Dr. Hoddinott might
well have been referring to the variety of
unrelated agencies providing services to the
various types of children. These are under a
number of different administrations and juris-
dictions.
The interdepartmental committees on men-
tal retardation, and on emotionally disturbed
children, were formed to study the existing
situation and to make recommendations to
correct it. The report of the committee on
mental retardation was submitted to this
House a year ago and is in the process of
implementation now. The committee on emo-
tionally disturbed children, which was set up
in the latter part of 1965, will report, I ex-
pect, before the end of this session. The
problems of standards and co-ordination of
services are among the matters which are cur-
rently under consideration by the committee.
Mr. S. Lewis: The hon. Minister has, in
effect, answered my second question. I lost
his last words. Will the interdepartmental
committee on emotionally disturbed children
definitely report this session?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not definitely, but I
am assured that this is fully anticipated.
Mr. S. Lewis: I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile),
and several that relate to it, notice of which
has been given.
1. Which other children's aid societies, if
any, find themselves in the position of the
two Metro Toronto societies, namely, the
likely municipal rejection of their proposed
budgets for the coming year?
284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. Will the hon. Minister consider tabling
a regulation setting out required standards
for protection services under The Child Wel-
fare Act so as to allay municipal budgetary
fears?
3. Who are the members of the child wel-
fare review board?
4. How soon after a municipality rejects
any given children's aid society budget will
the child welfare review board consider the
case; and
5. What happens to children's aid socie-
ties' financing in the interval?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, in answer to question 1,
only one county has indicated that they may
take issue with the estimated expenditure for
child welfare services— Bruce county. We are
not aware that the municipality of Metropoli-
tan Toronto is rejecting the estimates sub-
mitted by the Toronto children's aid society
or the Toronto Roman Catholic children's
aid society.
2. Section 11 of the regulations of The
Child Welfare Act, 1965, provides that:
During 1966, the director shall conduct a
survey and compile statistics necessary to
formulate a uniform method for determin-
ing the standard for the staffing of societies,
and each society shall supply such informa-
tion as it requires for the purpose.
I should also say that, insofar as we know,
the children's aid societies have included
personnel and funds necessary to maintain
their purposes and services in the protection
field.
3. A chairman of the child welfare review
board has been appointed in the person of
Mr. H. Donald Guthrie of Toronto. The
other four members will be announced shortly.
4. The child welfare review board will be
in a position to consider any appeal within
ten days of official notice.
5. The Department of Public Welfare has
already made available $2,679,000, being the
provincial share of the estimated expenditures
as submitted by the societies. This amount
may be; subject to adjustment at a later date,
but covers the provincial share for the
months of January and February. We propose
to advance the provincial share for March,
the first week in March. I should add that
the two Toronto societies received payment
totalling $1,090,864.50-Mctro Toronto child-
ren's aid society received $695,016.67, and
Toronto Roman Catholic children's aid society,
received $395,847.83. In addition to the pro-
vincial payments, it is evident that the muni-
cipalities in general are advancing their
estimated share of the costs.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to present to the House the annual
report of the Minister of Lands and Forests
for the year ending March 31, 1965.
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question to direct to the
hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. MacNaugh-
ton), notice of which has been given. Has
the hon. Minister of Highways given assur-
ances to the city of Fort William that the
requested Windsor street overpass or fly-by
will be built in order to provide access to
new residential development, which will be
cut off from the city by the ring road on
which construction is expected to be started
this year?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
hon. member's question, it is my opinion
that a letter dated December 20, addressed
to the clerk of the city of Fort William by
the Deputy Minister, provided such assur-
ances. A copy of the subject letter was made
available to the hon. member; but in the
event that he did not get it, I will read to
the House the pertinent paragraphs. The
Deputy Minister on December 20, in a letter
addressed to Mr. D. B. Morris, city clerk,
corporation of the city of Fort William, said:
In the absence of the Minister I am
replying to your letter of December 15,
wherein you draw attention to the resolu-
tions of council held on December 14, 1965,
and dealing with a request for the inter-
change at Windsor avenue on the Lake-
head expressway. I notice that nothing is
mentioned in the motion of the meeting
held on December 10 when his worship
Mayor Reid and Mr. Thompson visited me
in Toronto for the express purpose of dis-
cussing this proposal. At that time, I clearly
laid before his worship the department's
position which briefly was this: That under
no circumstances for operation on safety
conditions would a connection either at
grade or by interchange be provided at
this location, but that if future traffic
warranted the construction of a fly-over,
sympathetic consideration would be given
to it at that time. Possibly the council
has some reservations with my using the
term 'sympathetic consideration.' If this
is the case, let me asure you that if such
a facility is warranted by increased traffic
volumes, a fly-over will be built.
In the possible circumstance that the hon.
member did not receive a copy of the letter
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
285
that was sent to him, I tender him another
copy of the Deputy Minister's letter now.
Mr. Freeman: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Minister permit a supplementary question?
Does the hon. Minister not feel that it is
needed immediately in order that the board
of education and other civic departments can
plan the services for the new development?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think this is all
recognized, Mr. Speaker, in the assurances
provided by the Deputy Minister when he
makes reference to traffic requirements. These
traffic requirements simply do not exist at the
moment. The full assurance has been provided
to his worship at a meeting and by letter,
that at that point where the traffic require-
ments indicate the need for a fly-over such
a fly-over would be built.
I think it is fair to say that the Deputy
Minister's assurance should be accepted by
the city in this instance and I might say I
concur with the submission of the Deputy
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago the hon. member for Riverdale
(Mr. Renwick) asked a question, which I
could not answer at the time, that of the
6,000 doctors licensed to practise in Ontario
in the past 15 years, how many were from
India. Information is available only over
the past ten years. During this period there
were 20 medical doctors, graduates of Indian
universities, licensed to practise in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scar-
borough West on the same day or the day
before that, asked a question which I could
not then answer. It was in three parts:
Would the Minister explain why the Ontario
college of physicians and surgeons differen-
tiates among universities in white western
countries as to acceptability of undergraduate
medical standards but excludes all universi-
ties in countries like India and Pakistan?
The answer, sir, is that the schools are
required to satisfy the college that then-
standards are acceptable. The schools in
question have not provided information which
would indicate acceptable standards.
The second part of the question was: What
criteria has the college of physicians and sur-
geons applied to Indian medical schools to
justify its refusal to accept the students from
any of these schools?
The answer is that the standards applied to
Indian medical schools are the same as those
which would be applied to other situations.
As indicated in the reply already given, the
schools have not established an acceptable
standard.
The third part of the question was: How
does the Minister explain the recent exclu-
sion of the college of Indian medical schools
when more Indian students wrote the medical
council of Canada examination in 1964 than
students from any other country, and had the
highest passing rate of any country in the
world?
The answer is that the Indian graduates
who took their examinations in the autumn of
1963 and the spring of 1964 were included in
the report of the annual meeting of the medi-
cal council of Canada in September, 1964.
The information contained in the report to
this annual meeting denies that either of the
points brought out in this question are cor-
rect. A number of countries had more
students writing the medical council of Can-
ada examination than India during this
period, and during this same period students
from a number of countries obtained higher
passing rates than students from India.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in direct com-
pliance with your ruling of the previous day,
I have three supplementary questions on the
three answers given by the hon. Minister.
In relation to the first reply, how can it be
contended that all the schools have not
answered, and therefore some have been ex-
cluded, when the college of physicians and
surgeons itself only circulated 30 of the 70
existing universities in India; received replies
from only six and based their response in a
letter to Dr. Baichwal on the contention that
personal visits on the part of doctors had in
fact determined the exclusion?
On the second question, Mr. Speaker, what
are the standards to which the hon. Minister
refers? And, on the third, is the hon. Min-
ister unaware of the statistics given in the
medical council of Canada annual announce-
ment in 1965 where the number of students
is specified and the percentages as well?
Mr. Speaker: Will the member ask the
questions, but refrain from elaborating upon
them?
Mr. S. Lewis: They are confined interroga-
tives.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not an expert in
grammar, and I do not really know what the
hon. member means. However, it is all right.
I did not get that last question; it was so
verbose.
The answer to the first question is that the
college wrote all 70 medical schools in India,
and only 6 concerned themselves enough to
reply.
286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The standards are those that are demanded
of all graduates who wish to practise in
Ontario, and are comparable to the standards
demanded of myself and every other graduate
of an Ontario or Canadian university.
I am sorry I did not get the other part of
the question. I will have to get it.
Mr. S. Lewis: I think our verbosity is at
least equal, Mr. Speaker. I simply asked the
lion. Minister whether he was aware of the
table from the medical council of Canada
annual announcement 1965 which lists the
number of students who tried the examina-
tion and pass percentages by countries. It
indicates that in fact more Indian students did
apply and a greater percentage passed.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in the
host of statistics I read I cannot recall that
one. However, I would point out, for the
information of the House, that passing an
examination does not make a practitioner in
medicine. One could read all of the text
books in medicine— I am quite certain the
hon. member could read them all— and could
pass an examination with relatively decent
marks; that would not make him a physician.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, recognizing
your reliance on Westminster for rules, and
as you know the leader of the Opposition in
Westminster does not need to give written
notice of a question, I therefore would ask
the hon. Prime Minister: Could he tell us
when the report of the redistribution com-
mission will be presented to the House?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
prepared to answer the question without
written notice, but I do not want this to be
taken as precedent; I suppose you will have
something to say about that later on.
As soon as it is ready I will bring it in and
I would hope that would be within the next
very few days, at least next week sometime.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask a supple-
mentary question, sir? Has the hon. Prime
Minister received the report from the com-
mission?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I received a portion of
it today. As a matter of fact, it came in this
morning. I have no desire to restrain it.
There is good news and bad news in it,
which is inevitable when you have redis-
tribution. I think the sooner it is here and
we all see it, the better.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime Minister
is it his intention to refer this matter to a
committee of the House before it comes to
the House itself?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think
probably the procedure would be to table
the report of this House-appointed commis-
sion to get it in the records of the assembly
and in front of the hon. members. Then we
will introduce a bill carrying out the recom-
mendations of the committee. Now that bill,
if it was felt necessary, could be referred to
the committee on privileges and elections for
examination. It may be that the bill could
be just as easily examined here in the com-
mittee of the whole House. If it appears
when it is produced that some purpose would
be served by sending it to committee, I
would be quite prepared to do so.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Before the member speaks,
I would inform the leader of the Opposition
that his questions today without written
notice are not to be taken as precedent, that
in the case of questions before the orders of
the day we do not have to go to Westminster;
we do have this rule ourselves. The ques-
tions are supposed to be submitted to my
office before 12 o'clock each day.
Mr. MacDonald: I can see Mr. Speaker,
that you are under rather friendly badgering.
Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence on
a matter of personal privilege. In the late
edition of the Toronto Daily Star last night
there was a report on the remarks of the hon.
Attorney General yesterday afternoon and
after a quote from the hon. Attorney General
there is a paragraph which reads as follows:
Mr. Wishart looked directly at Ontario
New Democratic leader Donald C. Mac-
Donald while making the statement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney General
sits just across the carpet from me. Unless
he turns right or left it is rather difficult for
him not to look at me, though I thought on
occasions he was looking past me at the hon.
member for Oshawa (Mr. Walker), during a
portion of his remarks.
But since the Toronto Daily Star has said
by implication, very clearly, that his remarks
were addressed to me, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make two very brief comments.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Is that any more in order than my
statement?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
287
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member, I think,
has a point of personal privilege on being
quoted in the paper as having had offended
one of his privileges as a member of the
House. As such he has the right to reply.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. As I read the article, all the article
said was that the hon. Attorney General
looked at the socialist leader. Now he made
a general statement which in its terms applied
to everybody in the province of Ontario and
if a point of personal privilege arises out of
that, Mr. Speaker, then almost anything
that applies to anyone in the province of
Ontario would allow any individual member
to get up at any time during the proceedings
of this House and make a speech.
The purpose of our motion yesterday was
to bring this matter before the House in a
direct and proper manner and you ruled that
out of order. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, if
you allow the hon. member for York South
to continue in this way he is going to be
allowed, under the cloak of a question of
personal privilege, to do something that you
would not allow the official Opposition to do
yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: I may say in answer to the
point of order, I was waiting to hear the
member for York South out and not let him
read the article from which he is about to
quote. I am waiting to hear whether some-
thing in the article offended one of his
privileges as a member of the House. I
cannot anticipate what the member is going
say. If I find that what he is about to say is
out of order, I shall have to call him to order.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. After he makes his comment it will
be irrelevant to him whether you approve of
it or not. On the point of order, I am merely
saying to you—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! I am sorry.
I cannot call the member out of order until
I have heard what he is going to say, or at
least until he embarks on what he is about
to say. He has risen on a point of personal
privilege, which is his right if an article in
the paper has some remarks about him.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, with respect, he
stated it and then he said, "And now I want
to comment." It was at that point that I rose.
I say that his having stated it is fine.
Mr. Speaker: I will hear the member until
I determine if he is out of order.
An hon. member: But we do not want to
hear him.
Mr. Singer: We heard a vote yesterday. We
heard a vote on the debate yesterday, too.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is one
thing to make a general comment that may
apply to everybody in the province. It is
another thing when that general comment is
pointed directly at me in this House, which
was done in the Toronto Daily Star news
report. It is on that basis that I rise on the
matter of personal privilege.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will say
this: If there is a conflict between public
rights and private rights, even when those
rights are established by the courts in accord-
ance with a law that has long been ques-
tioned, then I unhesitatingly reassert that I
shall defend public rights.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the mem-
ber a question? As I am not acquainted with
the article, is there anything in the article
other than that the Attorney General looked
at the member across the House? Is there
any more than that in the article?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the article
states that the hon. Attorney General was
looking directly at me—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! I would rule
that if there is nothing other than that in the
newspaper article then I . shall have to deny
the member his point of personal privilege.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Resuming the ad-
journed debate, on the motion for second
reading of Bill' No. 6, An Act to amend The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
( continued )
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
now that we are setting into the debate on
the medical services insurance bill amend-
ment, I think we should all relax this after-
noon and spend a little time on the essential
ingredients of the amendment which has
been proposed by the hon. Minister of Health.
288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We all recall that last year we were engaged
in the same debate, with the same players, the
same programme; the only difference was that
last year it was a tragedy and this year it is
a farce. There is no question that the bill
which has been presented to this Legislature
is devoid of principle and as it is an un-
principled bill it is very difficult to ascertain
the principle which is the subject of this
debate today.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak at some
considerable length and if the audience in
the House dwindles any further, we will
move the adjournment of the debate until
such time-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Renwick: As my hon. friend from
London South (Mr. White) says, one some-
times rises in sorrow and in anger, and the
mixture today in the debate on this bill is a
combination which is potentially explosive.
If hon. members will recall what this govern-
ment has done on the question of medical
insurance in this province, they will appreciate
the difficulty which is faced by us on this
side of the House in arousing public atten-
tion to this amendment to the third bill which
has been introduced by this government cov-
ering medical insurance. We can well appreci-
ate that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
and his government are faced with a very
basic political problem. They sold the people
of the province of Ontario, under the guise
of public relations during the election of
1963, that there was in fact a public Medicare
scheme in force in the province of Ontario
at the time that the government went to the
people of this province. Following that was
the Hagey commission report, following that
was the introduction of a bill, following that
was the introduction of a further bill and
today we have the debate on the principle of
the bill which has now been introduced
to amend that long series of disasters by this
government in the field of Medicare.
The problem with which we are faced is
not only to gain the attention of the hon.
members of this House about the bill which is
before the assembly for debate, but to try to
ascertain whether any of the hon. Ministers of
the government, other than the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond) and perhaps other
than than the hon. Prime Minister, are going
to take any part in this debate. Or is it going
to be left to a certain limited number of
the private members, in the quaint phrase
of the hon. member for Forest Hill (Mr.
Dunlop) who is not in his seat today, of the
PC Party to state their views on this particu-
larly important bill?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yester-
day the hon. members who took part in the
debate, the hon. member for Beaches (Mr.
Harris) for whom I have a profound regard
but who finds himself in the terribly difficult
position that the majority of his constituents
require to be sold on the proposition that
there is a universal, government-sponsored,
government-operated, comprehensive Medi-
care scheme in force in the province of
Ontario. And the hon. member for Beaches
is placed in the difficult position of qualifying
whatever is said. It is quite a change from
the early part of this debate a year ago
when the province of Saskatchewan and the
Saskatchewan Medicare scheme were de-
nounced—and I do not think that that is too
strong a word — in rather strident tones by
hon. members who spoke from the govern-
ment benches.
This year the reference is rather to the
length of time that it took the government of
the province of Saskatchewan to bring Medi-
care into effect in that province, coupled with
the statement that it is really a very responsi-
ble bill at this time. So now they will be
able to say to their constituents that this is
a step forward in some form of a logical
progression, which will achieve in the prov-
ince of Ontario a Medicare scheme which is
fit for the people in this province.
Mr. Speaker, let us not be trapped by this
government into a debate on what may or
may not be in the mind of the hon. Prime
Minister with respect to the bargaining posi-
tion of the province of Ontario with the fed-
eral government. If that is what we are
going to debate, we may as well close the
debate at this point because the government
has not indicated, in any way, whether or
not it is engaged in a bargaining process with
the federal government. What we must look
at is the public record, and this government
is publicly on the record as being opposed
in every respect to a government-operated
universal Medicare scheme for the province
of Ontario. The bill which is before the
House today is in no sense a step toward that
kind of a scheme.
We have clearly defined in this House, as
was stated in the last debate and is stated
again today, a government which believes
in a private-insurance-company-operated
Medicare scheme, with subsidization by the
government through a government-operated
welfare scheme for certain of its citizens— a
mixture of the kind of Medicare which the
people of the province of Ontario should
have.
We on this side are determined that there
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
289
will be, in the province of Ontario, a uni-
versal, government-operated, comprehensive
Medicare scheme regardless of whether or
not the federal government will provide $1,
$17, or $20 per capita to enable that scheme
to be put into effect. The province of Ontario
has the resources, has the ability, to finance
such a scheme, regardless of any decision
which may be made by the federal govern-
ment. And we do not think that the basic
principle of this bill should be put before
this Legislature as a bargaining counter in
some continuing dialogue which takes place
between the province of Ontario and the
federal government.
The reason that we feel so strongly about
this scheme is that any scheme, which we as
a party have put forward, is usually subject
to the criticism, "Where are you going to find
the dollars?" And in this particular case, the
people of the province of Ontario are being
asked by this government to find more dollars
than are required to provide a service. And
when the government puts forward the prop-
osition that there must be priorities in the
allocation of the total resources of the prov-
ince of Ontario— between education, between
the development of facilities, between Medi-
care, between the construction of hospitals,
and all of the other many demands which are
made on this province— the least that we in
this House can do is to make certain that
any given demand on the resources of this
province is at the lowest possible economic
efficient amount. And this is the ground on
which we are prepared to continue, today,
the attack on the bill which has been put
forward by the hon. Minister of Health.
Before going into that specific matter, I
would like to deal with two or three of the
original items which the hon. Minister spoke
about when he introduced the bill. Hon.
members will recall that, skipping the first
basic change to which he referred, the bill
then provided that the benefit under the
standard contract is to be based upon 90
per cent of the schedule of fees of the
Ontario medical association, rather than upon
100 per cent. In due course, when the bill
comes before the committee of this House for
debate, clause by clause, we will have some
comment to make upon that particular basic
change.
I think it is sufficient today to say that
this appears to be the reintroduction into this
bill of a co-insurance feature, by which the
insured person participates to some extent
in the cost to him of the services which are
provided by doctors, physicians, or surgeons
under such a standard contract. I think we
should not overlook that point but we can
return to it at a later time.
The third basic change, to which the hon.
Minister referred, was the removal of special
waiting periods for maternity benefits under
standard medical services insurance contracts,
and a further amendment to provide that cer-
tain surgical procedures performed by dental
surgeons in hospitals will be covered by the
standard contract. Both of those relate, of
course, to the degree of comprehensiveness of
the scheme which the government is putting
forward, and we are in favour of any enlarge-
ment which may be given to the scope of the
services to be provided under such contract.
There are still large areas that are not cov-
ered; one of the principal ones, of course,
which is of great concern to the public and
the province, is the area of the cost of drugs
under such a Medicare scheme.
But if we would now turn to the first basic
change which the hon. Minister proposes to
this House, we will note that he stated the
change to be that the standard medical serv-
ices insurance contract is to be supplied only
by the medical services insurance division
of The Department of Health. Accordingly,
provisions dealing with the licensing and
regulation of carriers in the medical services
insurance programme have been repealed and
complementary amendments have been made.
In those few words, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister propounded the fundamental pur-
pose of the bill. And if one takes the time to
mark up one of the bills with the deletions
which occurred through these amendments,
one will find that the hon. Minister might
have been well advised to have introduced a
brand-new bill. I assume that there would
have been a degree of reluctance to do so
because, while I was not a member of the
House throughout the period of all the bills,
I believe this would have been the fourth
medical services insurance bill to have been
presented. But, rather than do it by way of
a new bill, he simply introduced a bill which,
in substance, deletes many provisions of the
bill.
I think that this House is entitled to an
explanation from the hon. Minister as to just
why this deletion took place. And, failing an
explanation by the hon. Minister— and at one
point in this debate, if I recall correctly, he
denied that this had anything to do with the
bill— I would like to give my explanation of
what, in fact, took place that led to this par-
ticular change.
You will recall last year that at the close of
the Medicare debate in this House, the ubi-
quitous Mr. Watson, the president of the
290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Canadian health insurance association, was
reported in the press to have stated that he
was very pleased with the scheme which the
government had brought to fruition in this
House because it accorded so completely with
the brief which they had submitted to the
Hall commission on medical services. And
you will notice in the paper this morning that
Mr. Watson appears not to have made any
change in his judgment about the scheme
which is now being propounded, but has
moved on to two further grounds.
He has extracted from the hon. Prime Min-
ister a statement, for whatever it is worth,
that the premiums will be "realistic" under
the government scheme. I assume that can
be subject to many interpretations. He has
then gone on to suggest that perhaps what is
in the government's mind is that the 90 per
cent requirement of the federal government
will now be met by having a substantial
number of people under the private insurance
plan, plus the additional people who require
subsidy in this province under this proposed
scheme— and that these two percentages,
added together, will achieve the 90 per cent
target at least which the federal government
purports to require for its scheme.
Well, I would just like to say that we in
this party do not accept that principle; and if
it is the principle on which this government
is operating, I think we should have a cate-
gorical affirmation that that is so, or a
categorical denial that it is so.
If I may return to the circumstances which
led Mr. Watson last year to comment that
this was a very fine Medicare scheme for the
province of Ontario, I need only refer to not
too many sections of the deletions which took
place.
But, sir, you will recall that, in the elab-
orate structure that was raised by the gov-
ernment, there was a proposal to establish a
corporation known as Medical Carriers Incor-
porated; and that this comporation was,
among other powers, given the power to
"establish and administer a system for the
pooling of standard contracts and may upon
application therefore exempt a licensed carrier
from the pooling requirements."
It is quite easy to explain, to my satis-
faction in any event, why this was so accept-
able to the government and to the Canadian
health insurance association. Because what
the government, under Bill No. 136, had
done was to take out a large substantial block
of people who might be in the category of
poor risk, either by reason of health, by
reason of age, or by reason of their unemploy-
ment or underemployment in our economy;
therefore these were risks which the insurance
industry, as such, was not prepared to touch.
The government therefore took over that
group and provided a government-operated
scheme which would cover just those people;
that is, those people who were in the cate-
gorical welfare cases, those who had no tax-
able income, and those who had taxable
incomes of, I believe, up to something like
$1,100— meaning a total income of something
in the neighbourhood of $3,100 or $3,200.
Therefore, by taking that large bloc of the
people in the province of Ontario— and on the
government's own figure, 1.8 million people-
out of the field of private insurance, the fact
appeared and appealed to the insurance
industry that the remaining people in the
province of Ontario were a pretty select
group, within which they could offer health
insurance.
One of the things which occurred in the
debate in the House was the sudden realiza-
tion, through the debate in this House, by
the public that even with a proposed pooling
arrangement the private insurance companies,
providing standard contracts to persons who
did not fall within this 1.8 million figure,
would be subject to a differential in premium
depending on their health and on their age
and presumably on their ability to keep up
the premiums. So they were going to charge
them higher premiums, determined by the
risk to which the private insurance companies
thought they were subject, despite the fact
that they had the facility of pooling any of
that group who they thought were not
acceptable risks at a standard premium.
It is quite certain that the government
closed off the debate and passed the bill
under the sudden realization that the people
in the province of Ontario would not stand
for a differential premium which would be
inequitable and regressive on those persons
who had to go to private carriers to pay a
premium which was not in line with the
standard premium paid by the great bulk of
the population who were being left to the
private insurance field.
So in the interval between the time when
the House prorogued or adjourned last June,
the government then had to go to the insur-
ance companies and say to them: "The public
will not accept differentials in premiums de-
pending on whether or not people are well,
ill, old or young. Therefore, we want you,
under pooling provisions permitted under this
Act which was passed, to come up with a
standard premium which you will charge
everybody other than the large group of
high-risk people that we have already taken
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
291
off your hands, a standard premium which is
acceptable to the rest of those people."
Mr. Speaker, I surmise, and in the silence
of the government I take it to be a fact,
that what the insurance companies then said
was: "No, the group left for us is not quite
good enough. We want you to take out some
more of the bad risks for us." The govern-
ment said: "How can we do that?" The
insurance companies said: "Leave us the
group business; that is what we want. We
can then provide the insurance without being
faced with the problem of assessing the high-
risk people in the community and you take
over those, in addition to the 1.8 million
people. Take them into your scheme, and
then you will not have to regulate us at all.
You will be able to go back to your original
position by which you exerted no effective
supervision over the rates which we would
charge."
This position, of course, is much to this
government's liking because this is the very
position that the province has been in for
many, many years in the field of car insur-
ance; despite the power given to the govern-
ment under The Insurance Act to establish
rates and premiums for the insurance indus-
try, they have not chosen to exercise it. So,
incidentally, insurance companies got away
from any intrusion into their affairs by the
government, which is a terribly bad thing
these days.
The result, of course, has been quite clear.
The premium which is supposed to be
charged by the publicly operated scheme for
those people who have no choice but to get
their insurance from the government, is go-
ing to be an uneconomic premium. It is not
as uneconomic a premium for the people in
that group as it would have been under the
scheme which was jettisoned, or is in the
course of being jettisoned, as a result of
these amendments. You will recall that last
year the only figures that the government
would give to us about the premiums were
$72, $144 and $180 for a single person, a
family of two and a family of more than two.
This year, they were able, under this new
scheme, to bring those figures down to some-
thing like $60, $120 and $150.
I think it is at this point that the reported
remarks of the hon. Prime Minister, in reply
to the question put to him by Mr. Watson,
has very real significance— that is, that he was
going to keep the premiums charged by the
government-operated plan at a "realistic"
rate.
The realism is very clear now, because it
not only proves the high risks of the group
that the government is going to insure, but I
think it perhaps provides a clue as to the
place where the government found the
premium which it is going to charge. Under
the Ontario, province of opportunity, em-
ployees group insurance plan sponsored by
the London Life Insurance Company, you find
that former employees who are in receipt of
a superannuation or disability allowance
under The Public Service Superannuation Act
and I think that, by and large, we would all
agree that people in that category are rela-
tively higher risk people than persons who are
not retired— will be eligible for the basic
surgical medical benefit under this plan in
payment of a premium of $157.44 for a
former employee with more than one de-
pendant.
That is not the cost to a person who is a
participant in this group plan; that is the
cost which the person who retires from the
public service of the province of Ontario in
the future will have to pay to continue his
benefits. That is not the amount which he
pays as a member of the group. And it is
not something which is automatic. As a side
issue, in the brochure— and perhaps on an-
other occasion this would bear looking into—
you will find a statement which applies to
the public servants of the province of Ontario.
"If your group basic surgical-medical insur-
ance terminates because you cease to be an
eligible public servant, and if you wish to
change your health insurance benefits to an
individual policy, you must contact the
London Life office nearest you within 31 days
of the date of the termination of your
insurance. The benefits and premium rates
provided under the individual policy will be
in accordance with the rates of the company
in effect at the time the application is made."
So that the public servant of the province
of Ontario today— let us assume that he is
adequately covered under the package scheme
—should recognize that the day he retires he
has no automatic right to continue that cov-
erage, even if he is prepared to pay the
premium. And he does not know what the
premium is going to be because the premium,
at that time, will be the rate which is in
force for such an application.
I would assume that the rate which a
presently retired public servant is paying is
the current rate, which is $157.44. I assume
that that is the cost to a person in the
province of Ontario who falls within the high
risk group who is no longer a member of a
group, but has to deal with his surgical and
medical expenses as an individual, will then
have to pay to the London Life Insurance
292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Company under this scheme, or to any other
company, if he wishes to have continued
coverage for physicians and surgeons services.
I think, if it is possible for me to draw the
point carefully, I am saying to this House
that if you are 65 years of age and if you
want to be covered by the London Life
Insurance Company under this group plan
you then go to the London Life Insurance
Company and you make an application for
the insurance. There is no certainty that you
will get it and there is no certainty as to the
rate at which you will get it. There is no
certainty that you will not be subjected to a
medical examination to determine whether
your health has deteriorated beyond what is
average at the 65-year-old level and that you
will not have to take a higher rate.
Then you turn around and go— as my hon.
friend from Scarborough North (Mr. Wells)
says— to the government. I thank him for the
remark, because that is where the remarks of
the hon. Prime Minister come in. The rates
will be realistic and the realistic rates which
the hon. Prime Minister, I gather, has been
speaking about to Mr. Watson is the same rate
that Mr. Watson will have the London Life
Insurance Company charge for the coverage.
As I say, in the absence of explanation by
the government, we will make that assump-
tion and it is open to any hon. member of the
government to answer it.
The fact of the matter is that what Mr.
Watson does not want is to have people
urged or anxious to withdraw from group
insurance in order to come into a government-
operated scheme.
At the present time my understanding of
most group insurance policies is that it is
tantamount to being a condition of employ-
ment. One has to be in the group if there
is a group plan covering the employees in a
given plant or in a given operation. And by
and large one must stay in it, just as a public
servant in the province of Ontario must by
and large stay within this scheme.
I think I could make a further point that
is of great significance to the kind of public
relations cloak which the government wishes
so desperately to pull over the whole question
of Medicare. We should point out that every
person in the province of Ontario who is to-
day receiving favoured rates as a member of
a group of healthy people within any organ-
ization—and the rate is carefully hidden from
him because in many cases he pays only a
portion of it and in many other cases the
rate is fixed in terms of a package programme
of which the employee has the benefit.
Within that framework he may very well feel
today that he is adequately covered in some
way or other.
He is not terribly certain, of course, as to
just what the fine print in the contract is
going to provide him with, whether the ex-
clusions are large or small, whether there is
a basic plan such as this coupled with a
supplementary one and whether he signed the
proper forms which would give him the
supplementary coverage in addition to the
basic coverages provided— he does not know
any of that. But what he does know is, as
with the public servants of the province of
Ontario, when he leaves that group he will
be in the same position as the retired mem-
bers of the public service of the province of
Ontario and he will then have to come into
the government scheme at this "realistic"
rate of $ 150-odd.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, at the present
time the rates which the government is fixing
for this plan are, for those people who are
going to participate in it, probably the best
rates that those people could obtain for insur-
ance against doctors and physicians services.
However, they are not the best rate if the
whole of the population of the province of
Ontario is within the group. There are two
groups: The group of the low risk categories
left with the private insurance companies and
then this tremendous number of additional
people who are going to be relying upon the
publicly operated scheme.
My hon. leader (Mr. MacDonald)— and there
is no need to expound further figures— has
pointed out that in any event the premiums
which could be charged if the whole of the
population of the province of Ontario were
covered under a single group, under a gov-
ernment-operated universal scheme, would
be very substantially reduced from what the
government proposes under the present $60,
$120 and $150. Indeed, starting with the
figures of the government, as my hon. leader
pointed out, the result of the calculations
could well be a premium of $20, $40 and $50
for everyone in the province of Ontario.
Now I will leave that point until the con-
elusion of my remarks having, I believe, to
my satisfaction and I hope to the satisfaction
of the House, satisfied myself as to the
reason why this government has amended
this bill. I hope I have conveyed something
of the sense of concern that we on this side
of the House have in getting the attention
of the government to the fundamental prob-
lem and getting the attention of the people
of the province of Ontario to the fact that this
scheme is an unsatisfactory scheme, that it is
an uneconomic scheme, that people cannot
afford to pay this kind of premium; and
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
293
particularly people cannot afford to pay that
kind of premium when they have retired.
There may well come a day when that
kind of money is not significant, but hon.
members know, as I know, that the person
who has to pay $150 a year, plus, I believe,
something in the neighbourhood of $75 for
hospital insurance as well, on retirement pay
with a total cost to him of $225, not including
drugs and many of the other expensive
items of medical coverage under a proper
Medicare scheme, that amount when totalled
up for a person liable to have a serious
illness is an intolerable burden on the people
of the province of Ontario and results from
the segregation of the people of Ontario
into these two classes: The high-risk group
which the government will perpetuate, the
pool which will continue to be made up of
the people who cannot afford to pay that kind
of money; and the other groups in the prov-
ince of Ontario who are lucky enough during
the period of their employment or during
the other variations of the group plan to
continue as members of groups and have the
benefit of a lower cost, and in many cases a
hidden premium.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend today
to take the time of the House to repeat, other
than by brief reference, the comments which
I made in the debate on the second reading
of this bill last year other than to say that
we on this side of the House consider this
bill to be as that bill was: Uneconomic, in-
equitable, regressive and one which is funda-
mentally opposed to the way in which the
people of the province of Ontario desire to
have the coverage to which they are entitled
against the costs of doctors' and physicians'
bills.
The uneconomic element of it is perfectly
clear. The province of Ontario as a whole,
with all the demands on its resources, cannot
afford to pay this kind of cost for a total
overall Medicare scheme. They can afford to
pay the kind of costs which are involved m
my hon. leader's figures, and they are not able
to pay anything more than that cost.
It is regressive because, to the extent that
this kind of premium is in the nature of a
tax on people, it means that it bears heaviest
on those who can least afford to pay it. And
in that sense it is a regressive policy.
It is inequitable— in the same sense that
those who are well and healthy, and have
the good fortunte for a certain period of their
life to be members of groups having the
benefit of a low rate when they do not, on
many occasions, need it, when they get older
and are ill, or are more liable to illness and
are more likely to have medical expense,
are going to have to pay this intolerable
amount for this kind of coverage.
I have tried, because I have no facility
with figures, to envisage the kind of people,
the kind of group in one place, and relate
the cost which this government proposes to
that kind of a group. You see the 1.8 million,
plus all the other people that they have now
taken out of the hands of the private in-
surance companies in order to leave the
private insurance companies just with the
group business are scattered all over the
province so that no member of this House
represents those people. They have no way
of making their voice felt in a unified way.
I thought that we could perhaps look at
this House today with 108 members. We will
call it 100 members for the sake of the
simple calculation that I would like to make.
Assume for a moment that we all had to be
covered under this particular scheme which
the government is propounding today, be-
cause we did not belong to groups and
because we were in the high-risk category.
Then you would find— using $100 figure
because, after all, the government has used
$60, $120 and $150 and I think everybody in
the House would agree that $100 per
member is a pretty satisfactory low average
of what the premium would be— that in this
House, for one year, 100 members times $100
would mean that this House would bear and
pay for medical services of doctors and
physicians, not hospital services and not
drugs and not all the other exclusions which
are in there, $10,000; and that defies my
common sense. I do not think that at any
occasion, at any time, have the physicians*
and surgeons' bills of the members of this
Legislature been $10,000 in any one year.
An hon. member: Prove it.
Mr. Renwick: An hon. member asked me
to prove it. What we are asking the govern-
ment to do is to produce figures which will
persuade me that this does not appeal to my
common sense.
I will give another example which, whether
or not I can prove it, is satisfactory to me.
And, as a person who represents that riding,
I would not stand for one minute, nor would
the hon. member for Scarborough North,
or the hon. member for Beaches, or the hon.
member for London South, or any other hon.
member in this House, if he makes the calcu-
lation.
In my riding of Riverdale, and making the
projection that the people in Riverdale had
to be covered at this cost, there are 15,000
294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
households in my riding and there are be-
tween 35,000 and 40,000 people. For those
who are not aware of its limits, it is a small
riding. It extends from the Don River to
Jones avenue, and from the boundary be-
tween the township of East York and the city
of Toronto down to the lake. For the people
in my riding, using again the conservative
figure of $100 per household, under the
premium which the government proposes to
charge, this would mean that there would
be extracted from my riding, for doctors'
and physicians' services in one year, $1.5
million.
Or again, with the only kind of mathe-
matics that I understand, if this was the
kind of premium which was being charged
to my people, and if you put all the people
who are going to be covered by the govern-
ment scheme into one constituency and they
had a representative in this House, in ten
years those people in that constituency would
be paying $15 million in doctors' and
physicians' bills.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will understand,
and this House will understand, why we in
this party and on this side of the House,
including the Liberal Party, are going to
fight this bill and the principle of this bill
until it is defeated, whether it is done this
year, next year, or the year after. And we
want simple, clear, unequivocable answers
to the questions which I have tried to place
on behalf of my party in this debate.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard quite a rehash of
medical insurance again this year as we have
on other occasions. I listened with very
great interest to the hon. leader of the Op-
position (Mr. Thompson) when he spoke on
and proposed amendments to the bill. I
could not help but think, Mr. Speaker, that
the once great Liberal Party, which stands
for some of the things that the Conservative
Party stands for—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Cowling: The once great Liberal Party
of Ontario, I said. They are now moving
just a little bit over toward the socialists
when they propose such an amendment as
the hon. leader has proposed.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They
will change it tomorrow.
Mr. Cowling: I would think that they
would be supporting, as I support, the system
of free enterprise where people have a choice
to make whether it is in the purchase of
insurance or anything else.
Mr. MacDonald: It is absolute.
Mr. Cowling: But they are not doing that.
They are moving away over to the other side.
As far as the NDP is concerned, I can under-
stand their attitude; they are for state control
of everything. They are socialists and they
make no bones about it, so we will have to
give them marks for that.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member's defi-
nition of socialism is a little off.
Mr. Cowling: Well, I have my definition of
socialism, and it applies to the NDP, in total.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member should
have heard what an insurance agent said
about him.
An hon. member: Are you in favour of this
bill?
Mr. Cowling: I am in favour of this bill;
is that clear? And I am going to tell the hon.
members why.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): The hon. member was in favour of
the last one.
Mr. Cowling: That is right. I was in favour
of the last one. And I will probably be in
favour of the next one, too.
An hon. member: When will that come?
Another hon. member: Every week a new
bill
Mr. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposi-
tion continues to vote against this— and I was
quite amused by the last speaker and what he
had to say about the poor insurance compan-
ies; they get an awful going over in the
House. He said that they were going to fight;
well, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that group could fight its way out of a
paper bag if it had to.
As far as the insurance companies are con-
cerned in the province of Ontario, let us be
realistic; they perform a very good public
service for the citizens of Ontario. They pay
millions of dollars in taxes to the various
governments in the province.
An hon. member: They get it from us.
Mr. Cowling: What is wrong with that?
Why put them out of business? They are
just making an honest dollar the same as any-
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
295
body else. I do not pretend to speak for the
insurance companies because I have no par-
ticular brief to hold for them. As I said
before, I believe they do a great public serv-
ice, the companies and their agency forces,
and I think that there is a place for them in
the community.
There are two or three articles in the
Toronto Globe and Mail, which caught my
attention in connection with this bill, Mr.
Speaker— one by Peter McClintock. He goes
on to quote Premier Manning and some of
his objections to this type of medical care
insurance; this is what the Premier had to say
and I think I agree with him. He said:
It is a compulsory programme in which
participation is compelled by the state and
not left to the voluntary choice of the citi-
zen himself. This feature of the plan vio-
lates the fundamental principle of a free
society, namely, the right of each citizen to
exercise freedom of choice in matters relat-
ing to his own and his family's welfare.
So you people are going to take that away
from him.
It is alarming to hear this plan being
advocated as a programme to provide free
medical services to the Canadian people. A
service does not become free simply be-
cause the government pays the bill. It is
a misleading thing to give the Canadian
people the false impression that their gov-
ernments can take on additional expendi-
ture, amounting shortly to over $1 billion
a year, without imposing heavy additional
taxation on both the federal and provincial
levels.
Here is where we go, Mr. Speaker. How far
are we going to go on these welfare services?
How far are we going to relieve the people
of making some decisions on their own? I
would like to suggest that the time has come
to make a stop. I think that this bill fulfils
the requirements of the citizens of the prov-
ince and in talking to my people in High
Park riding I hear very few objections to the
principles outlined in Bill No. 6.
I think just for the benefit of the House,
and particularly those on the other side, Mr.
Speaker, we should briefly run over just what
this bill provides. In the first place, it is
universally available to everybody.
An hon. member: So are Cadillacs.
Mr. Cowling: Yes, yes; that is a point there.
Is the hon. member going to speak in this
debate, by the way?
An hon. member: Yes, I am.
Mr. Cowling: Fine, I will look forward
to it.
It is universally available to everybody in
the province. Those who have the where-
withal can purchase a medical insurance plan
of their choice and those who do not have
the money are going to be assisted by the
government.
Now I cannot see anything that could be
fairer than that. What is the point of paying
premiums for people who can look after
themselves? As far as the group business is
concerned in the province, Mr. Speaker, there
are hundreds of thousands of people insured
in groups in our provinces covered by medi-
cal care insurance who are paying premiums
far far less than the ones suggested in this
bill. In many cases these agreements have
been negotiated and the employer is paying
half the premium or in many cases the em-
ployer is paying all the premium. So how
foolish would these people be to give up that
sort of a situation and buy the government
plan.
Now the other thing is that the low-income
groups are invited to obtain the coverage. It
is just a plain simple fact if one is not satis-
fied with the coverage one has the govern-
ment plan is available at a price; and I think
at a very reasonable price: $60 for the single
person, $120 for a man and his wife and $150
for the man, wife and a family. Knowing
something about medical insurance rates I do
know that that is a reasonable and sensible
rate and one that most people in our prov-
ince can well afford to pay.
Now, the third point in this bill, the pro-
posal, is complementary to present insurance
programmes providing for groups. Here
again we leave an area where private insur-
ance companies through their agents can still
be in the field of medical insurance. I think,
Mr. Speaker, that we have got to realize that
medical insurance was first provided for citi-
zens of the province of Ontario by private
insurance companies and private insurance
companies through their work have at the
present time upwards of 83 per cent of the
people in our province covered by some form
of medical coverage. I think that is a pretty
good record.
I think we would be very foolish, Mr.
Speaker, to step into this situation and say
OK, we are going to provide everybody with
a medical insurance plan. I just do not think
it is fair to the other citizens who are pro-
viding something on their own. This idea of
compulsion and telling people that they have
to do certain things, I think, should be kept
to the absolute minimum.
296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The fourth point is that this will facilitate
comprehensive physicians' services to all.
Some hon. member the other day was talking
about the need for taking a hard look at the
medical services provided for the people of
our province and some hon. members have
been very critical, not only of the insurance
companies but of our doctors, our medical
doctors, in the province of Ontario. Believe
me, Mr. Speaker, I think we would be in
pretty poor shape if we did not have our
medical profession on the job and looking
after us. It is all very well to criticize these
people, it is all very well to criticize the
medical doctors and to tell them the poor job
that they are doing and that they are over-
charging and what their average income is
and what not; but as hon. members know the
average medical doctor puts in longer hours
than we do.
An hon. member: It is all these insurance
companies we are against.
Mr. Cowling: But the hon. members are
also against the medical profession. I have
to admire the hon. Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker. The hon. Minister of Health has
sat through this debate. I do not know how
he has retained his seat as well as he has,
I doubt very much if I could have done so.
He has very quietly and very courteously
listened to the comments of the hon. mem-
bers on the other side, some of them not
very complimentary. As a matter of fact,
there are hardly any that are complimentary.
I am sure that when his opportunity comes to
answer some of these criticisms that we will
all enjoy quite a speech, as we always do.
I am for the doctor. I am for the medical
doctor and every assistance that we can give
him, I think we should; because God help
the community if we did not have the
doctors, so more power to them.
Now we have taken care of the insurance
companies and the doctors. Another feature
of this bill is that there are no exclusions for
reasons of health, occupation of financial
circumstances. In other words, it is open to
everybody and it is going to be available
for everybody.
An hon. member: The group coverage is
not open to everybody.
Mr. Cowling: Well, the groups do not need
it. If one has a group plan where one is
paying an annual premium of $50 why would
one pay $150 for this? As far as the hon.
members are concerned they could make it
$25; the hon. leader of the NDP came up
with some figure about $28, which sounds
pretty fantastic to me.
Another feature of the programme is that
benefits are comprehensive and can cover
practically all physicians' services. I have
already covered what a good job the doctors
do, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill will be
the answer to many of the problems of our
citizens who are not in a position to provide
medical care insurance.
Under the government plan they will have
practically all those services taken care of
and the premium provided by the govern-
ment. It is designed to dovetail into hospital
insurance and in that way I suppose, in the
foreseeable future, we could see the hospital
insurance and the medical insurance being
moved into one area.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is
much to be said for the voluntary plan. That
is the point I really want to get across. The
advantages of a voluntary plan ensure that
medical health services will remain at a high
level. The doctor-patient relationship will
not be disturbed, and the plan retains a
flexibility which will allow change without
chaos. Further, under the government's
voluntary plan, large scale tax increases on
personal income or corporation taxes will not
be immediately needed. This means, in a
period of economic expansion, that tax
measures which would retard the growth and
development of the province will not have
to be introduced.
Equally important is the freedom of the
individual to decide on a course of action
without being penalized for making a de-
cision on his own behalf while, at the same
time, knowing that those less fortunate will
be looked after in part or in full by the
government.
The other day the hon. member for Sud-
bury (Mr. Sopha) was talking about the Magna
Carta and the fact that, over the last thousand
years, we have come a long, long way in
our freedom and in our form of parliamentary
government and in our affairs generally.
And he said it was a long hard fight— and I
agree with him— to arrive at the stage at
which we have arrived today. But there
again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this proposal
in Bill No. 6 by our government is doing pre-
cisely that. It is providing adequate care for
those who cannot provide it for themselves;
and it will permit freedom of choice for all
others.
I urge all hon. members to support this bill
and not to support the amendment or pro-
posed amendments from the other side.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
297
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
one of the advantages of following other
speakers is that one has an advantage of
dealing with some of the statements they
make. This is the second time in less than a
year that we have been presented with a
Medicare bill in this House. Last year's Bill
No. 136 was totally inadequate to the extent
that the government decided to bring in an
amendment to The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act which is the bill we have before us
today.
As I listened to a number of government
speakers extolling the virtues of this bill, I
could not help but think back to last year,
when the bill was before the House; in most
cases, these very same members took the
opportunity to give Bill No. 136 their full
support. It was obvious, right from the start,
that the bill would have a short life, but that
did not deter the hon. members on the gov-
ernment benches from getting up and sup-
porting it wholeheartedly. It is coincidental
that last year, on second reading of Bill No.
136, I was preceded in the debate by my hon.
friend from High Park-
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Pretty
shabby experience to have.
Mr. Gaunt: Very much so. My hon. friend
has once again taken up the cause of the in-
surance companies, as he did last year. I can
almost detect, Mr. Speaker, if I may be
allowed to make a personal observation, the
dollar signs in my hon. friend's eyes as he
espouses the interests of the insurance com-
panies.
I recall last year that my friend, the hon.
member for High Park (Mr. Cowling), on
page 3490 of Hansard said:
As a beginning, I just cannot possibly
see that we are going to have too much
objection to it.
Obviously, there was a great public outcry
over the bill— so much so that the government
has decided to bring in this amendment. Of
course, last year's bill, in my mind, was not
Medicare, it was doctors' and insurance care.
Basically, this bill is no different.
The hon. member for High Park said on
second reading of Bill No. 136 last year,
found on page 3488 of Hansard:
Let us give our government credit. We
are proposing something new today. We
have finished with the report-
he is referring, I presume, to the Hagey
report—
—and we have taken note of the recom-
mendations and now we have come up
with a bill and this bill contains all the
things we think it should within reason.
Mr. Speaker, in retrospect, I say to the hon.
member for High Park that if last year's bill
contained all the things that it should have,
I find it difficult to understand why the gov-
ernment has scrapped the entire bill except
for five sections. One almost gets the impres-
sion that government members will support
anything, provided the government spon-
sors it.
Then I turn to my hon. friend from Ren-
frew South (Mr. Yakabuski). Last year in
Hansard he is quoted in the same debate. At
page 3522 in regard to second reading of Bill
No. 136, he says:
I might say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that
I am supporting this bill completely be-
cause I feel that this will be the beginning
of the greatest health plan known any-
where on this continent.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, it clearly indicates
that the government members did not grasp
the import of last year's bill, nor are they
grasping the import of the bill this year be-
cause we are witnessing the same old story
all over again.
We know that good health is costly, but we
consider that poor health of people is more
costly to society. The world health organi-
zation, in the preamble to its charter says:
Enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of health is one of the funda-
mental rights of every human being with-
out distinction of race, religion, political
belief, economic or social condition.
It goes on:
The health of all peoples is fundamental
to the attainment of peace and security and
is dependent upon the fullest co-operation
of individuals and states.
In a democratic society, our most treasured
possession is health. The economic capacity
of a country's citizens to be productive de-
pends upon their health and vigour as much
as upon their educational attainments. There
is a shortage of nurses and doctors and para-
medical personnel. We have heard this many
times; it is a well-established fact. We have
heard it from government members, we
have heard it from Opposition members, we
have heard it from all members at various
times. The unfortunate thing about this plan
is that by excluding all of the paramedical
groups in the province, even greater pressure
is put upon the limited medical resources.
Indeed, those resources would be pushed and
298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will be pushed to the breaking point if the
bill is not amended to include these groups.
Let us take a look at some of those groups.
The point I want to make in relation to these
groups is that by exclusion of such services
the hon. Minister, through this bill, is not
allowing freedom of choice but is, in effect,
denying it. Let me explain.
Statistics show that in Ontario one out of
every six people utilize the services of chiro-
practors at a cost of $6 million annually.
This implies that over one million people are
now using chiropractic treatment in the prov-
ince of Ontario. Indeed, the role of the chiro-
practor in the health service field is gradually
and slowly being recognized. Saskatchewan
included chiropractic care in their medical
programme on April 6, 1965. The govern-
ments of Alberta and Manitoba provide chiro-
practic benefits to recipients of welfare and
pensions. As a matter of fact, right here in
this province we provide chiropractic services
under The Workmen's Compensation Act
without suffering financial penalties. It is
interesting to note that chiropractors are the
third healing profession in their field. Let
me leave that for just a moment.
Now, a word about the optometrists, an-
other group that is excluded in the present
bill. At the present time, optometrists per-
form 65 per cent of refractions in Ontario,
beyond welfare cases, and 2,151,250 Ontario
residents and dependants require vision care
services on a continuing basis. 600,000 re-
fractions are performed by optometrists, who
have more than 1,700,000 patients in the
province of Ontario. It is rather obvious that
if the optometrists are not included, this
will mean that more than 1,500,000 residents
of the province will have to pay for that
service themselves, or they will attempt to
get the same service by going to an optha-
mologist, who are already overworked to the
extent that you have to wait for approximately
three months in order to get an appointment.
However— and this is in addition to what
I have already been saying— 63 of the 110
Ontario communities with a population of
3,000 or more, have optometrists as the only
practitioners, and I underscore that, as the
only practitioners available to provide the
refraction benefits. If optometrists are not
covered under the bill, this means in effect
that the patient is not in a position to make
a completely free choice of practitioners.
In one case, the patient has to pay out of
his own pocket, and in the other he is cov-
ered by his medical insurance. I would
strongly suggest that unless optometrists are
included in any Medicare plan, it would
mean a decrease in availability of vision care
services, and subsequently a lowering of
vision care standards.
This kind of situation will not enhance the
health care in the province of Ontario. The
hon. Minister has made much of the fact that
he does not want this plan to be compulsory.
He wants everyone to have, as he puts it,
freedom of choice. My hon. friend has under-
scored this time and time again. He did it
last year, he has done it this year and I
imagine he will continue to do it: The point
is that a patient does not have freedom of
choice in this kind of Medicare. A patient who
wishes to engage the services of a chiroprac-
tor may feel that he cannot do so because he
cannot afford it, particularly when the serv-
ices of a doctor are covered under the plan.
The same holds true, of course, for the
services of an optometrist and others in the
paramedical field.
The government has, in effect, made a
valued judgment by saying that we will
include doctors and nothing else. I say that,
under these conditions, the patient does not
have freedom of choice. One of the hon.
Minister's fundamental principles in guiding
the drafting of this bill has been negated.
The patient has lost his freedom of choice.
It gets down to a matter of what amounts to
a ridiculous judgment between the loss of
freedom embraced by Bill No. 6 and the loss
of freedom embraced by a universal compre-
hensive compulsory Medicare plan against
the background of meeting the health needs
of the people of the province.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am suggest-
ing that we should have a definite under-
taking that these services that I have been
talking about should be phased into the
programme as quickly as possible. As of now,
to my mind, we have not had this definite
undertaking. I stand here to oppose the
principle of this bill.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East) moves
the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion by
Mr. A. E. Thompson (leader of the Op-
position):
Resolution: That a select committee of
this House be appointed immediately to
review the rules and procedures of the
House and to recommend appropriate
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
299
changes, including a complete reorganiza-
tion of the committee system and amend-
ments to the rules, to permit the filming
and tape-recording of the regular business
of this House, providing certain safeguards
against interference with the proceedings
or dignity of this chamber.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, this is the second year
that I have tried to initiate a debate on this
resolution and I suppose there are some hon.
members who would feel I should be grate-
ful to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
for permitting me to bring the resolution for-
ward.
No matter how many hon. members of
this House have a sincere and genuine
personal respect for any members of the
executive, I think it should not blind them
to the fact that such adulation does not mean
that you hand over the whole and the total
business of the House to the initiative of
either one man, Mr. Speaker, one party or
one bureaucracy. The practice and the rules
of this House are very clear on private bills.
It was never the right of the hon. Prime
Minister to decide whether any resolution
should be called or not. It is very clearly
stated in the rules— rule 28— when private
members' bills should be called; he has been
breaking that rule, as his predecessor had.
It is clearly stated in the rules— rule 31— that
all items standing in the orders of the day
shall be taken up according to the precedent
assigned to each. The hon. Prime Minister
has been breaking that rule, as well.
I suppose in this debate, as I look at the
way rules have been broken and the way that
the executive have trampled, suffocated and
submerged the rightful position of the
Opposition, that I could wax bitter. But I
do not intend to do that because I think that
there is an atmosphere of wanting to de-
deem the things of the past. It is for that
reason that I am going to speak in moderate
tone about something which I think, if I
expose it, has really made a sham of this
parliamentary assembly.
In order, sir, that you will not have the
slightest inclination to rule me out of order,
although I know that is the last thing you
ever want to do, I should like to define what
I mean by parliamentary procedure. I go to
May as my authority. He breaks it into three
classifications. The first is the forms of pro-
ceedings used in either House, and by that
he means the process of bills, debates by
motion, questions, and so on. The second is
the machinery of direction and delegation
established, and by that he means officers and
committees. The third is the rules which
govern the working, or the form, of procedure.
As we all know, sir, the traditions and the
practice of Westminster were formed when
Parliament was in opposition to the mon-
archy. In the early days, there was wide
scope to individual members and there was
very little scope to the government. But
with the advent of parties and the use of
Cabinet, it became more necessary to have
standing orders in order to give shape to
parliamentary deliberations. Parliament is a
strange, almost a schizophrenic being, in that
it has two contradictory functions. In the
parliamentary forum there is, first, the gov-
erning body which has to put into legislation
its mandate from the electorate. On the
other side, there is the Opposition, which has
to be provided with the necessary time and
with the information to perform its constitu-
tional functions. That is why, sir, the written
rules provide for certain days on which
private members' business takes precedence
over government business. With all respect
to the hon. Prime Minister, he is completely
wrong when he says that government must
always have precedence. It shows a lack of
understanding of this great forum. Govern-
ment does not always have precedence, there
is the time for the Opposition and private
members to have their say.
Indeed, sir, as we read this little booklet
that we get from the well-known family on
parliamentary procedure, and I am referring
to Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario by
Alex C. Lewis, we become quite inspired as
Opposition members when we read the
opportunities that we are going to have. With
your indulgence I will read from page 14,
and it says:
In one other important feature the
Ontario House differs from its Imperial
ancestor.
With great respect for the knowledge and
contribution which the Lewises have made
to the Legislature, as a Liberal and not a
Conservative as Mr. Lewis was, I understand
—not when he became Clerk of the House
but when he was, I think, a Conservative
member— perhaps that is why he refers to an
Imperial ancestor.
I notice on another page he talks about
the British Empire; but I understand we are
not a colony, we are a nation. For new hon.
members I think it disturbs us if we look at
this-
An hon. member: That was okay, but
where is it in 38?
300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: In 39? May I say that it
says:
In the Legislature the private member
receives much greater consideration than
he does in the British House of Commons.
In the latter House the proportion of
private members' bills which become laws
is very small indeed. Friday afternoon is
the only time provided for the use of the
large number of private members, and un-
less a bill is absolutely non-controversial
and is passed by agreement it has very little
chance of being considered.
The private members—
and this is referring to Ontario:
The private members in Ontario get full
preference on Wednesdays and Fridays and
divide the time with the government on
Monday afternoons and as a consequence
no bill introduced by a private member
need fail for lack of proper consideration.
I think that has been wishful thinking for
year after year in this Legislature, because
I want to establish that we have not been
getting the opportunity to bring forward our
point of view in this Legislature.
I looked on last week, last Monday, as an
historical victory for the Opposition, even
though I noticed that there was a reporter
from the Toronto Globe and Mail who sug-
gested that we lost the battle. I think it is
because he does not know the background of
the difficulty of the Opposition to have resolu-
tions and bills brought before this House.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): They
have always been brought.
Mr. Thompson: I will indicate to hon. mem-
bers that they have not been brought, in-
cluding my own bill right here which was not
brought last year. If they have always been
brought, why were they not brought last
year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: They were brought.
Mr. Thompson: It most certainly was not
brought last year.
An hon. member: How many were?
Mr. Thompson: I will go into the fact of
how many were not. I was verv glad to hear
the agreement that at the end of the day's
sitting— five o'clock— we were going to debate
a resolution re hate literature. I thought the
other thing which was historical was the fact
that the hon. member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer) had played a part in bringing forward
a resolution; that the Opposition were going
to have a resolution— admittedly in co-opera-
tion with a government member — that was
going to be adopted. If you look at the
history of this Legislature, you will find that
is a unique experience.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Oh,
no. It happened back in 1957.
Mr. Thompson: 1957 is a long time, all the
same, in comparison with the U.K. and also
with Ottawa.
Mr. MacDonald: I believe it was one of my
resolutions that got amended and passed.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say, for example, in
the U.K., that first of all a time of debate for
private members is established. There are
20 Fridays given over to private members.
And I admit they say it is a blind chance;
they had to go through a ballot in order to
know who would be permitted to bring for-
ward a resolution, but there are 600 members
in the U.K.
In Ottawa there is a definite time for
debate for private members. However, you
get the opportunity to speak in the Legis-
lature; you have one hour of the first three
days of the week. In the Ontario Legislature,
as yet, there is no set time, even though the
rules definitely say this. We have the rules
broken by the hon. Prime Minister and we
have to wait on his whim whether we will
have our resolutions and bills brought before
the Legislature.
Now, I will show, Mr. Speaker, that private
members' bills and resolutions of the Oppo-
sition have not been brought before this
Legislature. The hon. Prime Minister has
said they are always brought forward. Let
me give you this sordid tale. In 1960 there
were 12 private members' bills introduced.
One was debated.
In 1960 to 1961, 14 were introduced; five
were debated. In 1961-62, 17 were introduced
and four debated. In 1962-63, 12 were intro-
duced and three debated. In the 26th session
the total time given over to private members
by this government, through breaking rules
so that we could not speak, was five and a
half hours of the total session. In the 27th
session, through breaking the rules so that we
could not speak, we were given one hour
and eight minutes. And yet we introduced
our bills early in the session.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: What year was that?
Mr. Thompson: In 1960; I said the times in
the 26th session and the 27th session given
over to private members' bills. In 1960 we
introduced ten bills in the first month. So if
the government says we introduced them too
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
301
late to be fitted in to any time this is utter
nonsense. In 1961 and 1962 ten were again
introduced in the first month, and none was
debated until the second to the last day of
the session. One was mine. You know, Mr.
Speaker, as a fair man, the short shrift that
we have had from this government.
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Thompson: They will draw in our reso-
lutions and bills in the dead of night, or else
they wait until the very last day of the ses-
sion and put them in to give us some small
satisfaction in it. This time we are going to
expose to the people of Ontario the fact that
a government arrogant and complacent with
its full majority is stamping on the Opposi-
tion and the rights of an Opposition and
therefore the rights of the people of this
province.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thompson: What about resolutions?
The hon. Prime Minister said you could al-
ways bring your resolutions in. In 1961 and
1962 six resolutions were brought forward.
None was debated by a Conservative Prime
Minister who does not like debate in the
House, and who does not like points of view
expressed. Therefore, our resolutions were
simply discarded and ignored by breaking the
laws of this Legislature.
Let me point to the British House, vibrant
and virile with great traditions of free
speech—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Objection to that.
Mr. Thompson: Let me point to Westmin-
ster.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: In 1961 and in 1962, Mr.
Speaker, six resolutions were brought before
this House. Not one of them was permitted
to be debated. In Westminster in that same
year, there were 17 resolutions brought for-
ward and eight of them were passed. There
seemed to me to be more courage on the part
of a government in Westminster, more recog-
nition of the tradition of a free parliament,
than by this government. Bloated by its
swollen majority, indifferent to the rights of
the people, it will not permit discussion by
private members, and the record is sordid
and speaks of arrogance. It is for that
reason, Mr. Speaker, that last Monday a
battle was won by us.
Why do we have private members' bills,
Mr. Speaker? We have private members'
bills because the government, although it
may feel that it covers all the neces-
sary legislation for the people of Ontario, is
also the representative of the people of
Ontario; and we have concerns of our people
which we want to have discussed in this
House. This is the way by which we can
have these discussions, and that is why we
have bills by private hon. members.
May I state another fact, sir— that if there
was more opportunity for private members
to participate there would not be so many
of those men in the background there,
in the back benches, sitting and dozing day
after day, making little contribution to any-
thing. There would be opportunity for them
to suddenly take a new interest and bring
forward a resolution, and they might then
begin to know what a parliament is all about.
The other and most important point, I
think, in having an opportunity for private
members' bills, is that there must be an
opportunity for the Opposition to have initia-
tive in the House. Not only should we always
have to debate government legislation but, in
turn, government should have to debate the
legislation which we propose. Therefore, for
that reason, we are still not satisfied.
We appreciate that the hon. Prime Minister
has stated that there will be periods for us
to debate private members' bills, but the
rules are there; it is set down that there
should be a set time. It was recommended
by two select committees that there should be
a set time for private members' bills, and
we hope that the hon. Prime Minister will say
that definitely there will be a set time for
private members' bills. There is another
aspect to this: If you would do this it allows
all of us who have resolutions to know that
we should be preparing ourselves for that
time.
The role of an Opposition, sir, is not only
to have the opportunity to initiate legislation
but is also to be able to draw out information
from the government. And yet, sir, as you
well recognize, in a government that is indif-
ferent to the rights of Parliament, there is a
tendency for it to abuse its opportunity in
giving information. May I say that, in Bri-
tain, when a Minister makes a statement, on
the whole— if you will study that area— you
will find that usually it is a written statement
because of the procedure they go through.
I notice, in one of your rulings, you were
saying that a Minister in Westminster has the
opportunity to make a statement. I would
suggest to you that, mostly, it is a written
statement that is made. In Ottawa, when a
•302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister makes a statement it is a brief state-
ment; and, again referring to May, yon will
'find that it is the understanding that it should
be a brief statement on policy.
In Ontario, we have this peculiar situation:
First of all the Minister makes a state-
ment after first reading— perhaps some day
you can explain that to me, that he does not
introduce his bill before he presents it to
the House, but it passes in first reading and
then he makes a statement. And may I say,
in all candor, sir: What a statement he makes
sometimes; what an epistle he gives; and
how many chapters are included!
In 1964 there were 136 statements by-
Ministers. And let me outline the classic one:
May says these statements should be short
and brief and to the point. Well, it took the
hon. Prime Minister of this province an hour
to make one of his statements; that is how
short and brief he was. That was on April
22, 1964.
And then we saw the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), how he has abused
the situation where he has the privilege of
making a statement. There was a shocking
situation, for we had to listen to his diatribe
about his political philosophy. I am not sure
at that time if he included how he looked at
Bennett or not— that was another occasion I
think, when he was introducing the medical
insurance Act. He took five pages of
Hansard. I do not consider that particularly
brief.
As well as that, we have had statements by
Ministers before the orders of the day.
In 1964, we were swamped with them— we
had 44 of them— and they took up four hours
of this Legislature's time. I could refer to
May in connection with these statements but
I bring it to your attention, sir, because I
know that you would not want the Opposi-
tion to be abused through an overflow of
verbosity on the part of the government.
We want them to get to the point.
While I am at it, sir, there is another
Minister over there, the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall).
There was a classic. There was a fighting
member up here who had raised a ques-
tion about the economic board, I think it was,
and we listened for hours to the hon. Minister
— there are so many fighting members
here that they do not know which it is. In
this case it was the hon. member for Grey
North (Mr. Sargent) and we had the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development-
he swung as though he was Tarzan or some-
thing; he was all over the map in answer to
the question. I would have hoped, sir, that
you would have called him to order. By
my making these points— I know he is a
sensitive man who would never want to be
accused of abusing the rights of Parliament
—he will remember not to swing all over the
place again.
Let me repeat the question, sir. Again, this
is so the Opposition can elicit information. I
may say that the first question recorded hav-
ing been asked— I know this is of interest to
the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope),
a historian of note— was about the South Sea
Bubble, not Windfall, and was put to the
Prime Minister in 1721.
The clerk of the British estimates commit-
tee had said that questions were one of the
most effective methods of control of the
executive ever invented— and this executive
knows it.
Do they want to have any control by the
people; do they want to have an examination
and a scrutiny before this Legislature by this
Opposition for benefit of the people of
Ontario?
Hon. members have seen the way they
have dodged around in trying to answer
questions. Look at the rules here for the
written questions. The written question in
Ontario is distinct from Ottawa and West-
minster. In Ottawa we have a starred ques-
tion which means that the Minister has to
answer aloud.
With us, if we have a written question,
look at the subterfuge. First of all, our ques-
tion goes through you, Mr. Speaker. I do
not know why it does not go through the
Clerk, or why you, sir, have to act as the
censor, a fair-minded man like you.
It would be better if questions went
through the Clerk. Why should you be em-
barrassed and put into a position like that?
In Ottawa and Westminster, they have starred
questions and they want an oral answer.
Here, when you write an answer, you
know what happens, Mr. Speaker. You blush
just as much with shame at this government
as I have. You know what happens; the
answer is never read aloud. In a hushed tone,
it is handed back and the Minister, so
scared he may have to say something on
policy, hides behind the skirts of the hon.
Prime Minister. He is the man who tables
these answers, not the Minister himself.
Why? Think that one over, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to embarrass him by suggesting
why, but you may have ideas.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
What kind of ideas?
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
303
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Use your
fertile imagination.
Mr. Thompson: And yet in 1960 the select
committee recommended the amendment of
rule 37 to provide for starred questions, to
which oral answers should be given. But
the last thing a scared and apprenhensive
government wants to do is stand up on their
feet and answer questions, if they can have
the hon. Prime Minister waiting until the end
of the session and then handing out the
answers. That is far better. But that does
not make good government and does not
show respect for this Legislature.
I notice— and he is not here, unfortunately
—that the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis), when I had to read a question to
him, seemed to have a sympathy for the
straitjacket into which we are put, and that
we had to read these questions, because you
are being placed in this unfortunate em-
barrassing position in which you have to
censor a question. You have to watch it so
we do not miss a word or change a word and
so on. This is unfortunate. In Ottawa, again,
you do not have to go through this rigamarole
of rushing into your office with a question.
Some people, sir, have suggested to me when
they have to get those questions to you be-
fore 12 o'clock that this means you have to
get on the phone. People have suggested
this; I do not know if it is true or not; and
you phone the Minister and tell him: "Look,
you have got a question; get your civil
servants to get an answer for you so that
you will not look silly. Get an answer."
An hon. member: That is exactly right.
Mr. Speaker: We just transmit the ques-
tions.
Mr. Thompson: But this is it, of course:
Why should you be placed in a position like
that where people might think you are a sort
of a hack, sir? We have far more respect for
you than to ever think you would be, but
some people might think you are a hack or a
messenger boy for the Cabinet. Why should
you be in a position like that? Why should
we not have a more open form of question
without this censorship to which you have
to be put?
Mr. MacDonald: He has to rule on it.
Mr. Thompson: He could rule in the
House.
May I say on another point, sir, that the
hon. Minister, as we have seen— and he is not
here either, the hon. Minister for Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Spooner)— he shows such arro-
gance to this assembly that when you ask
him a question he goes into something about
the benefits of OMERS, which has nothing
to do with it, and then sits down again.
Mr. MacDonald: He acts just like C. D.
Howe.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say that in Canada,
in the federal House, the Speaker has ordered
an answer to be erased from Hansard as
irrelevant and ordered that the answer be
given if the question is asked again. In Britain
—and I know your reverence for Westminster,
that is why I am bringing up Britain as much
as I am— in Britain a Minister has to give a
reason why he does not answer. He has to
give a good reason. The usual reason he has
is that it is contrary to the public interest
and the other is because it is not his responsi-
bility. If he does not give a good reason for
not answering, there can be a motion of
censure.
Now, sir, when we ask the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs how many times or with
whom he has negotiated and he starts talk-
ing about the joys and benefits of OMERS,
surely we should have been able to say to
him: "Give us a good reason why you will
not answer. Is it because it is contrary to
public interest?" I can think nothing that is
more to public interest than to know where
the government stands on integration or
stacking of pensions: Or is it because it is
not his responsibility?
Tell us one or the other, put him on the
soot. If they are not capable of standing on
their feet, then let the public know that. Do
not have this hidden kind of camouflage they
have in connection with questions.
Let me say this. In Ontario one of the real
frustrations is, of course, that even though
we write questions in and go through all
the formula that is set up— the delays we
have to go through and the censorship and
so on— even though we write the questions
we are often lucky if we get any answer at
all. Usually we get the answer at the very
end of the session, the last day in some cases.
In the 1962-63 session of this Legislature,
81 per cent of the written questions were
answered and that is a shoddy performance
in relation to either Ottawa or to West-
minster. One of the excuses— I have said this
before and I want to emphasize it— the hon.
member for Downsview put in 112 questions
last year and we waited and waited and
waited to get replies to these, and one point
raised in excuse was that they are over-
worked, the administration is overworked.
304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As I pointed out to the hon. Prime Minister,
in Westminster there is an average of over
12,000 questions that are asked during the
session. There is an average in Ontario, in
this Legislature, of 83 questions. In each
sitting day in the United Kingdom there are
105 questions; in Ontario there are six
questions. Surely an excuse that the civil
servants of the department are overworked,
in light of the very small number of questions
we bring in, is not adequate.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope: (Minister of Mines):
You are not doing your work if that is all
the questions there are.
Mr. Thompson: One of the reasons— let me
emphasize to the hon. Minister of Mines— is
the fact we do not get answers to the ques-
tions. We do not get answers, and this is.
tabulated.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I should con-
gratulate Professor Schindler for having done
this study which exposes the arrogance and
the indifference of the government in giving
information to the Opposition and to the
people of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, will you
permit a question? I just wondered where
the hon. leader of the Opposition was able to
acquire a copy of Professor Schindler' s re-
port. As the hon. leader of the Opposition
knows, we helped finance that as a govern-
ment, but I have yet to—
Mr. MacDonald: It is filed at the university.
Mr. Thompson: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the
hon. Prime Minister, it is at the university and
Professor Schindler has also made several
speeches. I would strongly recommend that
he get it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: Just while we are on the
question, to answer the hon. Minister of
Mines— because I like to be prompt when I
answer, even though the government is not—
in answer to the hon. Minister of Mines, we
do not get answers to questions. In the 1964
session it took on the average 48 days to get
an answer from this government to written
questions. What about the U.K.? In the U.K.
they were first of all instructed to have
answers in seven days, and remember they
had over 12,000 questions in a year. Then
R. A. Butler, acting as Prime Minister in
1960, said: "We are going to get answers in
three days." They knew how to manage a
department and they were on top, to some
extent anyway, of their job and they were
prepared to give answers. They recognize
Parliament as a place where information
should be given freely and not hidden away
until the end of the session.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member means
the distance to the office of the hon. Minister.
Mr. Thompson: Let me say why we need
answers, Mr. Speaker. Among many reasons
is the fact that first of all there could be a
situation with which the public had deep
concern and they want to get an answer
as to where the government stands. If we
have to wait 48 days the situation is past
and there is no reassurance to the people of
the province that the government even knows
about it, let alone what they are going to do,
if they make us wait for the 48 days.
Another question occurred, sir. When the
estimates come up— and this is the case with
the hon. member for Downsview— it is im-
portant that prior to the estimates coming up
that he should have knowledge about the
department and that is why he asked the
written question. I think it ill behoves a
government, wanting to show a democratic
face to the people, it ill behoves it to hold
off on giving answers until the particular
Minister has shuffled his estimates through
this House and then later, at the end of the
session, he comes out with the answers. This
shows a fearful and an apprehensive man,
not one who is on top of his department.
Yet, in many cases they have the answers.
The hon. member for Woodbine (Mr. K.
Bryden) asked a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Labour about automation. It was in
1963, I think, where he asked the question
about whether the hon. Minister would set
up a committee on automation.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): As they an-
nounced they were doing.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, and we would still
like to hear what they are doing on that by
the way, but we will bring that question up a
little later.
But when he asked this question, for three
weeks, I think it was either three or five
weeks, he waited for an answer.
Mr. Bryden: I have waited five months
sometimes.
Mr. Thompson: And then, during the esti-
mates on labour, he asked the hon. Minister,
he said: "I have a question to which I have
wanted an answer." And the hon. Minister
said: "Well, I will give you (he answer right
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
305
here." It is quoted right in Hansard. He said:
"No, I have not set up anything."
Why could not that have been done within
three days, the way it is in Britain? What
are you trying to hide, Mr. Speaker? Why are
they fearful of showing the people of On-
tario what their policies are? Surely a gov-
ernment, a democratic government, would
want to show to the people, to show to the
Opposition, that they are on top of answers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what our state-
ments are for.
Mr. Bryden: Now the hon. Minister should
be careful. His statements are just to avoid
debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to move to another area which is again tied
in with this need to both get information and
to be able to initiate, and that really comes
to what we were discussing yesterday. May
I say, sir, that nothing hurts me more than
when I have to stand up and challenge a
ruling of yours. Let me say that as far as I
am concerned, I consider you one of the great
Speakers of this House. I think, sir, you have
an impartiality.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not what the
hon. leader of the Opposition told the press.
Mr. Thompson: I said that unfortunately
there are occasions when I have had to dis-
agree and I said, even on television, I was
disappointed because he is a fair man. But
in this case, I thought that he was; that is
why I challenged his decision— because this
comes to the point of a motion. Again I think
we are put in an embarrassing position when
we make a motion to adjourn on a matter of
urgent public importance. I say this because,
according to rule 38-A, previous notice of
the matter has to be submitted to you and
approved by you, and yet you have no guide-
lines. Both in Ottawa and Westminster, they
have guidelines upon which the decision is
made. This is just something you have to
think through on your own.
Again in Ottawa, and also in Westminster,
instead of having to get the decision from
you in your chambers as to whether we can
raise a question of urgent public importance,
in both Westminster and Ottawa the person
who wants to make the motion stands up on
the floor of the House and states it. Then the
Speaker asks either for 20 or for 40 people
who will also support the motion, and it is
done in the open. In you, sir, we are fortunate
that we have a man of fairness and impar-
tiality; but when you think back to other
occasions, when there was just a slight sus-
picion that a Speaker might be cowed and
ruled by a Prime Minister, when there
was that situation what chance would we
have— going into the secrecy of the Speaker's
office to bring up a matter of immediate
public concern? And how many such motions
died in that outer office, rather than being
brought onto the floor of the House?
I may say that, on the whole, I think you
have been very fair; you have let us bring
it onto the floor of the House and then you
have made your ruling in public. But I think
we should have a change in the rules because,
much as I hate to say it, I do not think you
are always going to be the Speaker. In fact,
in maybe a year or two years, you no longer
will be there; then we may have another
fair Speaker, but there may be later occasions
when there would not be.
I come again to the point of initiative. The
Opposition must have the opportunity, in the
Legislature, to censure the government, to
challenge the government, to overthrow the
government if necessary. Yet, in this Legis-
lature, we are saying that this opportunity
has been taken away from us. The eagle eye
of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha)
first noticed the surreptitious manner in which
the government was even trying to take this
right away in the motion of supply— for you
were being sent out like a messenger boy.
I have spoken of it before.
There are, in Ottawa, six occasions in
which the Opposition can raise grievances,
can challenge the government. And, since
1960, we have seen where the government is
trying to take that opportunity from us. We
feel very strongly about this, because we, as
Opposition, differ from other dissenting
groups outside the Legislature in the one
fact that we can, in this Legislature, chal-
lenge the government and overthrow it.
Other groups who dissent with the govern-
ment—and there are more and more of them,
when you stand out in front of those steps
and see the people coming forward from the
churches and labour groups and farm groups
and so on— cannot overthrow the government.
We can.
This is the great essence of the parliamen-
tary forum, that we can challenge them
with the threat of overthrowing them. And
yet even that opportunity is being taken away
from us. For that we are going to fight— to
see that it is brought back again. We will be
watching closely, in the motion to move into
committee of supply, to see that it is done
306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with the proper regalia and dignity that befits
you, sir, and befits this House.
There are only two occasions on which we
can move a vote of censure now. There is
the Budget debate and the Throne debate
and it may have been in the past— when we
had short sessions, when we did not have as
much responsibility to the people of Ontario
—that only two occasions were needed. But I
suggest that there should be more occasions
than that today, when we think of the com-
plexity of government and the growing length
of sessions. I would hope the hon. Prime
Minister might consider that we could estab-
lish either five or six occasions definitely when
we might have that opportunity to move
censure. I do not say we are going to, but
we certainly do not want the opportunity
taken from us.
Coming back again from initiative to in-
formation, one of the great needs of an Oppo-
sition, in order to be able to give an intelli-
gent scrutiny and analysis of government
policy, is to know; and I look at the hon.
Minister of Labour, I look at him when I
am saying this because I know he is sym-
pathetic. He wants to give us every disclosure
that he can, and yet he sits just a few seats
away from one who is an artist in being
able to hide figures. Do you know who that
is? That is the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan) of this government.
The executive branch— from the study by
Schindler— when they are preparing the Bud-
get—as I understand, and perhaps you would
be good enough to correct me if I am wrong
—asks the Ministers to submit to the Treasury
board, by early fall, an outline of what they
consider the revenue they need.
This outline that they submit, Mr. Speaker,
is divided into amounts of salary and main-
tenance. But the hon. Provincial Treasurer
found that he needed greater clarification so
that he would know what he would give to
the various departments, and he asked that
there should be programme descriptions and
costs. He asked that the proposed new pro-
gramme should be broken apart from the old
programmes. He asked that the existing pro-
grammes should be separated from the pro-
posed expansion of programmes. He even got
an analyst in, in order to study this more
closely so they could make an intelligent
assessment.
They went further than that, of course.
They have a list of programmes according to
priority, and if they feel they cannot afford
all of these programmes then they know
which ones the Minister would want to
see financed. I do not suggest that we should
know the Minister's priority but I cer-
tainly suggest that we should have a clearer
clarification of the estimates because, having
broken that down so clearly for the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer, having even included an
economic paper with these estimates, what
happens then? What happens when it comes
before the House? It is all grouped together
again, shuffled around, presented to us in
disguise so that we cannot take as an
analytical and as clear a look at this as we
should be able to.
Another thing they do, sir, and we have
asked about this: The public accounts com-
mittee has asked that there should be a
clearer breakdown of the estimates; and I
am hoping that, with the estimates coming
up this year, and because of the concern
which a government should rightly have to
give clarification to the Opposition so that
they can make constructive, intelligent criti-
cism, we will find that in the estimates com-
ing this year.
May I say that there are other ways by
which this government has tried to hide the
true facts of spending. There is a difference
between the estimated and the actual spend-
ing. The estimated is always greater. I sug-
gest that this cannot, year after year, be poor
forecasting. It has just happened too many
times; a fellow cannot be wrong for so many
years. I suggest it is put there because they
want to hide and blur what they are really
going to spend. They want to hide from the
Opposition and from the people of Ontario.
Another thing that I noticed, when I looked
at the estimates, is that time after time the
heavy estimates come up at the end of the
session, and the only thing that I can assume
from this is once again that the government
holds back from the opportunity of thorough
scrutiny in this House, and holds back on
heavy estimates and brings these in and piles
them up at the end of the session.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: You may not be aware of
it, but there are some others who are aware
of this.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will stay here all
summer if the hon. leader of the Opposition
wants to.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. In the last three
weeks of the session between 1960 and 1964,
on average, this is what took place. The hon.
members were asked to study an average of
28.6 pieces of new legislation, and they gave
second reading to an average of 43.8 bills.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
307
In the last three weeks they were asked to
consider 88 bills in committee of the whole
House, and they were asked to give third
readings to 88.6 bills. If that is not being
pushed all into the very last three weeks, I
do not know what is. Fifty and one-half of
all bills taken through the House were taken
in the last three weeks.
Let us take the last five days of a session
so that it becomes more apparent to the
people of this province the way this govern-
ment ran things at the very end so that we
cannot get proper scrutiny.
In the 1962-63 session, which was one of
the longest, 23.1 bills were given second
reading in the last five days. There were 62.3
of the bills which went through the com-
mittee of the whole in the last five days. In
1964— imagine this, Mr. Speaker, just to
show how chronically bad they are in
arranging their business— there was a bill to
create a new department, The Department
of University Affairs. When was that given
considered and reasoned opinion and scrutiny
by the House? It was given on the 57th day
of the session. It was called for second read-
ing only three days before the ending. I
suggest this holding and piling up of legis-
lation cannot help but create suspicion that
the government does not want adequate
scrutiny and examination of legislation.
I would like to come now, sir, to another
problem. This is one of the very real prob-
lems of a Legislature, and it is the problem
of proper scrutiny of finances. A problem
arises when an appropriation voted by the
Legislature proves inadequate, or when a
need arises for money for a particular project
which has not even been included in the esti-
mates. In Ottawa and Westminster, the
usual method for coping with this is to go
back to Parliament and ask for approval of
supplementary estimates or excess votes. But
the session here, sir, is short, and these
techniques are never used. This is going to
be a shocking one when you think that one
of our main jobs— in fact, the fundamental
purpose of Parliament— is to look after the
financing of the people. I want to develop
this a little further.
What happens here? Much more usual is
the device of the special warrant, Treasury
board orders and commitments. The special
warrants are used to create new appropria-
tions to cover unforeseen expenditure. Trea-
sury board orders increase inadequate
appropriation by specific amounts. Commit-
ments are, in a sense, delayed Treasury board
orders that are used when the amount of
overexpenditure is not certain. The execu-
tive branch is, in a number of ways, able
to check on the issuance of special warrants
and Treasury board orders. The amounts
issued in this way are published in the public
accounts and in the auditor's annual report.
However, both of these publications are
made available some time after the fiscal
year to which they relate is over. The im-
portant point is that the Treasury board
orders and special warrants are not subject
to any kind of formal legislative review.
Large amounts are involved; I want to bring
up how much is involved in the use of these
instruments. In the years between 1959 and
1964 there was an average— an average, Mr.
Speaker— of more than $17 million a year
authorized in Treasury board orders, which
were never brought before this Legislature,
despite the fact that government depart-
ments traditionally overestimate, as I pointed
out before, to blur the actual costs. Despite
that, they had a $17 million average in
Treasury board orders so that $33 million last
year-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): $43 million
last year.
Mr. Thompson: $43 million. Year after
year this arrogant spending— and the rights
of the people to have it scrutinized by this
House are ignored. I did not realize it was
as much as $43 million.
Between the years of 1959 to 1964, an
average of more than $1 million a year was
authorized in special warrants. These sums
in absolute terms are much larger than the
entire Ontario budget before World War 1.
In Ottawa, all appropriations made under
government general warrants, the equivalent
of Ontario's special warrants and Treasury
board orders, must subsequently be approved
by Parliament. Honestly, much remains to
be done in this field if this Legislature is to
assert its traditional controls over the spend-
ing of money by the executive.
Mr. Thompson moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Bryden: Before you leave the chair,
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the hon.
Prime Minister what the order of business will
be tonight?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will resume the
debate on Bill No. 6.
It being 6.00 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 12
ONTARIO
^Legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading,
continued 311
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. S. Lewis, agreed to 331
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 331
311
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, February 8, 1966
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The fifth order. Resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the motion for second reading of Bill
No. 6 intituled, An Act to amend The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
(continued)
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the
principle of Bill No. 6 amending Bill No. 136,
I would first like to make it clear to my
friend the hon. member for High Park (Mr.
Cowling) that I, and I am sure our party, are
not opposed to doctors and are not trying to
do the doctors in. We have as much respect
for the medical profession and confidence in
it as anyone else has. We are not entirely
opposed to private insurance companies.
What we are opposed to, Mr. Speaker, in
regard to health insurance, is this government
allowing the insurance companies to make
their dollars at the expense of an orderly,
economically run insurance plan for the
people of Ontario. We have always said there
is room for free enterprise in this province
and in this country; Toryism is based pretty
firmly on that premise. They feel that a per-
son should have the right to go into a busi-
ness and make a buck; they also feel that a
person should have the right to starve to
death or live under a bridge if he so chooses.
This is part of different philosophies in trying
to make a country run in a fashion that
democracy calls for.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we are misleading
the public somewhat in using the title of this
bill, called The Medical Services Insurance
Act. In my opinion, there is no relationship
between the bill we are dealing with and a
medical services insurance Act. Rather it
should be called an Act to provide for the
prepayment of doctors' fees, because that is
about what it does. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that
we should stop talking, in this debate at
least, about the comprehensive all-encompass-
ing programme that our party is in favour of.
We understand that the Liberal Party both
in this province and federally are in favour
of an all-encompassing comprehensive health
programme for the people of Canada, taking
in all of the things that people need to have
good health.
It has been mentioned many times that
doctors' services, hospitalization, drug cover-
age, dental and mental care, orthopaedic and
appliances, diagnostic and preventive care,
along with the many things that health clinics
could provide, and should be provided when
one feels sick or is sick. He should not
actually have to be sick to have the use of
the facilities of the medical profession. If he
feels he is sick he should have some place
to go to get the attention he deserves.
It makes me feel a little ashamed, Mr.
Speaker, that again this year, as last year, we
have to spend so much time in a province as
rich as this one— considered one of the
richest areas of its size in the world— debat-
ing to such an extent a prepaid doctors'
programme for the people of Ontario.
My friend, the hon. member for Riverdale
( Mr. Renwick ) , has put before the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond) many ques-
tions, Mr. Speaker. He has made some as-
sumptions as to how and why the government
arrived at the amendments to this bill and,
sir, all of us are anticipating some answer
to some of the assumptions and some of the
direct questions he raised. I want to raise one
or two myself, because I think it is important
we should know just what is going to happen
in the different areas regarding the doctor
fees coverage for the people in this prov-
ince. I have been fortunate enough to have
some experience in assisting and sitting in
on negotiations for both medical plans and
hospital insurance plans over the years in
regard to collective bargaining. Some of the
things I say will be from direct experience
and some, of course, will be from reading
the surveys and results arrived at by in-
vestigation in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that through the years,
and climaxing with the debate last year in
this House on Bill No. 136— and with pro-
motion of the programme federally— that we
have now mutually debunked some of the
312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
main oppositions to government-sponsored
health programmes or doetor fees pro-
grammes. I think we have to drop the old
argument that we cannot afford it. I think we
have overdone this argument that the cost
will he astronomical and the taxes will not
stand it, and that people cannot afford to
pay for their coverage. I feel that if this
nation was faced with a warring aggressor
in the near future we would find the money
to oppose it to the best of our ability.
It reminds me of a fact some years ago,
which I read in the federal Hansard. Tommy
Douglas, then the hon. federal member— in
September, I believe it was, in 1937, at the
tail end of the depression years— rose in the
House of Commons— I believe the hon. Mr.
Abbott was the Minister of Finance— to ask
if he would inject $5 or $6 million into the
economy for a public works programme to
try to create some jobs for the large masses
of people who were unemployed.
The Minister rose and said it was a fine
idea, but money does not grow on bushes.
About two years later to the day in the
same House, when Canada declared war on
Cermany, the same Minister rose and in-
formed the House that he had made an
appropriation of $15 million to put towards
the war effort. We all know from history
what happened then.
We put uniforms on the backs of our
people and shoes on their feet and they were
enlisted in the army. The money came from
somewhere without any problem whatso-
ever. So I think that term of not being able
to afford the kind of a health programme we
want should be gone forever.
I think also that the argument about com-
pulsion or voluntary persuasion should be
also left out of any kind of debate in this
regard from now on. The bill before us pro-
vides a certain amount of compulsion. Those
in group coverage, of course, will be left to
stay in the voluntary plans. There is another
group that is going to be compelled to take
the government insurance. It is all right
to s ay that they will have to apply for it, but
this again is the old idea of saying you will
have this or go without coverage, and that
is the position they will be in. It is not com-
pulsory in the strict term, but you either
take it or leave it.
The idea that any kind of a government-
sponsored programme will decrease the doc-
tor-patient relationship, I think, is in the
horsc-and-buggy days also, because people
are ever increasingly becoming nothing but
medical cards in the files of their doctors.
Because of the fact that has been set before
us this week about the lack of facilities and
the lack of medical doctors, I think it was a
very revealing fact put to us by the hon.
member for London South (Mr. White) that,
in the last 10 years, there has only been the
same number of medical doctors coming out
of university each year. I believe the number
was around 840 or 860.
This is going to create an ever-increasing
decrease— if I can put it in those terms— of
the doctor-patient relationship. The prob-
lems that people are having today, in getting
service from their doctors, is deterring them
from going to their doctors or attempting to
get the services of their doctors when they
need them. They feel that to go and sit in
the office for two hours, three hours, four
hours, or five hours in some cases— in my
own particular case, my doctor's office is
filled every afternoon— deters people from
going when they should go.
Also, people have to lose time from work-
to get their medical attention. Everybody
knows about the system of reference in
medical treatment: You go to your family
doctor and he feels you should see a special-
ist; and he gives you a note to go on a par-
ticular day. Invariably the breadwinner of
the family, if this is the case, has to lose
time from work to go and get the medical
treatment he wants.
Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple
of points I think are relevant, and this is in
regard to the groups— those who are in group
insurance coverage, either under physicians'
services type of coverage or the commercial
insurance type of coverage.
The steelworkers in Hamilton, in 1960,
conducted a very professional type of survey
over a full year's period. It included 600
employees— 300 from the Stelco plant and
300 from the International Harvester plant.
It was a very concise, expertly done, survey
to ascertain what portion of their wages was
paid for medical coverage, over the term of
a year, that was not covered by the kind of
plan they were in. The statistics have been
mentioned here before today, by the hon.
member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter). They
found that the commercial insurance type
programme in effect at that time covered
just a little over 30 per cent of the cost of the
medical doctors' fees, and the PSI insurance
type covered something like 60 per cent of
the cost.
I will admit that, over the years, in these
particular plants at least, those plans have
been increased to almost total coverage. But
some very enlightening things came out of
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
313
the plan, and one of those was the rebuttal
of the argument that increased coverage
caused an increase in the services of doctors,
thereby decreasing or harming in some way
the kind of attention the doctor could give.
They found that the relationship between the
contact of the insured with his physician or
surgeon in the PS I plan, and the contact of
the insured in the commercial plan, were al-
most identical. Yet the PSI type of insured
plan had almost unlimited coverage and no
financial deterrent, while almost 30 per cent
of the cost of the commercial plan was still
being carried by the insured; but their con-
tacts were almost identical in the 600 surveys
taken over the period of a year.
Another point that they found, and they
made mention of this, was the emphasis in
their submission to the Hall commission on
health that the sickness plans provided under
insurance plans— whether they be PSI-insured
plans or the commercial coverage plans— had
little or no supervision as to the type of
service one was getting or the type of serv-
ice that he was entitled to— whether he was
being treated properly by his doctor, whether
he was able to get a doctor when he needed
one, or whether he had to wait a length of
time to make an appointment, or otherwise.
There seemed to be no supervision whatso-
ever.
We find also that there is a built-in pro-
tection against the application for preventive
medicine, by requiring as a condition of
securing benefits or reimbursement that the
patient must have a symptom of illness. This
meant that before he could go to his doctor,
under any one of the plans, he had to be
sick and be able to say to him on the phone
that something was wrong with him; and the
doctor had to agree that it was well worth an
appointment or a visit to see him.
Mr. Speaker, the questions I would like
to pose to the hon. Minister are in regard to
the group coverage— and I hope that he will
explain some of them because I feel that
there is going to be some chaos in regard to
collective bargaining plans. What will
happen if the union, which has bargained
collectively for a plan, decides that it no
longer wishes to bargain for coverage with
its employer and convinces its members that
they should go into the government plan?
This will have to be explained, because all
of the contracts that are negotiated are not
the type that are negotiated and accepted in
some of the big industries.
Many groups are being organized every
day, are being certified, are going in for their
first contract, and invariably one of their
requests or demands for a contract will be
health coverage. They do not always get
the full coverage in the first agreement. They
have to be satisfied in most cases with a
partial plan. They are not going to do that
in the future. They may rather tell their
members to go into the government plan.
Are they going to be allowed to do this? We
would like to know.
Another interesting point in relation to the
two big plants in Hamilton: The Stelco plant
and the International Harvester plant are
both under collective agreements and both
have what is considered the best in group
coverage plans. Both plans, Mr. Speaker, as
well as covering the employees who pay a
portion of the premium, and of course a
portion is paid by the employer, cover the
retirees from that plant— those who are on
pension, in both cases. I would think, Mr.
Speaker, that 90 per cent of those who are
retired from these two plants would be
eligible for government subsidy, if not
eligible to have their whole portion of their
plan paid for if they were eligible to get into
the government plan. As I understand it,
now that they are in the group they are
restricted there and there is no way that
they will be able to go into the government
plan.
I am sure that it will not seem fair and
the employees will not think it fair that when
there is a government plan that the retirees,
the pensioners, are entitled to get into they
should have to pay into a fund to look after
their medical premiums.
This is a question that will have to be
answered. I am sure that some of the people
in charge of this responsibility are thinking
now that they likely would have to— and it
would be fair— to drop the retirees from their
plan and therefore force them into the gov-
ernment plan; either by complete coverage,
because of their financial situation, or partial
coverage under the terms of the plan.
These are the types of problems that we
are going to be faced with, Mr. Speaker. As
I mentioned in the outset, I think we are
dealing with the amendments to Bill No. 6
only in trying to develop the first phase of
the programme, which is prepaid doctors'
fees for the people of Ontario. I think that
we should go all the way now so that we
have, at least in Ontario, established the first
phase recommended by the Hall commission.
While we do this I think we should set the
groundwork. The government should imme-
diately develop a plan to provide the first
step of the second stage, that is supplying
the facilities, the buildings, developing the
314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
students and the medical doctors so that we
can, in an orderly and economical fashion,
go forward towards a full comprehensive
programme in the province of Ontario.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, as was raised last
year when we dealt with Bill No. 136, that
there are many organizations and interested
groups across the province watching the re-
sults of this debate and I am sure that if the
government does not give some indication
of their projected plans in relation to a com-
prehensive programme fitting in with the
federal government's offer, that we will have
the same uprising and outcry as we had last
year.
The government again will be forced to re-
trench and come forward with something that
will fit into the plan that is being adopted by
other provinces and make preparations so
that we in Canada can say to many countries
in the world, even though it has taken us
many years to come up with the kind of a
health programme that you have had in your
countries, we are now somewhat proud of
the type we have.
The utmost, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is the
comprehensive programme, developing into
group clinics as we have even in some parts
of the United States, where a person, regard-
less of what shift he is working, has no need
to lose time from work and go to that clinic.
He can go in at any time of the night or day
and have himself looked after, regardless of
the type of service he needs, from dental to
the tops in specialist care, and come out and
feel that he has been given the kind of treat-
ment that we feel everyone should have.
I am sure that we will have more questions
and problems to raise when the bill comes
before the committee of the whole House
by specific sections and I am sure that the
hon. members following me, both from the
government side and from the Opposition
side, will have more problems to put before
the government in regard to this bill. We
hope that collectively we can come to a
conclusion that we have done our best and
that the government will pay some attention
to the real problem and develop the kind of
a programme we deserve in the province of
Ontario.
Mr. T. L. Wells (Searborouph North): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take
part in the debate on the amendments to Bill
No. 6. It was my privilege to take part in
this debate in this House last year on the
original bill and I would gather from the
remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Thompson^ during this debate that he
felt I was one of those; I think he said my
motto is: "My party, right or wrong, all the
time." Now I would have to take exception
to those remarks, because I have always felt
that as an individual member here I have
been able to apply my own intellect and
judgment to those issues that come before us
and to decide for myself. I guess the reason
that in my decision I usually decide the way
the Progressive-Conservative Party thinks is
the reason I am a member of that party.
In discussing this issue, however, I would
like to take the House through some of my
thoughts regarding the amendments to this
bill. I think, as the previous speaker, that
this is an issue that should be discussed in an
intelligent, sane way without overemphasis
on emotionalism. I think that this is the type
of issue where there can be two sides and
there are certainly different ways of arriving
at ultimate goals. I personally favour certain
ways of providing for the health needs of
our people. Now these ways naturally differ
from what some of my hon. friends in the
other parties suggest.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. member's ways are a change in fashion.
Mr. Wells: I will come to that in a minute.
Certainly if anyone cannot change I think
that it is a pretty sorry day for any of us, if
our minds become so solidly made up that
it is impossible to ever change. But what I
want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I think that
in approaching this whole issue of medical
insurance there are different ways of provid-
in for the health needs of the people.
My hon. friends have presented one way
and I respect their opinions and their ideas
in this matter. I wish that perhaps they
could, in the same light, respect our ways
and our ideas. They seem to portray every-
thing that they do as the essence of virtue,
all clothed in whiteness and we on this side
are in some other area, dammed to hell be-
cause of the ideas that we have on this very
important subject.
I would hope we could perhaps get down
to the principles of this bill and throw away
some of this verbiage that we have used to
cloud the real principles of this Bill No. 6,
this amendment to our Bill No. 136.
This is the way I look at it, Mr. Speaker.
Last year I spoke in favour of Bill No. 136
and I did so because, as I said then and I
still say now, it was a good bill. It provided
for the setting up of a medical insurance
division of The Department of Health. It
provided for the establishment of a standard
contract, it was set out in the schedule to
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
315
the bill, and it provided coverage at either
no cost or at a subsidized cost. It provided a
standard contract or made available a
standard contract to 1.8 million people of
this province— those who desperately needed
help in the medical insurance field.
Since that time many things have happened
in this whole area of medical health insur-
ance. Dominion-provincial conferences have
been held. This is a subject which receives
wide study and wide comment. Another
significant thing that has happened is that
other provinces in Canada have experimented
with various plans.
One of the provinces which experimented
with a plan was British Columbia. British
Columbia came up with a plan very much
like our Ontario plan, but perhaps with two
or three better features and these features
are the ones which we are now suggesting
be introduced into the Ontario plan. We can
learn from experience, we do not have a
closed mind on this subject and I think these
are the principles of this bill, these features
which we feel are better than what was in
the original bill.
And what are these features?
First of all, the medical services insurance
division is now going to be able to sell
standard contracts to those in other than the
subsidized category. This is a good thing.
This is what the British Columbia plan did,
and I am told that it has been outstandingly
successful in its first year of operation. This
kind of thing is the real reason why there
is so much opposition here today and why
there is so much emotional verbiage, because
our friends are afraid that our plan, with these
features in it, is going to be so successful
that their ideas are going to be washed out.
Of course, I predict that this will happen.
But let me say this, Mr. Speaker, if it
does not happen, if it does not provide for
health coverage for all our citizens that they
can afford, I will be the first to stand here
and support something that does.
I could not obtain the figures for British
Columbia for this year because T understand
the hon. Prime Minister of British Columbia
is going to use them in a speech in the
Legislature sometime in the near future to
show just how successful this plan has been
there.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Except that he
is going to change it.
Mr. Wells: Yes, I understand he is perhaps
going to change it and lower the premiums.
And this, perhaps, is what will happen here.
An hon. member: Will this government do
the same next year?
Mr. Bryden: No, he is going to bring it in
line with federal requirements.
Mr. Wells: Let us not forget that this is
the essential feature of these amendments
here. This bill is to provide, first, the standard
contract to anybody who wants to buy it as
an individual for $60, $120 or $150. The
people who would be most likely to buy
this are those in business for themselves;
farmers, people who are not in groups. At
the present time if they wish to get individual
coverage they can go to a private insurance
company, say, such as the Continental
Casualty Company which has offered "Medi-
cal," and pay about $219 a year for a family.
If they happen to have been in a group
and have gone into business for themselves,
they can carry on an individual coverage or
direct payment contract with a PSI Blue
Plan and get it for about $204. They will
now have the opportunity to go in and buy
this, as of July 1, from the medical services
insurance division of The Department of
Health a family contract for $150, much
lower than any other place that you can
obtain this coverage outside a group and even
$9 cheaper than we who are in a PSI Blue
Plan group, where the premium is $159 for
family coverage.
Of course in group plans, Mr. Speaker,
the employer is paying part of the premium,
but most of these people to whom this in-
dividual contract will now be made available
are those who are like farmers or in business
for themselves, who I suppose you could say
are self-employed. Therefore, as a business
expense or an expense of their doing business,
they will have to provide the full premium
for themselves. But they are getting a bar-
gain. They are getting rates comparable to
group rates for their insurance. This, I think,
is a commendable feature of this bill.
To say, of course, as the Toronto Daily Star
and many hon. members are saying, that
what we are really doing is skimming off all
the bad risks and leaving the good risks for
the insurance companies; I do not think is
correct. The insurance companies and private
plans are being left with the group coverage,
which includes bad risks and good risks. If
you have a large group, a large industrial
concern, there are going to be those young
healthy people, and there are going to be
people who are bad risks, all grouped in
together and this is where you get your group
rate, the good carry the bad.
I do not think we are going to skim off
316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
all the bad risks in Ontario, there are going
to be lots of them left with the groups. But
let us also remember this, Mr. Speaker, the
groups that we are leaving are not all
insurance- company groups.
In a speech in this debate last year the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) said this:
A secondary but vital point has been
ignored by the Opposition in their concern
over insurance companies. More than 2.6
million people in Ontario were covered by
medical services insurance policies admin-
istered by non-profit plans operating by
either the doctors or the co-operatives. We
have heard a great deal about the 200-odd
insurance companies but very little about
the non-profit carriers. These non-profit
carriers include Physicians' Services In-
corporated, Associated Medical Services,
Windsor Medical Service Incorporated,
CUMBA, and other co-operatives.
What we have left in this group business are
a great number in these non-profit private
plans, some in the insurance run group plans.
This mix that we have, this mix and this com-
petition, is the kind of thing that is keeping
our group rates down. It is keeping them
down to a rock-bottom price and I think this
is good in the group business. I can see noth-
ing wrong with it now. It is providing cover-
age for the people of Ontario. Let us remem-
ber that 80 per cent of the people of Ontario
now have adequate coverage.
I see that the hon. member for York South
laughs as he usually does. He presents figures
but when we present figures he disputes
them, as we always dispute his.
Mr. MacDonald: That was disputed before
the Hagey commission and the Hall com-
mission and everywhere.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have here a
statement which shows that the total coverage
for 1964 in the province of Ontario was
5,249,000. From this it is necessary to deduct
201,000 people who have surgery only con-
tracts and 29,000 who have medical only
eontrncts, which are not considered com-
plete coverage. From this, also among those
with insnranre companies there are 190,000
who have coverage for in-hospital benefits
only and there are 235.000 who had only the
PSI Brown Plan. This is a total number of
661,000 who would he taken from the total
coverage because they do not have adequate
insurance, leaving a total of 4,588,000. This
is an inerease of 9.1 per cent over the num-
ber who had adequate coverage in 1963.
In 1963 there was an increase of 16.8 per
cent over those who had adequate coverage
in 1962. In other words, the graph has been
steadily going up and up. Now if we project
the rate of increase at 9.1 per cent, which is
the rate of increase from 1963 to 1964 and
use this to project to 1965, we find that there
are about five million people who will be
covered in Ontario.
Take five million people and add to that
500,000 who are covered under special gov-
ernment coverage, the welfare plans and the
Indian coverage and so forth, and we have
5.5 million. Take that from an estimated
population of 6,825,000, which is the estimate
for the population of Ontario at the end of
1965, and we get 1,320,000 people who do
not have adequate coverage. In my simple
mathematics we divide it out and we find that
80 per cent of the people of Ontario have
adequate health insurance.
Now there is, of course, a great overlap
here because the figures presented by the
Hagey commission and by all the studies on
health insurance suggested that in the subsi-
dized groups there will be 1.8 million people.
Of course, there is an overlap here in people
who would be eligible for subsidy but will
be in groups. But I see nothing wrong with
this.
So what I am suggesting here, Mr. Speaker,
is that this bill goes a long way to closing
the gap, which is really all we want to do;
and this is where I get back to what I began
with. What we want to do is close the gap,
close the gap so the people of Ontario are
covered by health insurance, be it by private
insurance companies, non-profit insurance
plans, subsidized insurance or contracts from
the medical services division of The Depart-
ment of Health.
I suspect, and I believe, that the plan that
we have presented, with these amendments,
will close that gap. They will close it so that
over 95 per cent of the people of this prov-
ince will be covered within a year. That is
why I support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say several other things
regarding this bill. In this bill, there is a
provision to change from the 100 per cent of
doctors' fees, which were included in Bill No.
136, to provide that only 90 per cent of these
fees be paid. I suppose that this has come
about because PST, one of the largest insurers
in this province, has only paid 90 per cent to
participating physicians for many years now.
I think it is a good thing that we are only
paying 90 per cent of the fees now, but I
think that here I want to ask the hon. Min-
ister of Health to look very carefully at this
section, to be sure that those who obtain
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
317
insurance, either under the welfare plans or
in the subsidized categories, are not going to,
in effect, suffer from a co-insurance feature.
In this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail
there was a news story stating that the doc-
tors in Scarborough had decided not to bill
the government plan direct when it comes
into being, but to send the bills to the patient.
It is their feeling— and they consider this a
matter of principle— that they should bill the
patient and that the patient should send in
his bill and get the money from the govern-
ment and then pay the doctor. Of course, if
this is carried on, if a patient has a bill for
$10 from the doctor and sends it in, he will
get only $9 back— and I presume that these
doctors intend the patient to pay them $10.
We have established that it is the right of
doctors under our plan to either operate
within or without the plan. And this is a
basic right that doctors feel they must have.
But I feel, Mr. Speaker, that with this right
goes some kind of responsibility; and while I
would agree with the rights of doctors like
Dr. Bentham in Scarborough to operate out-
side the plan and bill the patient himself, and
let the patient collect, I certainly would not
agree that, by coercion or by any other veiled
threats, any efforts should be made by doc-
tors in a community to attempt to get all the
doctors in that community to operate outside
the plan.
I think that the people must be offered a
choice in their community between doctors
who participate— that is, who will send in
their bills directly and therefore not charge
100 per cent of the fee schedule— and those
doctors who will not participate but will bill
the patient directly. I think that this is a
right that doctors have, but that it should be
an individual right. And I would hope that
in no place in Ontario will doctors attempt to
gang up and, by any means such as limiting
privileges in a hospital or anything like this,
attempt to force their colleagues into all oper-
ating outside the plan.
I think that it is interesting to note that in
Saskatchewan, of course, when the original
medical health insurance bill was brought in,
there was no provision for doctors to operate
outside the plan; and in the battle that fol-
lowed one of the rights they won was the
right to operate outside the plan— that is, to
be able to bill the patient.
Mr. Bryden: They always had that right;
it was just a matter of policy.
Mr. Wells: Well, they did not always have
that right; this was one of the rights that they
won. The right was won, but what has
actually happened in Saskatchewan is that
92 per cent of the doctors bill direct rather
than billing their patients. So what this
means, Mr. Speaker, is that the doctors cher-
ish this right and they want it, but they do
not necessarily all wish to exercise it.
I am told that in British Columbia, under
their plan, a similar thing to that in Saskatch-
ewan has happened. Many of the doctors
operate under the plan, but in each com-
munity there are a few who protect this
right by operating outside the plan and send-
ing their bills directly to the patient. And I
hope that the doctors in Ontario will heed
the actions taken by their colleagues in the
rest of Canada and not force the hon. Minis-
ter of Health to have to come up with some
method to ensure that those people who re-
ceive the government contracts will not have
to pay an extra billing from a doctor, unless
they themselves choose to do this by picking
a non-participating doctor. They must have
the right of choice in the community, and
they must know which doctors participate
and which doctors do not participate.
The one other thing I would like to speak
about, while I am talking on this debate, Mr.
Speaker, is something that has bothered me;
and it has bothered a lot of my friends in
the church that I belong to. I would like to
begin it by saying that much is made of the
fact, in many statements by the Opposition
speakers, that this plan is not supported by
the people of Ontario, that the public is
against it and so forth. Well, as I said, I am
not one to accept things from hearsay, and
I conducted an opinion poll in my riding on
this and several other questions last year,
after the House adjourned.
The question was asked: "Do you think
the new medical services insurance Bill No.
136, described in this booklet, is sensible for
the present time?" And the answers I got back
were that 65 per cent of those replying said
it was, and 32 per cent said it was not. I
found this to be a general consensus of the
people I talked to, in all walks of life. They
felt that the type of thing we were doing was
the right thing at this time. Now we said
"at this time"; and I am not standing here
and saying that in a few years I may favour
something else or that I may not if this does
not work. But at this time this was the right
thing.
Mr. Bryden: How many replies?
Mr. Wells: How many replies? There were
160 replies.
318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Is that the membership of
your association?
An hon. member: No, it is about 800.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): There
are 75,000 in the riding.
Mr. Wells: No, there were 16,000 sent out.
There was a one per cent reply— which in
advertising circles is a pretty good response
to any type of question or poll like this.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): That is as much as an NDP con-
vention.
Mr. Wells: Yes. Now to get to the point
that bothers me about this— that the hon.
member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) alluded to
earlier. This is the attitude of members of
the board of evangelism and social service of
the United Church of Canada and the minis-
ters who marched here during the last days
of the last session. Unfortunately, I was
away at the time and did not have a chance
to talk to any of them.
But a friend of mine who did a survey
among those ministers said that they were
a church group opposing this iniquitous bill,
and he found that about 80 per cent of
those ministers out there were either card-
carrying members of the New Democratic
Party or supporters of the New Democratic
Party.
I do not object to this, Mr. Speaker; I
certainly uphold the right of the clergy of any
church, and particularly the United Church
to belong to a political party. This is their
right and I hope they will exercise it. I do
not say that any members of the church
should not do this, or parade in this manner,
but what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is let us
be honest about this. That was not a church
protest against our bill out there, it was an
NDP protest against our bill. Because many
of these—
Mr. Bryden: Could I ask a question?
Mr. Wells: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: I would like to ask the hon.
member, Mr. Speaker, if he has noticed the
recent statement on this subject by the board
of evangelism and social service of the United
Church of Canada and whether he considers
that it consists of NDP members too?
Mr. Wells: Well, I am just «ettin« to that,
Mr. Speaker. Now I consider Pay Hord a
personal friend of mine; he is the secretary
of the board of evangelism and social service.
I have discussed this with him; I have de-
bated with him on this matter. My feeling
here is—
Mr. S. Lewis: Is he also a New Democrat?
Mr. Wells: I do not know, but certainly
many of those who marched here turned up
as NDP candidates in the last federal election.
An hon. member: I wish we had 80 per
cent of the membership.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Wells: What I am trying to say is that
I am an elder of the United Church. There
are many hon. members in this House who
either belong to or are on the various boards
of the United Church of Canada. We have
never been consulted about this action that
the church is taking. I talked to doctors, to
insurance men, to labour men in the United
Church, in my own church, and they have
never once been consulted on this.
When I talk to them they say: "Look, we
are in favour of the kind of bill you are pre-
senting. I do not know where these fellows
on the board of evangelism and social serv-
ice get their ideas. They are embarrassing
us. We are ashamed of what they are saying
because as United Church members we do
not feel this way.
"But we do feel, we do have a sense of
compassion. We have a sense of com-
passion."
"We feel." I know I do and I know all
these members of the church I have talked
to also do. We have a sense of compassion
that something must be done to help those
who need help and we feel that this bill is
doing that.
Now the board of evangelism and social
service of the United Church has a broad
policy in favour of a universal national health
plan and they are sticking to this through
thick and thin. They have never even
bothered to look at the Ontario bill in the
sense that the board has studied it and is
actually looking at what it does in the light
of how it might even be moving towards
their ultimate aim.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a slanderous com-
ment on the heads of the hon. member's
church.
Mr. Wells: I have talked to Ray Hord—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The member
for Scarborough North is making the address.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
319
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way
maligning the members of the board of
evangelism and social service or the fine
gentlemen who make up this board. I am
just trying to point out that in reality they
do not speak for the United Church of
Canada. The laymen who speak for the
United Church of Canada sit around this
room here.
Mr. Bryden: That is the Tory party.
Mr. Wells: They sit in many parties and
believe me there are lots of them who are
not in the Tory party who feel that our
bill is a good bill.
Mr. Bryden: We do not substitute our-
selves for any church, I can tell the hon.
member.
Mr. Wells: What I was going to say, Mr.
Speaker, while I am on this, is that the real
crux of the matter here is that a Christian, I
think, should have a sense of compassion,
and this is what should show in his attitude
towards legislation and this is what we show
towards this legislation.
It is like the parable of the good Samaritan.
There is the man lying at the side of the
road, wounded, dying and along comes the
priest. Now I do not know whether the
priest represents some of the clergymen who
marched out here and are members of
the New Democratic Party, but in their
desire for some great ultimate end they over-
look the problem that is right there with
them.
And, sir, along following the priest comes
the Levite, a lawyer who is a member of the
Liberal Party; and there he is, he is not
concerned about the need that is right there
immediately before him, but he is going to
go ahead and send this matter back to an-
other committee and have it studied. But
then along comes the Samaritan, a Conserva-
tive, he sees the need right there now and
he does something to help the need that is
present.
This bill will make available on April 1
of this year— not July 1, 1967, or some other
time, but April 1 of this year— this bill will
make available a standard contract to all
those in the welfare categories. They will
have it April 1; and on July 1, over one
million of our people can come and get this
insurance.
We have seen the need. I think this bill
shows a compassion for that need at the
present time and it is doing something
about it.
There is one thing I would like to say be-
fore I close, Mr. Speaker, it is on just one
other area of this bill; and perhaps this will
delight my hon. friends because this is an
area where I differ from the government.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Not from
the church!
Mr. Wells: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the
civil service insurance plan within a year
should be switched into the government
agency that is providing medical services
insurance.
Mr. Bryden: Why just the civil service?
Mr. Wells: Well, I am not worried about
the others— they are well covered in groups
with no contribution of government money.
Mr. Singer: Careful, the hon. member is
not going to go down well in London-
Mr. Wells: If you have a bake shop of
your own you do not go across the street
and buy bread at somebody else's bake shop;
so if we are setting up an agency to provide
insurance I believe that the public servants
of Ontario should be scheduled into that
insurance in the near future.
Mr. Singer: The hon. member will go far
with that speech.
Mr. Wells: Now that in no way means that
at this time I favour switching any of the
other groups in, but I think this is a particu-
lar and special area. I would hope that the
government would give consideration to this
because this is highly subsidized insurance.
I think that the hon. member for York
South talked about the people in the civil
service insurance plan and mentioned that
these people were locked in and would not
have the benefit of obtaining insurance under
the new plan, even though there were many
of them in the low income categories. Of
course the fact is that these people are
getting insurance at even more attractive
rates than the other plans. The single em-
ployee gets his insurance for $12 yearly, the
employee and one dependant pays $38.40,
and the employee with more than one depen-
dant pays $58.20. Of course, this is oper-
ating on the same principle that operates in
all the many industrial groups where the
employer pays a large percentage of the
premium cost. But I think with so much
government money being paid into this plan
that eventually within a period of time this
should be switched over to the medical
services insurance division of The Department
320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Health, and I have felt this for a con-
siderable time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my contribution to
this debate I again would like to say that I
feel that what we have here is a sound,
sensible, basic plan which is capable of logi-
cal expansion. It is a plan which sees the
need which is with us right now, does some-
thing about this need and yet leaves itself
open to change if change is necessary.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am fully in support
of this bill and opposed to the amendments
which have been presented.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
rising to take part in the discussion of the
principles of this bill, I say to you, sir, that
it is always refreshing to hear an hon. mem-
ber who ordinarily supports the government,
and indeed is elected under the banner of
the government party, express his disagree-
ment with some matters of government policy.
One gets the impression that the willingness
to disagree amongst private members of
the House, in respect to government policy,
is a variation in direct proportion to the dis-
tance from the Treasury benches; and there
may be a moral in the story because the hon.
member may feel that, in the nether region
to which he and the rest of the Chicago gang
have been assigned, they are all but forgotten
by the occupants of the Treasury benches.
I am not sure I agreed with, though I
much enjoyed, his analogy of the good
Samaritan. I must reread that story. I do
not recall that the good Samaritan, coming
along the road and seeing the man who had
been beaten and robbed by the bandits, took
a look at him and said to him, or to himself,
"Before I give aid and succour and comfort
to this victim I will adjourn for a year to
think about it." That may be the story. If
it is not then my lion, friend is ready to join
the ranks of the legion of writers who worked
for Cecil B. DeMille, who were often bent on
rewriting the Bible.
I think it is a strange and remarkable coin-
cidence, if it is that-and I reflected on this
last year during the second reading of the in-
famous Bill No. 136-that the defence of a
matter of government policy, at least in the
early and indeed the middle stages of the
debate on second reading, is left to private
members of the government ranks. The
hon. Minister of Health, on first reading,
made a brief statement, about 500 words as
I calculated them, in which lie enunciated
in the barest outline the changes that were
being made in the statute which this House
adopted last year, and to which His Honour
gave assent on the last day of the session.
And if one examines the hon. Minister's
statement, if one reads it and re-reads it, then
one fails to see any ringing declaration. And,
knowing the hon. Minister as we do, he is a
man who, when he feels it, can give the ap-
pearance—not only give the appearance but
convince one— that he can hold tenaciously
to principles; and he can give articulation to
them if he wishes to express them.
One gets the feeling, when one looks at
the remarks— and I must confess I was not
here that day— that he made on the intro-
duction of the bill, that he is a man who is
little changed from the character in which he
has been at least put by other hon. members
of the House. He clings tenaciously, as many
of his brethren in the medical profession do,
and doggedly to the principle that govern-
ment ought not to be operating in the field
of medical care. He does not believe in gov-
ernment participation.
I have the suspicion, and it is not an
ethereal thing nor constructed out of whole
cloth, that when it became a matter of gov-
ernment policy to change the structure of the
method of administering the medical insur-
ance contract, the hon. Minister of Health
gave in to it reluctantly. At least I have
never heard— and I follow his words and his
declamations as well as I am able— the hon.
Minister of Health on any platform, and I
have never heard him in this House, ever
speak favourably in favour of the principle of
government operation of medical care. In-
deed not.
He is like so many vocal members of his
noble and learned and skilful and community-
minded profession— and all those words suit.
They see government participation in this
very important field as the grossest form of
interference. I will underline that by reading,
a little later, into the record some remarks a
doctor made two days after this bill was intro-
duced. To his principles— and I do not mind
that he is looking at me. They can put in the
papers that he is looking at me; I do not
mind.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
We will not mind.
Mr. Sopha: No, I will not rise tomorrow on
a matter of personal privilege.
Mr. MacDonald: It depends what he says
about the hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: One gets the impression that in
the fixation, nay, the obsession, in his mind
about medical care being administered by
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
321
private groups bent on the making of profit,
he holds on to that idea like a lobster with
lockjaw.
An hon. member: That is a good phrase.
Mr. Sopha: It is not my phrase. Some hon.
members will know who said that about
whom at one time.
I pointed out to the House last year that,
during the whole course of the second read-
ing debate, neither the hon. Minister of
Health nor indeed the hon. Prime Minister
participated.
„ Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I can-
not sit here any longer. I certainly did par-
ticipate in the debate.
Mr. Sopha: Up to the time I had spoken.
That was within the framework of my re-
marks, in invisible ink. The hon. Minister
spoke last; he spoke second last.
Mr. Singer: Third last.
Mr. Sopha: Third last, near the last, at the
tail end. And indeed, because of the change
in policy that is inherent in this bill, one must
assume, one is entitled to conclude, that it is
a matter of government policy. Government
is venturing into the field of medical care,
albeit reluctantly. Then I ask, rhetorically in
case he should dash in from the wings: Why
does the first citizen not participate and tell
us, and give us some enlightenment about
the change?
Now I come to the point where I make the
confession that the introduction of this bill,
and the principle that it contains, gives rise
to reflection and some of the frustrations of
being a member of the Opposition— and there
are many. Last year the debate raged on,
day after day. Day after day, virtually every
hon. member of this party spoke, and indeed
every hon. member in the New Democratic
Party spoke, because a grave matter of
importance to the contemporary well-being
and the future health of our people was at
stake, and it invited the attention of every
hon. member of the House.
Yet I have looked in vain in the editorial
comment in the newspapers, since January
27, to see where there is the barest hint of
an acknowledgment by an editorial writer
that perhaps, in the vaguest meanderings of
the imagination, we in these two parties had
something to do with the change in govern-
ment policy. One fails to see it. So there
is merit in the hon. leader of the Opposition's
suggestion earlier, or that which is encom-
passed in the four corners of his resolution,
that there ought to be filming and tape-
recording of what goes on here.
I venture to say that if the TV cameras
ever got in here, only about four or five
would be re-elected at the next ensuing
election.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: But it would be a means of
acquainting the people of the province that
last year we took a stand on principle.
Speaker after speaker got up and took a
stand on principle in respect of Bill No. 136.
We identified ourselves, and said we were
for government operation of medical care,
and we were for universality— call it com-
pulsion, identify it with any dirty epithet
you want to give to it, but that is where we
pitch our tent. Somebody said, no doubt in
a state of euphoria, that we would fight an
election on it, on the issue of government
operation of medical care. Yes, we did. My
hon. leader (Mr. Thompson) aptly points out
we did; we fought two of them.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He probably does not
state the outcome.
Mr. Sopha: In the interstice between the
meeting of the House; I had forgotten that.
Our candidates were endorsed and, indeed,
I recall that in the Nipissing by-election,
which is up my way, much was said about
the government scheme of medical care. But
again, all the editorial writers, 250 miles
away, in the ivory towers at the top of
those buildings at Bay and King streets, said:
"Poor Smith, poor Richard, you cannot win.
The Tories will take Nipissing." And in
trooped the Cabinet Ministers, one after
another. You would think it was a meeting
of the clan. One after another they came in.
For some reason there must be something
attractive in Nipissing to the Cabinet, be-
cause every election, like bees to the honey-
comb, they are in there.
Well, we fought an election, as my hon.
leader aptly points out. It really gives one
a sense of frustration because there was no
acknowledgment. How can we get the
message across to the people? How can we
say what is now Bill No. 6 enunciates in part
the principles we espoused in the Legislature
and the government has adopted them, reluc-
tantly? The government has taken a step in
the right direction. How can we say to them
we will not be satisfied until medical care is
operated in toto by the government and is
322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
universal to every citizen in the province?
How can we get that message across?
I speak in the late hours of the debate. I
look at the clock and I look at the press
gallery and it is so vacant that one would
think Lord Thomson of Fleet was up hiring
reporters for $5,000 a week. Well, Lord
Thomson might be up there for all I know.
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): The re-
porters are fed up with listening to this.
Mr. Sopha: I do not often go up. How
can we get that message across? Well, I am
oiot going to go in that vein. We can get it
across by telling our people, I suppose, at
every opportunity. But in the final analysis,
the hon. leader of the Opposition, who de-
livered a lengthy disquisition as the first
speaker in this debate, enunciated in the
most careful terms the position this party
takes. To give credit where credit is due,
indeed, the New Democratic Party has done
the same only to end up, in the words of the
hon. member for York South, to end up with
nit-picking. He picks nit, knits picks, or
whatever it is, in quarrelling with the verbi-
age of our amendment.
Mr. Bryden: It is full of verbiage, the
hon. member has got to admit that.
Mr. Sopha: It is. He quarrels with the
form of our amendment. When read, one
readily comprehends that it merely means
that at this session of the House we are
advocating that this bill go to a committee
and be so rewritten that it shall contain the
matters enunciated by the hon. leader of
the Opposition under the several seven heads
of his amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not nit picking;
that is just tactical common sense.
Mr. Sopha: That is what I call it. The hon.
member can call it whatever he will. I will
not quarrel with him about it. Indeed, if
the government had the courage, if it but
had the courage, and it often lacks that
elementary quality, the hon. Minister of
Health ou^ht to have come into the House
with a bill that would have re-written Bill
No. 136, instead of chopping away at it in
the fashion this does. I defy any citizen in
the province bevond the walls of this House
to pick up Bill No. 6 and without having
before him Bill No. 136 and a goodly amount
of time to go from one to tin- other like a
tennis ball, I defy him to comprehend it.
Surely the hon. Minister owed that, at least
that, to the citizen who follows the course of
government, who is interested in legislation.
He owed the courtesy to bring in a bill called
The Medical Insurance Act, 1966, because I
am told by those who have studied this and
perhaps it has been said in the debate before,
that only 40 per cent of the original statute
remains, 60 per cent has been amputated or
has been changed beyond recognition.
Then the doctorsl One should say a word
about the doctors and their attitude and their
influence on the government because I
strongly suspect, and again it is not just
vapid dreaming, I suspect their influence is
great. A warm admirer I am of the hon.
Minister of Health, I mean that sincerely. I
admire his human qualities, his spirit, his
determination. I admire the fact that unlike
Bennett, whom he admires—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Great man!
Mr. Sopha: Yes. Unlike Bennett, the hon.
Minister of Health came to Canada and
gave Canada the benefit of his talents. The
man he admired took the boat the other way.
We were better off in both connections. But
the Minister of Health, I said last year
and I reiterate it just to show him that I
have not changed my mind whereas he has
changed his, the Minister of Health ought not
to be a doctor. He should be a layman.
An hon. member: Should the Attorney Gen-
eral be a lawyer?
Mr. Sopha: He has got to be. He has to
be. The Attorney General— let us not get
into that, but the Attorney General occupies
a very special place in the government. He
has to be a lawyer. He is the law officer of
the Crown. He enforces the government's
orders. But I am not going to be drawn off
into tangential disquisitions with the hon.
Minister of Health. The hon. Minister of
Health ought to be objective. He ought to be
objective about the opinions of doctors, their
views, because I have said to them—
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): The hon. member finds it
very difficult to be objective about the opin-
ions of lawyers.
Mr. Sopha: I beg pardon, I am always
interested in what the hon. Minister says.
Hon. Mr. Auld: I am pleased. The hon.
member finds it very difficult to be objective
about the opinions of lawyers.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, it is, especially when it
comes time to pay the bill.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
323
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: I can imagine, is it unreason-
able to postulate that the vocal group from
the medical profession would approach the
hon. Minister of Health from the point of
view they would say: "Doctor Dymond, you
are one of us, you are one of our own, you
are part of the club"?
The hon. Minister of Health does not
want to be an apostate. He does not want
to feel that he is outside the club to which
be belongs, that he is under some edict as
a result of going against his brethren in the
medical profession.
And what is the type of thing they say?
I do not know if they say it to the hon. Min-
ister of Health. Let me give hon. members
an illustration of the type of thing the doc-
tors say, and the pity of it is that it' is
listened to. Doctors are men of immense
prestige. People naturally and properly place
great faith in their advice, their counsel,
their opinions; most families have an intimate
connection with a doctor, their medical con-
sultant and advisor.
An hon. member: How about their lawyer?
Mr. Sopha: Many do. Here is the view
of a doctor. This letter was stimulated by
the introduction of this bill. The heading is
not the doctor's but the city editor's, the
news editor or whoever it is, he put it on.
It is interesting to read the heading: "Mother-
in-law's Gall Bladder or New Highways?"
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. Sopha: I quote: To the editor, Sudbury
Daily Star.
I am going to read it and I do not treat
this facetiously at all. I treat this with every
bit of seriousness that it demands.
"Catholics may now use birth control
pills. The Pope was unavailabe for com-
ment." Would you, as editor, publish such
an absurd succession of sentences? No.
Consider then your front page of Janu-
ary 22: "Doctors of this area have no
thought of enlisting the aid of their patients
to fight Medicare. Dr. F. L. Power was
unavailable for comment."
I should interpolate and say he is quoting
what the front page said:
"Doctors of this area have no thought of
enlisting the aid of their patients to fight
Medicare. Dr. F. L. Power was unavailable
for comment."
Dr. F. L. Power is the president of the Sud-
bury medical association. I go on:
How sad. In your frantic effort to a
deadline how often you distort the truth.
How often in the process of recording fact
do you also play the judge. As an indi-
vidual doctor in this area, and not speaking
for my fellow physicians, let me enlighten
you on a few facts:
1. Doctors of this area are opposed to
Medicare in its present format.
2. The imposition of socialism on an
unsuspecting populace will pave the way
for communism.
3. Medical care, as provided for in the
government budget, will have to compete
with a multitude of government agencies
for funds; in effect it will be your mother-
in-law's gall bladder against a new stretch
of highway.
4. Doctors have in the past, and will in
the future, provided services to those who
are unable to pay. When was the last time
you gave away a newspaper?
5. Those interested in a doctor's reaction
to Medicare would be well advised to read
Ernest C. Manning's speech on national
Medicare: "Government is bribing the
people with their own money." I would
suggest that all pay particular attention to
his statement: "The socialist element in any
society is always vocal far beyond its
numerical strength."
I would also ask you to consider that the
doctors who will provide these services,
attend to the scheme proposed, were not
consulted. In closing I would ask you, who
defend so vigorously the freedom of speech
and the right to publish, to expend the
same effort in the search for truth. As an
individual first, and secondly as a doctor,
I am deeply concerned that you publish
without proof, prove with prejudice, and
prevaricate with pride.
P.S. I doubt that you will publish this
letter.
Mr. MacDonald: The doctors were con-
sulted in about a dozen meetings last fall.
Mr. Sopha: I would hope, with all courtesy
to that man, that the views expressed in that
letter are only shared by a very small minor-
ity of the medical profession.
Every time in the record of human history
—at least the history of the west— every time
people collectively took a step to ameliorate
the lot of those who suffered from affliction,
pain, suffering, misery, every time there were
324
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
those who cried: "Communism! You will
shackle the initiative of" the individual. You
will turn him into a walking zombie." That
refrain has been sung throughout human
history.
Mr. Bryden: Especially by the Liberals.
Mr. Sopha: No, indeed not by Liberals.
And in that regard, sir, having listened to you
people, I consider myself in many ways to be
to the left of you.
Mr. Bryden: The point is that you do not
know where you are yourself.
Mr. Sopha: I stand with Roebuck. I stand
with Mackenzie King.
Mr. Letherby: Well, where did he stand?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! I think per-
haps we could have a much better debate if
there were not so many interruptions and
interjections. It makes it most difficult for the
person speaking, and it also makes it most
difficult for our intcrjectionists. I would ask
your co-operation to give the speaker the
attention he deserves, and not to interrupt
him.
Mr. Sopha: I thank you, sir, for those re-
marks designed to assist me in saying the few
things that I want to say, because I could not
be more serious— in speaking for myself and,
I know, sharing the views held by the man
who leads our party that this is a grave mat-
ter of principle to us. We believe, with Mr.
Justice Hall— indeed his report was the signal
for the rallying point of the forces of liber-
alism, with a small "1"— that medical care on
a universal, comprehensive basis is the next
leap forward in the social welfare history of
this country.
That is what ho said, in these words:
What the commission recommends is
that in Canada the gap be closed, that as a
nation wo now take the necessary legis-
lative, organizational and financial decisions
to make all the fruits of the health sciences
available to all our residents without
hindrance of any kind. All our recom-
mendations are directed towards this
objective. There can be no greater chal-
lenge to a free society of free men.
Those are his words.
He is a 'lory of long standing, a Tory bred
on the prairies. No people hold Tory prin-
ciples more tenaciously than the Tories from
the prairies. It is one of the great social
documents of this century. I would posit two
great social documents of this century: The
Hall report and the Massey report— two great
contributions to the future of this country.
"Why do we wait, we say? Why are you
so grudging, it takes you a year to change
your mind?" I ask rhetorically of the hon.
Minister of Health. Last year he vigorously
defended the participation of private groups.
'I said, and I repeat, that we run a risk in
opposing those groups. We run a grave risk
under the present systems of the working of
parliamentary democracy. We run a risk in
opposing them; they are powerful. Every-
day I practise my profession, I become more
convinced of the influence in the laws of our
country of the insurance group. I become
aware of it.
Last week I sat in court and said what a
strange system of justice this is, that the
plaintiff can have one lawyer putting for-
ward his case and the insurance company
can have two. They can have two. We will
take that up at another time. That is a
strange system of justice.
But I am aware of the insidiousness, the
infiltration, and the impact of their power.
We oppose them. Indeed, the hon. member
for Waterloo North (Mr. Butler) sits here
because the leader of the Opposition before
the excellent young man who now leads this
party had the temerity to impose on insur-
ance companies in their own bailiwick, in the
capital of the insurance industry of Ontario
—Kitchener. The hon. member for Waterloo
North sits here for that reason and no other.
We take our stand because we believe,
with Mr. Justice Hall, that a system of
universal government-operated medical care
is nothing else but a measure of making to-
ward the equitable distribution of the wealth
of this country among those who produce it.
It is but a device. We use the state, we
Canadians who have no fear of the state
remember that. We have no fear of the
state. Americans have a great horror of it.
They can go into spasms of Biblical palsy
about the interference of the government.
We do not have any such fear of the state.
We are accustomed to state interference. We
have learned to live with the state. We know
the state is but the organ, is but the vehicle,
of putting into effect those measures that
improve the lot of the citizens and work to-
ward the greatest good for the greatest
number.
No one sitting on that side can say with
justice, these words, "Frankly we are con-
cerned about the feeling that exists among
many people in this province. They simply
do not want everything done for them by the
state."
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
325
That is not the history of this country.
Everything big and important we ever did in
this country— and these are not idle words, I
can buttress it with evidence that would con-
vince the most obtuse— everything we ever
did of importance; big, monumental, gigantic,
directed toward the development of this
country; was done by the state. Everything!
We had to, because Canadians unfortunately
are not willing to gamble, they do not want
to take a risk. If there is a risk the govern-
ment must do it. Leave it to the government.
The imagination of people of 100 years
ago linked this country together by rail as
they did without the granaries of the west
and without the big industrial complex of
the east. But they did not have that wealth,
they did not have those resources. The gov-
ernment did it. And when the CPR did not
like the way the government was doing it
the CPR, which is so sensitive about its
integrity today, bought the government, pur-
chased it, for a couple of hundred thousand
dollars. They are awfully sensitive about
their integrity today. I do not deny they
have it.
The state is the natural vehicle for the
implementation of medical care. Mr. Justice
Hall said it is an absolute necessity.
To give you an example, to get down out
of the aerie heights and give a concrete
example: I was one that stood in the House
—I remember the young hon. member for
Scarborough West was another one, and in-
deed the hon. member for Woodbine, the
hon. member for Parkdale— I recall this part
of the debate where we complained, four of
us complained, about this limitation period
for pregnant women. We tried to put it 65
different ways, we tried to say the very people
we should be concerned about, the very
people above all others that we should be
worried about are the young, the woman
carrying the child in her womb, those are
the ones that we want to get medical care.
That is our future wealth, the health of our
young is our future wealth. This proposition,
we felt on this side of the House, only the
most contumacious could dispute, as a matter
of principle. A year later, grudging, reluc-
tantly, in the role of Tories who are dragged
kicking into the twentieth century— is that the
phrase?
An hon. member: Kicking and screaming.
Mr. Sopha: Kicking and screaming, yes!
The same party, of course, that voted against
old age pensions in the Senate; the same
party, led by the knight on his charger, the
hon. Minister of Health-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: I do not recall that, I was not
there. I know the Tories voted against it,
the same people. Indeed the same people of
an age not too long ago— there are some in
the House who were here when it was said
—that damned a whole province in respect to
family allowances: A "bribe to Quebec"— is
that the phrase? These are matters of
principle.
We say this is the rock on which we are
going to pitch our tents. One can probably
say it in a hundred different ways, but it
boils down to the same thing. Medical care
for our people is a matter that commands
our undivided attention. Now! Today!
It is not capable of simple solution and
I would not want to put words in the record
for people who may read it 10, 20 or 50
years hence to glean from what I said that I
thought it was an easy problem. It is not.
It is a very complex problem, a very difficult
problem. Reading the 1,300 or 1,400 pages of
Mr. Justice Hall's report one begins to com-
prehend the enormity of the problem; how
we need not only doctors, trained technicians,
therapists and all the other ancillary people
that march in the army of those that work in
the field of the health of our people.
We can fault the government on that score.
I said before— and like the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions, Mr. Speaker, I do not
like to refer to earlier speeches, he revels in
it— I said before that if one sat down in 19
and 45 at the end of the war— 19 and 45 is
the way Laurier used to say it— if one sat
down and got somebody from the life insur-
ance company, an actuary, one could calcu-
late how many children would be born in
this country in the next 20 years— the rate of
population increase. It would not take any
special skill or any special learning to do it.
Any well trained actuary could do it, Mr.
Speaker.
It could have said, the party that came to
power in August of 1943 could have said,
in 1966 or 1965, we are going to need this
many trained doctors per year. But they had
the public confidence in the intervening two
decades, they had it. They did not ask, they
felt they did not have to. For some amazing,
strange reason that is going to come to an
end in this province, all they had to do was
go to the polls and be endorsed. They did
not provide for the training of doctors. We
come along in the '60's, and indeed on the
first publication of Mr. Justice Hall's interim
report where he posits in very glaring terms
the need for doctors in this country, and
326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
suddenly there is great activity to open
medical schools.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): And they will not graduate until 1971.
Mr. Sopha: Right. My hon. leader says
they will not graduate until 1971. In the year
2,000 if some of us are still around, God
willing, the '60's will be the years of the
university building era. They will be the
years in which we founded universities; in a
mad scramble, with tremendous expense to
get universities started to train people.
So it is with doctors. One could see, and
one does not have to be an Einstein or a
genius, one could see that in the field of
dental care that one dental school in the
province was not enough. Indeed, I am told
there are only two; in the whole of Canada
there were only two, one in the west and the
one in Toronto. Perhaps I am mistaken, but
the president of the Canadian dental associa-
tion told me that. That failure to act, and
here is the point that I strive to arrive at, one
of the reasons for the complexity of the prob-
lem now was the failure to act to train
people in the field of health care 10 or 15
years ago.
If I may, with the hon. member for Scar-
borough North, transgress into the theological
vein: "As you sow, ye shall reap."
The hon. Minister of Health with his great
learning of Biblical lore will understand that.
We sowed 20 years ago; we sowed the wind
and we reap the whirlwind. The federal gov-
ernment recognizes these problems. As the
days go by I find that I must say in all hon-
esty to myself that I develop some misgivings
about some of my brethren in Ottawa, but I
say that only out of honesty. I will not dwell
on it; perhaps at another time.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Perhaps they have some
misgivings about the hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I have never heard of
them.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have.
Mr. Sopha: Has the hon. Minister! All
right; fine, fine!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will tell the hon.
member about them.
Mr. Sopha: I usually speak well of them.
I would have liked to think, Mr. Speaker,
that they spoke well of me.
In a field that is not a matter of federal
jurisdiction, the framers of the Constitution
stipulated that the health of the people should
be a matter of provincial responsibility, the
federal government it seems to me, I mean
both governments, I mean the Diefenbaker
government as well as the present one, has
been eminently fair. They have given notice
that it is a matter of policy with them that
whatever plan Canadians are to have ought
to be universal and comprehensive.
And to that end, though I would not pre-
tend to have knowledge of the details, they
have said here is the amount of money that
we are willing to give by way of contribution,
and they say they stipulate certain conditions
that were related by my hon. friend from
Brant (Mr. Nixon). I do not go into those.
It seems to me I read in the paper that the
Hon. Mr. McEachern said that the Ontario
plan approaches the satisfactory state. I am
quite certain I read that he said that. The
hon. Minister of Health nods his head in
agreement.
An hon. member: Well, it means that Mr.
McEachern is coming down.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. member does not
need to worry, he did not commit the gov-
ernment with what he said.
We in Ontario— and here to me is another
significant thing, that I think we must never
forget, and it does not matter if the people
beyond the Rockies or on the prairies or down
in the Maritimes hear me say this— that what
Ontario does in this country has immense
influence and impact on trends and develop-
ments.
As at Confederation, so through all the
history ever since Confederation, Ontario has
been the fulcrum, it has been the very centre-
piece, the balancing point for the develop-
ment of this country.
Our friends down in La Belle Province
seem to be caught up in the nationalist surge;
they seem to be distracted by matters that
concern them and that stem from their
history; they seem to be mindful of the fact
more so than they were 10 or 15 years ago
that in 1840 the English set out to destroy
them and their language. They have resur-
rected all those things, as they have in cycles
ever since the conquest, they have done that.
But what we in Ontario do is important
for the development of this country and we
must always remember that it is encumbent
upon us to act responsibly because we lead
the way. We are the wealthiest province, we
are the most populous; we have perhaps the
most resources, as yet undeveloped. We had
a large stake in the formation of this country.
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
327
We do not fear the central government, and
this is the important thing; we do not fear
centralism.
Residents of Ontario, I should judge, are
inclined to be centralists. They are inclined
to favour a strong central government. They
are inclined to see that the vehicle for a
proper and adequate health plan for the citi-
zens of this government is the federal gov-
ernment; a plan organized by the federal
government, administered by the provinces,
and financed largely by the federal govern-
ment with its great massive tax-gathering
powers, which we do not have; we will have
to change that some day, but they have the
access to revenue, which we have not.
I like to think— and I could put this in a
different way but I have not the courage to
do so tonight, I have gone on too long, there
will be great general agreement with that—
but I like to think that, speaking for myself,
I would be willing to sacrifice some of my
standard of living if it would raise the stan-
dard of living of people in other parts of this
country.
This country cannot go on— notwithstand-
ing the reasons Mr. Lesage gives that it can-
not go on, in a speech last night that is
worthy of study, not worthy of agreement—
this country cannot go on half prosperous and
half pauper, prosperous at the centre and
poverty stricken at the extremities. And in
that sense the analogy of the human body is
perfect; if there is an accumulation of blood
in the head and none in the extremities, the
patient is going to die of a cerebral
hemorrhage. This country cannot go on, I
say, in that way.
A universal comprehensive medical care
plan for all Canadians, from Cape Race to
the Queen Charlotte Islands, is the ultimate
goal; the only worthy goal. And what could
be more worthy of Ontario, and the citizens
of this province, led by its government— if it
were a resolute government, if it were a
dedicated government to the principle— what
could be more worthy than Ontario leading
the way to bring the highest standards of
medical care to people in all parts of this
nation? There is the challenge. There is
the gauntlet that I throw to you.
So my plea is this, and I am inclined to be
reasonable tonight, I hope it is a reasonable
plea, stop nibbling around, stop fooling
around with these amendments in the
direction of where we want to go. And I
think I can say that you would find— and I do
not want to squeal on anybody— but you
would find that last year when the govern-
ment forced through Bill No. 136, Mr.
Speaker, with a big majority, a command-
ing majority, an overwhelming majority—
and it was forced through— only reluctantly
did many of the private members vote
for it; reluctantly.
How do I know that? I listened to one of
them on the radio on January 27, the day
this bill was introduced; I listened to one
of your hon. members on the radio, and his
words were these, and I paraphrase them
accurately. He said: "Today the medical care
insurance amendment bill was introduced.
The government lost no time and introduced
at the earliest opportunity a bill designed
to change the method of underwriting the
standard insurance contract."
Then he went on and was caught up in a
state of effervescence and euphoria and he
said: "This bill today was one of the most
significant pieces of social legislation in the
last 20 years."
Brave words; he voted for the opposite
last year, since he was called upon to vote
for the opposite last year— the party discipline
being what it was. He could not believe the
two things, he could not, in integrity, believe
both.
If this is a significant piece of social legis-
lation, then with integrity he could not
support the bill that he was required to vote
for last year.
Our position has not changed and I will
wait in vain, as I look at that press gallery,
I will wait in vain for an editorial acknowl-
edgment that our position never changed.
We were steadfast. We say the same things
today as we said last year in the debate.
Mr. Bryden: But not the year before.
Mr. Sopha: That may be so, but I speak
for myself. I say to the hon. Minister of
Health: your position changed, it changed
greatly, but not a blush crosses his otherwise
rosy cheeks. Not a blush; no embarrassment
when he brings this bill in; not a tear drops
from his eye. Now look, it is 500 words long
and I see no acknowledgment that this is
the obverse of the bill he defended last year.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Pure business, no frills,,
pure business.
Mr. Sopha: This is the obverse. This is
the contradiction of the position he took last
year. No explanation by the first citizen,,
none at all. No participation; no explanation
given of why the reverse. Maybe we are not
^entitled to know. I will not be too greatly
disappointed if I do not know what impelled
it, what stimulated it. But at least as I sit
328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
down, I will have the satisfaction, I will sleep
well tonight, as I put my head down on my
pillow, and I will think that there is not
really frustration in being in the Opposition.
It is not really frustrating; because you
find that if you stand on principle, if you
pitch your tent on that rock and you do not
budge, if you say in a world that is deflected
in its conformity, where people do not want
to be different, if you say, "My mind is made
up and nothing will change it. I have
thought about it and my mind is made up
and I am not going to change my mind,"
then, if you continue to stand there, you
will not be budged. As a member of the
Treasury benches told me one time, "When
you come into this House, park your heels
deep in the rug and nobody can bowl you
over." So eventually, if you adopt that
posture, it will get through over there. The
message will be received, and through that
way you will have your influence on the gov-
ernment of your province and of your life.
And, as the first citizen said, in a phrase
that I captured in my memory and I will
always have it, "It is better to be part
of government than just to be governed."
That is what he said. So, if our ideas are
adopted, as they apparently were in Bill No.
6, for the reasons expanded by the hon.
leader of the Opposition, in that sense you
are part of government, playing a very effec-
tive part in government.
Our friends in the fourth estate can tell
the editorial writers that in that sense we do
not need the accolades, we do not need the
acknowledgments. They do not need to
waste any ink on us. They do not need to
point out to the six per cent of newspaper
readers who read the editorial page— only six
out of a hundred— they do not need to tell
them that we had a profound effect on the
development of medical care in this prov-
ince. And if we stick to our guns, if we do
not budge, then next year will be the last
year for those Treasury benches. The year
after, we are going to have in this province-
nothing can stop it, we are going to have it,
whether you like it or not— a universal, com-
prehensive medical care plan. And indeed,
eventually, we are going to have it for the
whole of this country.
I say, finally, that I do not condemn or
revile or criticize the doctors for the stance
they take. I disagree with them, but they have
the right to their opinions. I just wonder
about them. I just wonder about some of
them. Such a contrast between lawyers and
doctors; lawyers do not fear government
interference.
This session we will have a legal aid plan.
There will not be a lawyer in the province
that will complain about becoming servants
of the state. We are accustomed to the
state fixing our fees. Any citizen that com-
plains about any fee we ever charge can run
to the state, to an officer of the The Depart-
ment of the Attorney General; he can run
to him and complain about it and, indeed,
he has the power to reduce our charges.
Mr. Bryden: He is a lawyer, too.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no, he is a public servant.
Mr. Bryden: He is a member of the law
society.
Mr. Sopha: So I say to the doctors that I
respect their fears, their concern, but I
know in my heart that the medical profession
does not own the human body; it does not
own health, any more than lawyers own the
law. They merely operate in that field, and
universal medical care is not a medical prob-
lem. It is a political problem.
The community has made up its mind.
The community has found its voice in Mr.
Justice Hall and that voice is articulate. The
voice says, "This is the next step in social
progress in bettering the lot of our people.
This exhibits our concern for the future
health of our citizens." That voice will be
triumphant in the final result.
Join with us. Hasten the day— not grudging,
not complaining, but willingly, enthusiasti-
cally. Withdraw this bill; come in with a
proper one that recognizes the articulated
needs of our community in 1966.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to participate in this dis-
cussion, I wish to know first whether it is
permissible to look anyone in the eye, or
directly at them, when speaking or making
a statement in this House. I did note that
the hon. member for Sudbury gave the hon.
Minister of Health permission to look him in
the eye when he was talking to or about him.
I cannot for the life of me understand why
these groups on my right are opposing this
Bill No. 6 so violently.
Mr. Gisborn: We did not expect the hon.
member to.
Mr. Letherby: Well, why would you not?
Mr. Yakabuski: You know, when the hon.
leader of the Opposition was replying to the
Throne speech a number of days ago, he re-
ferred to the group on his left as the socialists.
And I think it is one of the contributions that
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
329
the hon. leader of the Opposition has made
to this House at this session. Actually, I
want to thank him for activating that term
"socialist." You know, the label "socialist" is
used widely in Europe, and I think it is
about time we started to use it here in
Ontario and in this country also. But I might
say to the hon. leader of the Opposition and
his party members over there, that if that
group on the left are socialists, then I say
that his platoon is made up of semi- or half-
baked socialists.
The hon. member for Sudbury made
reference to a government which was in
power in Ontario in 1943, or came into
power in August of 1943, and he said or
asked why that government had not done
something about foreseeing the health and
hospital needs of the province at that time.
He is not in the House at this moment, but
I would ask him and his fellow members
what the government of the day in 1942 did
about the same problem? Actually, when
we go back to the government that was in
power from 1934 to 1943, why, they did not
even foresee our power needs of 1945, 1946
and 1950. I think the people of this province
must be thankful that the government was
changed in 1943 or there would have been
a continuous power blackout in this province
for perhaps a decade.
The legislation that is before this House
now is the type of legislation that we need
to fill the gap in the medical needs of the
people of this province. It is good legisla-
tion. It covers those who need assistance
most, and it also covers all the others who
wish to participate in this plan. On listen-
ing to the hon. member for Sudbury speaking
so strongly on a universal and a national
Medicare plan, I might mention to the hon.
leader of the Opposition that it would be
advisable for him and his group to dis-
associate themselves from Pearson and his
bungling buddies. We recall what happened
to the former leader of the Opposition back
in August and September of 1963, when he
bent an ear to the then Minister of Health
and Welfare in Ottawa, Miss Judy LaMarsh.
We know what happened to the leader of the
Opposition on September 25 of that year. It
might be advisable for the provincial Liberal
Party to disassociate themselves from the
plan that is being advocated by Ottawa.
I for one would not want to see the gov-
ernment of the province of Ontario get
sucked into a universal compulsory Medicare
scheme. I do not feel too good about having
been sucked into the Canada pension plan.
When the farm communities of this province
and of this country and the other people be-
gin to understand what the Canada pension
plan is all about, I think many of us will
agree that it was an ill-conceived and hasty
piece of legislation.
When we compare a free plan with a com-
pulsory plan, I might refer to our hospital
insurance plan which took effect on January
1, 1959, some seven years ago. It is not a
compulsory plan and it is working out very
well.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Seventy-
four per cent of it is.
Mr. Yakabuski: There are very few citi-
zens in this province who are not now
covered by Ontario hospitalization insur-
ance. I will only take a guess, but I would
say the percentage is less than five per cent.
Mr. S. Lewis: Point six per cent.
Mr. Yakabuski: Point six— so it is just about
100 per cent. And mind you, that other small
percentage— you could not even insure those
people with a compulsory one. The plan
which is covered in this bill I know, I am
sure, is the beginning of a great Medicare
plan. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce
(Mr. Gaunt) this afternoon, when I was out
replying to a telephone call, had something
to say about what I said regarding our Bill
No. 136 last June 1. At that time I said:
I might say, Mr. Speaker, in closing,
that I am supporting this bill completely
because I feel that this will be the be-
ginning of the greatest health plan known
anywhere on this continent.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): That is the
quote I used, all right.
Mr. Yakabuski: Well, I might say to the
hon. members here and the Wingham
■clipper—
Mr. S. Lewis: Who is the Wingham
clipper?
Mr. Yakabuski: —that I repeat that state-
ment tonight, only this time much more
emphatically.
Mr. Gaunt: Well, next year the hon. Min-
ister can do the same thing.
Mr. Letherby: He can add to it next year.
Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, the eyes of
every provincial capital in this country, and
the eyes of the federal capital, are upon this
Legislature as we debate this issue. They
330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will be most interested in the outcome of this
issue. There are many people in the centre
of our Canadian west who wish they had
another opportunity to debate this issue
again.
I would like to quote a letter that
appeared in the Ottawa Journal last Satur-
day. It is entitled "Medicare":
Sirs:
If we can judge from the press reports
there is a general misconception regarding
the Medicare situation here in Saskatche-
wan. A large percentage of the people
are not as reconciled toward it as others
would have you believe.
Now the hon. member for Woodbine is not
here and I am very sorry that he is not in his
seat; but I want to continue:
True, the majority had favoured medical
insurance long before compulsory state
medicine was used to force people into
further dependent servitude. Not many
more people are covered now. It wasn't
the Medicare, it was the compulsion they
feared. In spite of anything said to the
eontrary, many Saskatchewan citizens still
value their individual freedom and rights
beyond all else.
And, Mr. Speaker, this letter to the Ottawa
Journal is signed by a Mr. S. Ward of Moose
Jaw, Saskatchewan. And I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that here is a Ward who does not
want to be a ward of the state.
I said earlier I could not understand why
the socialists, the semi-socialists, and the
half-baked socialists oppose this bill so
violently.
I think tin's is what they have in mind:
They would like to see this government back
out of this legislation, retreat, and take up
the stand that was taken up in Saskatchewan.
They would like to see chaos in this province
because they know if we as a government
were to introduce a compulsory Medicare
scheme, that they would have a very good
chance of defeating this government when
we next :'o to the polls. This is the only
reason that they oppose this bill. They have
seen what has happened in Saskatchewan and
they think they can use the same tactics
here. T am sorry that the hon. member for
Woodbine is not in his seat. It is a very
unfortunate situation when we are talking
about Saskatchewan and the person that we
are directing part of those remarks to is not
in his scat at the time.
Mr. S. Lewis: Sure he is.
Mr. Bryden: I came as soon as the hon.
member summoned me.
Mr. Yakabuski: The gist of it was, Mr.
Speaker, that things are not going too well
in Saskatchewan. Really, Mr. Speaker, I
think this is what happened out there. When
the hon. member for Woodbine had a so-
journ on the prairies a number of years ago,
you know what I think happened? I think
he had a part in striking the match that
started the Medicare fire in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Bryden: I thank the hon. member.
Mr. Yakabuski: And then he saw that this
fire was going to burn beyond control and
do you know what he did then? He scattered
out of the province.
The other day there was a report in the
newspaper that the government in Brussels,
Belgium, had resigned. A further report the
following day indicated that King Beaudoin
did not accept the government's resignation.
The report regarding the resignation read
as follows:
Fayat told reporters the government
resigned after an emergency Cabinet meet-
ing and because it was unable to resolve
its difficulties over Medicare.
Again, Mr. Speaker, wc see why the socia-
lists and the semi-socialists want us to get
into the same jam. This is their only chance
of taking over this government.
But I know that this is not going to happen.
The hon. member for Sudbury said that we
have backtracked, we have not stood fast to
our original bill, that he and his group have
stood fast in everything regarding this bill.
But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we are as
flexible as the fast-moving times we are living
in. Many times what applies today does not
apply tomorrow. This is a sign of a govern-
ment that is awake, a government that is on
its toes, whereby it can change its course
when the course needs changing.
I might say too that I think both these
groups here have lost touch with the people
of Ontario and the people of Canada com-
pletely. If they were in touch with the people
of this province they would not dare rise in
this Legislature and oppose this bill because
this is the legislation that our people want.
After Bill No. 136 was passed here last
June, did hon. members hear of any violent
complaints, did they hear any reaction in
the press? No, they did not. The people of
this province were happy; they are going to
be even more happy with Bill No. 6.
I might mention, when talking about the
FEBRUARY 8, 1966
331
press, I read in one of my own papers here
last week-end, the Renfrew Advance, where
this government was adopting the wise
course in having a non-compulsory medical
scheme for the people of Ontario.
Mr. S. Lewis: Which paper?
Mr. Yakabuski: The Renfrew Advance. It
said that we were covering the people who
should be covered, and, Mr. Speaker, the
Renfrew Advance never jumps over any high
walls to compliment this government.
This is why I say the group over here have
lost touch completely. I think that if they
want to redeem themselves and if they want
to improve their image with the people of
this province that diey should join our band
wagon and support this bill.
This government, Mr. Speaker, unlike the
government of Belgium, is not going to be
crowded into a corner like the Opposition
here would like it to be. This government
will not be resigning. It will probably be
coming back; after this bill has been imple-
mented and after we go to the people
again, this government will be back with
the platoons over there much, much smaller.
Therefore again, Mr. Speaker, I want to
say, as one who feels he is in touch with
the little people of this province, that I sup-
port this bill. I know that we are going to
go on from here. This is just the beginning.
We are going to go on from here and encom-
pass these other groups-
Mr. S. Lewis: When?
Mr. Yakabuski: When the time is right.
Mr. S. Lewis: When is that?
Mr. Yakabuski: When we are called on to
take that course. This legislation will be en-
larged as time goes on to cover dentists,
chiropractors, the oculists, drugs and all
things that are not covered in this plan today.
But we have to start somewhere and we have
made that start.
Back in the early '50's when the great
government in Ottawa was still in power—
hon. members know the one that was there
for 22 years, that one— well, when they were
in power the Prime Minister of the day
in this province, the hon. Leslie Frost, wanted
to introduce a hospital insurance scheme.
And do hon. members know who was stall-
ing? It was not the Tory government down
here in Toronto, it was that Liberal govern-
ment in Ottawa.
Mr. Frost laid his cards on the table and
put it down on the line. He said: "If Ottawa
will not participate or contribute to this hos-
pitalization scheme we have in mind we will
go it alone." It was because of the govern-
ment here, led by Premier Frost, that this
province and nearly all the other provinces in
Canada have today a hospital insurance plan.
Therefore, we are starting out in the Medi-
care plan. We are not the first, but I will
bet that within five or ten years we will have
the finest Medicare plan in this country or on
this continent.
Mr. Bryden: Why not have it now?
Mr. Yakabuski: And with that, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Opposition to change
their course, to support this bill, and go back
to their people and say: "I am sorry, I know
better now."
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hour is
late and before the period of adjournment
perhaps I could reflect on some observations
made by other members during the course
of this debate.
I was interested by the infusion into the
debate this evening of a wide degree of pro-
fessional pollsterism indulged in by the Pro-
gressive-Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scar-
borough North in justifying the legislation of
last year, Bill No. 136, based his justification
on 160 replies in one riding out of 16,000
mailings. Then to bulwark that tremendously
documented case, he introduced a somewhat
more amateurish poll where a visiting digni-
tary had interviewed United Church ministers,
demonstrating in front of these legislative
buildings, and had decided that 80 per cent
of them were practising New Democrats.
Thus do the polls proliferate.
Further, on the basis of the conversation
which the hon. member had with the execu-
tive director of the board of evangelism and
social service of the United Church, he came
to the conclusion that that board, and the
church hierarchy in general, did not repre-
sent its membership and the people of the
province of Ontario in relation to medical
care.
And lest we for one moment feel that the
debate was not sufficiently strengthened, the
hon. member who preceded me managed to
impugn the entire Saskatchewan plan, the
participation of the doctors, the 95 per cent
provincial enrolment, by quoting one letter
from one citizen in the city of Moose Jaw
published in an individual newspaper.
Now I say these things, Mr. Speaker, for a
purpose; because they represent one of the
332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
factors which plagues this debate. During the
course of the afternoon sitting, my hon. col-
league for Riverdale advanced a theory which
he said came in absence of explanation from
the government. The hon. Prime Minister—
I hope I quote him correctly— said that that
was quite an assumption, directing his re-
marks to my hon. colleague. But it was an
assumption, it was a postulate that necessar-
ily came in the absence of any legitimate
debate in this chamber on the bill before us
on second reading.
Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is not so much
a fraud as the debate which surrounds it is
fraudulent. The whole procedure in this
chamber during second reading, I submit to
you sir, is laced with cynicism. Not in terms
of the bill, or in terms of individual
members, but by nature of the debate itself.
There has been no debate, because there has
been no confrontation, because none of the
arguments put forward on the part of both
the Opposition parties has been confronted
by hon. members of the government.
Indeed, as the hon. member for Sudbury
said, the hon. Minister of Health and the hon.
Prime Minister of the province have not even
yet condescended to enter the debate. Not a
single hon. member of the Cabinet has given
indication that he intends to participate in
the debate. And government back-benchers,
who spoke on second reading last year, speak
on second reading this year, with precisely
the same arguments.
Now let me make an observation, Mr.
Speaker. Some of us are also speaking again
on second reading. I say with the necessary
glimmer of a smile on my face, that we are
limited somewhat in the distribution of speak-
ing authority. Some of us necessarily re-
peat. But that only 12 or 14 hon. members
of the government in total, out of 77
members in this House, should condescend in
two years running to participate in a bill of
this magnitude, when debated in principle,
is a total abdication of political responsibility.
So what do we have, Mr. Speaker? What
do we have? We have this ritual dance that
all of us go through, where we recite speeches
into a vacuum, where there is no exchange,
no honest interchange of ideas; no dialogue
established. Government speakers direct
themselves to the periphery of members'
remarks, to the trivia related to some of
those remarks, but never to the substantive
arguments which the Opposition attempts to
make.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, by way
of observation, and you have allowed a
considerable latitude in this House, that as
one member of this House that is what I find
particularly demoralizing about the proceed-
ings of this Legislature. It is increasingly
difficult on second readings, on principle, to
engage in a meaningful debate in this Legis-
lature.
When the bill was in the fire last year,
when the hon. Minister was against the wall
and unable to reply adequately, when the
seeds that eventually resulted in the modi-
fications to this bill were sown, those events
took place on the clause-by-clause debate.
But we can never exchange in this House
in a debate on principle. And that I think,
Mr. Speaker, is a sad commentary on the
proceedings of the House and why, as the
hon. member for Sudbury says, many of
us from time to time feel a considerable
frustration.
Now one asks, Mr. Speaker, where is the
government leadership on this bill; when
will it come; which of the Cabinet Min-
isters will participate? One hopes the hon.
Prime Minister himself may consider inter-
vening at some point.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, and I know
it is true of the Liberal Party as well, are not
at this time so much obsessed with argu-
ing pros and cons, because we do not wish
to insult the hon. members of this House.
All hon. members recognize the arguments
on both sides. What we wish to achieve is
to rejuvenate debate in the Legislature on
second reading on principle and try to get
some confrontation of ideas.
I would therefore like to suggest some of
the basic factors that have been set out, none
of which has been replied to, and ask the
government that they grant us the preroga-
tive of reply somewhere during the course
of this debate, before second reading is over.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that what I am
about to embark on is rather lengthy in the
setting out of these arguments, and with the
hon. Prime Minister's concurrence I would
move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will meet at 2 o'clock
for the presentation of the Budget, and if
there is any time remaining in the latter part
of the afternoon we will resume this debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.25 o'clock, p.m.
No. 13
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, February 9, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 9, 1966
Budget address, Mr. Allan 338
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Oliver, agreed to 352
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading,
continued 352
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Dymond, agreed to 370
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 371
335
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today
we welcome, as guests, students from the
following schools: In both galleries, Hillcrest
public school, Clarkson; and in the west
gallery, Western technical and commercial
school, Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day I have
a question for the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart).
Would the hon. Attorney General inform
the House if arrangements have been made
or could be made to have Sir Guy Powles,
the parliamentary commissioner for investi-
gations in New Zealand, address an appro-
priate select committee of the Legislature on
the subject of his office?
While I have used the words "select com-
mittee" in my question, I really did not in-
tend to imply all the things that are meant by
a select committee. What I really mean is
an appropriate committee, perhaps a com-
mittee of the whole House, or the committee
on legal bills or something along that line.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, Sir Guy Powles will be here in
Toronto, according to the itinerary I have
now, on February 24. It appears he arrives
on the afternoon of that day and will be
here on the 25th, at which time he will make
a presentation to the Legislature, as this pro-
gramme reads. I do know that he has quite
a full schedule, filled with appointments. We
are planning to offer him a luncheon and it
was my thought that on that occasion— we
did this when he was here, I believe, about
a year ago— we will have quite enough time
to discuss with him some of his work as an
ombudsman for New Zealand. It was my
Wednesday, February 9, 1966
thought that hon. members of the House
representing all the parties, selected persons,
might be guests at that luncheon and would
have an opportunity to meet him and talk
with him.
I would like to say, further, that the matter
of an ombudsman was referred to the com-
missioner on civil rights, I think about a year
ago. It is therefore being studied by Mr.
McRuer, and I would expect that he will be
in a position to report before too long on that
subject. I know that he has explored the
matter in his studies, in his visits abroad, and
in discussions with persons in those coun-
tries where this office now obtains.
I have no objection to having Sir Guy
Powles address a committee if this can be
worked in. But I would like to suggest to my
hon. friend that perhaps in the circumstances,
where we might in a sense be trespassing on
the field we have allotted for, at present at
least, to the commission on human rights, it
might serve if the opportunity were afforded
to Sir Guy to meet with certain interested
hon. members from his party, from the New
Democratic Party, and from this side of the
House, the government. We would then hear
what he might have to say to us, rather than
attempt to set up a committee— especially at
this time when I think his programme
appears to be pretty well filled. However, I
am not opposed .to the suggestion. If it is
feasible I shall be glad to follow it and see
what might be done.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. MacNaughton), notice of
which was sent to him earlier in the day.
Since he is not in his seat, and since the
question is of such great concern to the
people of my area, would you permit me to
state the question and perhaps he would
answer at his earliest convenience?
In view of the latest in a series of fatal
accidents at the intersection of Highways 5,
24 and 99, what is The Department of High-
ways prepared to do to eliminate the serious
safety hazard at that point?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on January 28, the hon. member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) asked a question
which I was unable to answer at that time.
Since asking the question, I have received
certain information and I would be very
happy to answer it today.
A copy of the reasons for judgment, dated
November 9, 1965, in the case of Harold
Praill, plaintiff, versus Keystone Contractors
Limited, defendant, heard in the county court
of the county of Kent, has now been received,
Mr. Speaker.
The reasons for judgment review the facts
of the case, and His Honour, Judge W. B.
Beardall, then gives his decision, and I quote:
The defendant, however, pleads that
this sewer was constructed under contract
for the Ontario water resources commis-
sion, and section 35 of The Ontario Water
Resources Commission Act, RSO 1960,
chapter 281, provides that sewage works
that are being constructed with the
approval of the commission and, in accord-
ance with the terms and conditions im-
posed in any order, direction, report or
regulation of the commission, so long as
the sewage works are being so constructed
they shall be deemed to be under con-
struction by statutory authority, and section
11 of The Public Authorities Protection
Act provides that no action shall be in-
stituted against any person for any act
done in pursuance of any statutory
authority in respect of any alleged neglect
or default in the execution of any such
duty or authority unless it is commenced
within six months next after the act,
neglect or default complained of, or in
case of injury or damage, within six months
after the ceasing thereof.
As mentioned before the work, insofar as
it affected the plaintiff's property, was com-
pleted in November 1963, and the beginning
of the damage being apparent, was a few
days thereafter.
The greenhouse finally fell on March 5,
1964, but the writ on this action was not
issued until September 22, 1964, which is
more than sj\ months after the damage was
done.
The plaintiff points out that section 15
of The Public Authorities Protection Act pro-
vides that the Act does not apply to munici-
pal corporations. However, I think that this
does not take the action out of the ambit of
section 35 of The Ontario Water Resources
Commission A< t.
The action will, therefore, be dismissed
with costs.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman), notice
of which has been given. The question is
in three parts.
The first is:
1. What damage was caused to the gov-
ernment property during the riots at Mill-
brook?
2. Has the damaged property been re-
placed?
3. What was the cost of replacement?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
first question— what damage was caused to
government property during the riot at
Millbrook?— I presume the hon. member re-
fers to the fires at Millbrook, as there has
been no riot there.
Mr. Ben: No riots?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Am I correct?
Mr. Ben: Is that the hon. Minister's state-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I presume you
refer to the fires; there were no riots.
Mr. Ben: Is it a statement by the hon.
Minister that there were no riots in Mill-
brook?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, is this what the
hon. member means? Does he mean the fires,
or does he suggest there was a riot there?
Mr. Ben: I think the hon. Minister has
answered the question. Thanks.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not answered
the question; I just wanted to make it clear.
There were no riots there, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben: Then why the use of the tear
gas?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it the hon.
member suggests there was a riot?
Mr. Ben: Then why the use of tear gas
for five days if there were no riots?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am trying to
get the hon. member's question clear. I
presume the hon. member suggests there
was a riot there?
Mr. Ben: May I put it to the hon. Minister
this way— during the disturbance after the
fire?
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
337
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because, Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member himself has stated publicly
he could find no evidence that there was a
riot there. The damage to the government
property was: smoke damage to walls, re-
quiring repainting; electrical work on the
ceiling burned up; one wall at the back of
the vault cracked— burning of steam line cov-
ering—hot water storage tank and steel
screen partition needing replacement. The
second fire in the Braille shop burned a cer-
tain amount of paper and library books.
The second part of the question is: Has
the damaged property been replaced? Not
completely; approximately 90 per cent is
now completed. What was the cost of re-
placement? About $15,000.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a supplementary ques-
tion of the hon. Minister, Mr. Speaker? What
was the damage during the trouble that
ensued after the fire when tear gas was used?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not
familiar with any damage caused subsequent
to that. If the hon. member wishes to ask me
whether there was any damage subsequent to
these particular fires, I would be glad to get it
for him. Is that his question?
Mr. Ben: That is my question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get the informa-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege.
In the night edition of the Toronto
Telegram yesterday, February 8, there ap-
peared on page 2 a news item under the
heading, "Strike Injunction Reform Promised
by Province." The article states:
The promise came yesterday at a meet-
ing with Premier Robarts, Attorney General
Arthur Wishart and Labour Minister Leslie
Rowntree.
Mr. Speaker, this subject was not discussed
at the conference and no such promise was
made. The article continues:
In a discussion of the Oshawa Times
strike, the union men were also told by
Mr. Wishart that the Ontario provincial
police would not be sent into the strike.
Mr. Speaker, this matter also was never dis-
cussed and no such statement was made by
me.
In these two instances, the article in ques-
tion is entirely without foundation in fact.
I was not interviewed by any reporter after
the conference and it would appear that the
two paragraphs of the article which I have
quoted were purely speculation and manu-
factured out of whole cloth. Both statements
are untrue.
In this same article, reference is made to
a conference I had with Mayor Lyman Gifford
and the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr.
Walker) and it is stated I was told there was
no need for Ontario provincial police because
the city police have the situation well in
hand. No such statement was made to me.
I did assure the mayor that the law would
be enforced and that if he found it necessary
to request the assistance of the Ontario pro-
vincial police he would immediately receive
all necessary help.
One further thing, Mr. Speaker: The in-
junction here was not obtained ex parte and
without notice. The notice of motion was
served on all the defendants two days before
the hearing. The defendants were represented
at the hearing by Mr. J. H. Osier, QC, a most
eminent and capable lawyer, and expert in
labour matters. It was arranged that he might
examine the chief witness for the plaintiff on
his affidavit at 9:30, some two hours before
the hearing on January 31. A shorthand
reporter was present and took a verbatim
report of the examination. The hearing took
place two hours later at 11:30 before the
hon. Mr. Justice Donnelly at Osgoode Hall.
But prior to the hearing, the solicitor for
the union and the defendants, Mr. Osier, and
the solicitor for the Oshawa Times, Mr. R. V.
Hicks, settled the terms of the injunction. As
a result, when the counsel for the Oshawa
Times presented the application to his lord-
ship, union counsel indicated that, while he
was not consenting to the injunction, he was
not opposing it. The injunction was then
granted by the hon. Mr. Justice Donnelly.
It will be understood that the defendants,
through their counsel, had full opportunity
to request an adjournment to file material, to
examine any other company witnesses and
tc make a full argument before the court.
The injunction, therefore, was obtained on
notice to defendants and was not ex parte.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have here two messages from the
Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor, signed
by his own hand.
Mr. Speaker: W. Earl Rowe, the Honour-
able, the Lieutenant-Governor, transmits esti-
mates of certain sums required for the
services of the province for the year ending
March 31, 1967, and recommends them to
the legislative assembly, Toronto, February 8,
1966.
338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And the Honourable, the Lieutenant-
Governor, transmits supplementary estimates
ot certain additional sums required for the
services of the province for the year ending
March 31, 1966, and recommends them to the
legislative assembly, Toronto, February 8,
1966.
Orders of the day.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer)
moves that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and that the House resolve itself into
the committee on ways and means.
BUDGET ADDRESS
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted again today to
have a former Treasurer in the House in the
person of the Hon. Leslie M. Frost, who was
Treasurer of this province. I had hoped that
the hon. Mr. Justice Porter would be here
also. He may be a little later. I believe he is
the only other living former Treasurer of
this province.
In commencing my eighth annual Budget
statement to this House, I am particularly
happy to be able to report that the past year
has been another year of marked progress for
Ontario's economy and people. The excep-
tionally long period of economic expansion
which began in 1961 was sustained through-
out 1965. I am confident that this expansion
will continue in the coming year.
This broad economic advance is, of course,
the result of many factors. For our part, we
have continually sought to provide the envi-
ronment in which such growth can flourish.
Indeed, we have initiated many farsighted
policies designed to exert a positive influence
upon the economy. In the field of social
services, we have diligently striven to pro-
mote the development of human resources
and thereby assist our people and industry in
achieving their maximum potential. The crea-
tion of new physical assets in the form of
universities, schools, hospitals, highways,
parks and other public works, and the devel-
opment and conservation of our natural re-
sources have also been important economic
stimulants. In these and other ways, we have
contributed in no small measure to our
e< onomic progress and rising living standards.
Prosperity is also having a beneficial effect
upon our revenues. For the current fiscal
year, the yields from a number of sources,
and from the personal income tax particularly,
are expected to be higher than could reason-
ably be anticipated a year ago. For this
reason, we can look forward to a more satis-
factory result in the current fiscal year than
was forecast. At the same time, the demands
to enlarge and adjust our expenditure pro-
gramme to meet Ontario's changing needs
continue to mount relentlessly.
With the total demands for public services
continuing to grow rapidly, it has become
necessary to place greater emphasis on de-
termining expenditure priorities and ensuring
maximum efficiency in the use of our financial
resources. To this end, we are constantly
striving to plan our activities on the basis of
thorough knowledge and understanding of
economic and social conditions and trends.
At the same time, we are keeping our admin-
istrative techniques and procedures modern
and efficient in order to effect maximum
economy in our day-to-day operations.
Because of the increasingly interdependent
nature of the society in which we live, and
the growing role that government is expected
to play, there is a greater need than before
for the closest co-operation and understand-
ing among government, business, labour and
others. Policies and programmes should not
be conceived and implemented without re-
gard for the objectives and goals that we all
have in common. Between governments, par-
ticularly, there is a great need for consultation
and co-operation in the formulation of policy.
We welcome the new awareness that the poli-
cies and programmes of the various levels of
government must be integrated if the best
interests of the people are to be served.
In these introductory remarks, I have re-
ferred to the importance of economic growth
and intergovernmental relations. I should
now like to consider these matters in greater
detail, commencing with economic conditions.
This month marks the end of the fifth year
of the current economic expansion, and the
economy is continuing to grow. During 1965,
gross provincial product increased by about
nine per cent or $1.7 billion, reaching a new
high of $20.7 billion. New records were set
in every sector of the economy, particularly
in construction and manufacturing. The pros-
perity of the province continued to be so
attractive to people from abroad and from
other parts of Canada that Ontario's popula-
tion rose by 2.2 per cent compared with 1.5
per cent for the rest of Canada.
More significant than Ontario's gains in
production and employment in 1965 was the
increased tendency of our people to invest
in future growth by improving the quality of
the labour force. In spite of the temptation to
enter the labour force at a relatively early
age, our young people have become more
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
339
aware of the need to further their education
and training. We should be as proud of the
increasing tendency of our people to invest
in their long-run potential as we are satisfied
with the expansion in our economy.
While the tendency to prolong education
and training restrained the potential increase
in the labour force in 1965, the fast rise in
employment opportunities absorbed many of
the unemployed so that Ontario's unemploy-
ment declined from 83,000 to 66,000. The
unemployment rate fell from 3.2 per cent in
1964 to 2.5 per cent in 1965, the lowest of
any region in Canada.
Ontario could have achieved greater growth
if a larger supply of qualified labour had
been available. The limiting factor to On-
tario's rate of growth in 1965 was not capital
but qualified managerial, professional and
skilled labour. Consequently, the government
has supported accelerated programmes to up-
grade the existing and potential labour sup-
ply. Despite the shortage of qualified labour,
the province set new records for output in
every sector of the economy. The major en-
gines of expansion in 1965 were the manufac-
ture of durable goods and construction. It is
estimated that factory shipments of durable
goods rose by almost 13 per cent in Ontario
compared with five per cent in the rest of
Canada. Indeed, production of motor vehicles,
an activity dominantly located in Ontario,
increased by 27 per cent.
The net growth in Ontario employment in
1965 was 75,000. The major areas of increase
were the following: about 30,000 in manufac-
turing, 14,000 in construction, 15,000 in
wholesale and retail trade, and 17,000 in
commercial services. Despite a large invest-
ment m unproved technology in 1965, we
can find no evidence to support the idea that
automation is creating a general unemploy-
ment problem in the province. In fact, while
Ontario is moving rapidly in the process of
introducing automation, our unemployment
rate is the lowest in Canada. Indeed, were
it not for the labour shortage, we would
have increased manufacturing and other em-
ployment to a greater degree.
Although automation generates new jobs,
it may create problems for some individuals.
Therefore, we must ensure that the economy
continues to provide adequate job opportuni-
ties. To achieve this, we must provide for
adequate education, training and retraining,
and must facilitate mobility so that individ-
uals can adjust to a progressive world.
Policies with respect to growth and develop-
ment, education, and manpower must be
formulated and implemented together within
a system of goals and priorities designed to
provide the people of Ontario with the best
possible standard of living.
The people of Ontario can expect another
substantial increase in economic production
in 1966. The substantial rise in business
investment last year, combined with the large
increases in investment in human resources
and social capital, will contribute further to
the productivity of Ontario's economy. Ex-
ports of raw and processed materials as well
as manufactured goods should remain buoy-
ant. Consumer demand for nondurable goods
and for services will continue to increase,
while the market for durable goods should
be sustained by residential construction, by
rising personal incomes in Canada, by the
introduction of new products, and by a
strong replacement demand. We must strive
to ensure that these conditions will be main-
tained if we are to meet the growing demands
for government services and social capital.
One of the basic requirements for sustain-
ing economic growth is vigorous and positive
action at all levels of government. This in
turn requires that each government has ade-
quate financial resources and that machinery
exists to provide for an integrated approach
to the implementation of public policy. These
matters are the basic concerns of federal-
provincial relations to which I would now like
to turn.
Any federal system of government will
experience periods when adjustments in inter-
governmental financial arrangements and
responsibilities will be required to meet
changing conditions. At the present time, pro-
vincial and municipal governments are faced
with huge demands for investments in human
and physical resources. The federal govern-
ment is also required to implement new poli-
cies and programmes in many areas under
its jurisdiction. We are thus faced with the
challenge of reconciling the need for a strong
central government with the present and
continuing strength of the provinces. If we
approach this challenge reasonably and
conscientiously, we will have no difficulty in
finding acceptable answers to it.
The government of Ontario recognizes the
need for a strong central government to pro-
tect and promote the national interest in both
the national and the internaional economy. In
our endeavours to preserve national inde-
pendence and to achieve a satisfactory rate
of growth, we confront international chal-
lenges and the need to harmonize internal
growth policies. A strong central government
is essential for meeting these challenges and
promoting this harmony.
340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
At the same time, the provincial govern-
ments have jurisdiction over matters that
are also vital to the national interests; they
have a direct responsibility in building a
strong economy that will be capable of sup-
porting federal efforts to protect and pro-
mote the national interest. The importance
of these matters is illustrated by the fact that
in 1964 the provincial and municipal govern-
ments together accounted for 81.7 per cent
of total capital investment made by all gov-
ernments in Canada.
The effectiveness of government at the
federal and the provincial levels depends
upon two prerequisites. In the first place,
the provincial governments must have rev-
enue resources commensurate with the im-
portance of their constitutional responsibilities.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the
combined total of provincial and municipal
expenditures will continue to grow at a
much more rapid rate than the corresponding
federal commitments.
In the second place, because of the inter-
dependence of economic circumstances and
policies today, there must be adequate con-
sultation, co-operation and co-ordination
between the two levels of government in
order to achieve harmony in establishing
goals, priorities and policies. During the past
year there has been substantial evidence
of a favourable development in federal-pro-
vincial relations: the acceleration of the trend
toward more consultation and co-operative
study. Ontario representatives have partici-
pated in no fewer than 11 ministerial confer-
ences and 90 meetings of officials at the
federal-provincial level.
Although co-operation has been enhanced
by this process, reservations have been ex-
pressed about its consequences on the
functioning of the parliamentary system. Yet,
the process of consultation is far from ade-
quate in view of the substantial areas of
overlapping responsibility and concern. Poli-
cies initiated by the federal government
frequently have serious implications for pro-
vincial priorities, resources and policies. This
is particularly contentious where the juris-
diction involved is a provincial one. Even
policies planned for areas of federal juris-
diction can have significant consequences
for the provinces. For example, the free
trade agreement with the United States
concerning motor vehicles and parts was a
welcome development, but Ontario manpower
policy appropriate to the new development
could have been initiated at a much earlier
stage through collaboration in the general
lines of the agreement.
I believe that the most encouraging indi-
cation of progress is to be found in the
recent meeting of the Ministers of Finance
and Treasurers of all 11 governments. This
was certainly a step in the right direction,
particularly when it was backed up by the
research work that is being done by all
governments in concert for the tax structure
committee. We would urge the federal
government to exercise leadership in the
development of machinery, methods and pro-
cedures for ensuring full exchange of infor-
mation and for working toward adequate
co-operation and co-ordination in policy
formulation and implementation.
If this leadership is exercised by the
federal government, then the federal and
provincial governments can be in a position
to make satisfactory judgments on overall
prospects and on appropriate long-run and
short-run fiscal policies within the areas of
their responsibilities. We will then be able
to fit our efforts to improve our economic
potential into a framework of national prior-
ities and policies.
These are major objectives of the Ontario
government in federal-provincial relations. If
we endeavour to achieve these objectives
earnestly and in good faith, we can deal
successfully with our economic problems,
greatly enhance our endeavours to create a
strong, independent and prosperous country,
and provide the wider opportunities that our
people need and must have.
Before submitting our plans for the com-
ing fiscal year, I would like to present an
interim statement of the financial operations
of the province for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1966. This statement, which is
based on eight months' actual and four
months' forecast, will provide the hon. mem-
bers with a current picture of provincial
finances and of the overall trends that are
taking place in expenditures and revenues.
Included in the expenditures for the
current fiscal year are supplementary esti-
mates which we are presenting for your con-
sideration and approval. The special grants
which we propose to meet from this year's
revenue total $5,436,600 and are as follows:
The Department of Energy and Resources
Management: provision for payment to the
Ontario Northland transportation commission
to compensate for losses on operations for the
year ended December 31, 1964, $861,600.
The Department of Health: special grants
to public hospitals under the authority of
The Public Hospitals Act and the regulations
thereunder, $4,075,000; special grants for
teaching hospitals, $500,000.
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
341
Inclusive of the supplementary estimates,
the combined net expenditures on ordinary
and capital accounts are estimated before
providing for sinking fund at $1,494.2 million.
Net ordinary expenditure before providing
$41.5 million for sinking fund and $159
million for financing capital payments out of
ordinary revenue amounts to $1,195.8 million,
and net capital expenditure on physical assets
is estimated at $298.4 million. Overall, our
net expenditures represent an increase of
$228.7 million or 18 per cent over the actual
costs incurred in the preceding fiscal year.
While the growth in expenditures reflects
higher outlays in many areas of responsibility,
the major increases are for education and
university affairs. These two departments
account for $103.3 million or 45 per cent of
the total increase in expenditures. Other
significant increases include $37.8 million for
highways, $16.4 million for public welfare,
and $13.7 million for health.
Net ordinary revenue and net capital
receipts are estimated at $1,398.5 million.
This is an increase of $159.5 million or 13
per cent over the actual revenues received in
the preceding fiscal year. The personal in-
come tax, which produces about one-fifth of
this year's revenues, accounts for three-fifths
of the overall increase. The yield from this
tax is estimated to rise by $94.4 million or
48 per cent of $290.3 million. The sub-
stantial increase in yield reflects not only the
additional three percentage points made
available to us, but also the high productivity
of this tax field in a period of sharply rising
incomes. All other sources, which contribute
nearly 80 per cent of our revenues, are
expected to produce an additional $65.1
million, an increase of six per cent over the
preceding fiscal year.
On the basis of these interim estimates, we
will end the current fiscal year in a more
favourable position than I forecast a year
ago. While we will have carried out a huge
capital programme of $298.4 million, the in-
crease in our net capital debt will be held
to an estimated $98.8 million. Our net capi-
tal debt as of March 31 next is thus expected
to total $1,464.1 million.
I turn now to a summary of the major
programmes for the coming fiscal year, com-
mencing with highways and roads.
The demand for further expansion and
improvement of our highway and road system
remains strong. We are experiencing a rapid
growth in motor vehicle registrations which
can be expected to continue as increasing
numbers of our young people enter the
labour force. The sharply rising traffic
volume in Ontario necessitates placing
greater emphasis on multi-lane and controlled
access highways. Our increasing expenditures
are a reflection of the relatively higher cost
of providing these modern facilities, as well
as of maintaining an expanded road system.
In the coming fiscal year, the net ordinary
and capital expenditures of The Department
of Highways will be increased by $36.5
million to $373.3 million.
Our freeways and expressways are of tre-
mendous economic value. They allow the
free flow of people and goods so essential to
the efficient functioning of an urban, indus-
trialized society. Moreover, they represent
assets which will continue to benefit our
people and our economy for years to come.
For these reasons, it is our policy to finance
highways and roads partly from the general
revenues of the province and the remainder
through judicious use of our borrowing
capacity. In this way we are able to avoid
the imposition of highway tolls.
Construction and reconstruction of high-
ways and roads during 1965 continued at an
accelerated pace, resulting in the completion
of 553 miles of paved highways and 61 new
structures. The Macdonald-Cartier freeway
was completed as a four-lane facility over an
additional 31 miles and, in Metropolitan
Toronto, four miles were widened to 12 lanes,
and 23 bridges were completed. New
sections were opened on Highways 403 and
406, and substantial work was done on the
Brantford by-pass. In Ottawa, the approaches
to the Macdonald-Cartier bridge and a new
section of the Queensway were opened.
Progress on the trans-Canada highway
routes in Ontario moved forward substantially
with work on some 89 miles, including High-
way 15 near Bell's Corners, by-passes at
Madoc and Beaverton, three sections of High-
way 17 in northern Ontario, and Highway
103. Elsewhere construction highlights in-
cluded work on 51 miles of the Red Lake
road, 73 miles of the Atikokan highway, the
Sudbury-Timmins highway, the Welland
canal tunnel, and virtual completion of road-
work under the roads-to-resources programme
which expires on March 31.
Expenditures by municipalities on their
road systems during 1965 continued to reflect
rising costs and increased mileage. A number
of cities have undertaken unprecedented con-
struction programmes, while the completion
of needs studies of county road systems will
undoubtedly also result in a marked increase
in construction activities.
The emphasis in our highway construction
programme in the coming fiscal year will be
342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on construction of the Macdonald-Cartier free-
way between Gananoque and Brockville and
around Metropolitan Toronto, on the Welland
canal tunnels and the Kitchener-Waterloo
expressway. In northern Ontario, work will
continue on the major projects such as the
Sudbury-Timmins highway, Highway 105,
Highway 101 from Foley et to Wawa, and on
the new expressway at the Lakehead.
Of the $373.3 million to be appropriated
for highways and roads in the coming year,
$265.4 million will be for construction and
$107.9 million will be for maintenance. The
total includes $119.8 million for municipal
road subsidies and assistance for roads in
unincorporated townships. Thus we will be
providing for a combined provincial and
municipal road programme of almost $500
million.
A fundamental and important responsibility
of the government is the conservation and
development of Ontario's rich natural re-
sources for our economic and recreational
benefits, both now and in future years. To
support the wide-ranging activities of the
various departments concerned, we are re-
questing appropriations totalling $92.1 million
for the coming fiscal year. This is an increase
of $8.7 million over the interim estimate of
expenditures for the fiscal year 1965-66.
The Department of Agriculture is playing
an intimate role in the progressive develop-
ment of Ontario's vital agricultural industry.
During 1965, two new federal-provincial
agreements were signed: One, a five-year
agreement under the agricultural rehabilita-
tion and development programme which is
placing more emphasis on farm adjustment
programmes in low-income rural areas; and
the other, a new farm labour agreement pro-
viding for cost-sharing in the procurement of
qualified farm labour. Under the ARDA pro-
gramme, financial assistance was provided last
year to 246 rural municipalities to carry out
water conservation and land-use adjustment
projects.
In the coming fiscal year, the ARDA pro-
gramme will include, among other projects,
the inauguration of an orderly land consolida-
tion programme in eastern and northern On-
tario. A new comprehensive programme to
assure adequate veterinary services, at reas-
onable cost, to livestock and poultry owners
will be introduced in northern Ontario. In
co-operation with labour agencies and farm
organizations, special emphasis will be placed
on determining and fulfilling farm labour
needs. A new research farm will be estab-
lished to continue-, on an expanded basis, the
research formerly carried out in facilities
which were vacated to provide for the devel-
opment of the University of Guelph. The
expenditures of the department are forecast
at $25.7 million for the coming fiscal year.
Through The Department of Lands and
Forests, we are making a vital contribution
both to the conservation of our forest, fish
and wildlife resources, and to the develop-
ment of Ontario's great recreational potential.
Despite adverse weather conditions in 1965,
the department made important strides in the
construction of access roads, tree planting,
forest inventory and other forest management
programmes. Extensive improvements to a
number of parks were also carried out, in-
cluding the provision of new and improved
roads, sewage and parking facilities, beach
development, and many hundreds of addi-
tional campsites.
In the coming fiscal year, construction of
152 miles of forest access road, together with
improvement of 75 miles of existing road, is
planned. Forest regeneration will be stepped
up and new measures to assist private owners
in forest management will be introduced.
Major improvements in five existing parks and
development work in ten new park areas are
also planned. The programme to restore the
original Crown survey fabric of the province
will be expanded. Total combined expendi-
tures of The Department of Lands and For-
ests will reach an estimated $39 million in
1966-67.
The Department of Mines is assisting,
through its services and programmes the ex-
ploration and development of the province's
mineral resources. Work commenced last
year under a renewed federal-provincial
agreement to complete the aeromagnetic sur-
vey of the province. This final three-year
phase of the survey is proceeding as planned,
with approximately one-third of the remain-
ing area of the province surveyed in 1965
and a further one-third scheduled to be sur-
veyed in 1966. Progress is being made under
the department's programme to build mining
access roads in participation with industry.
Recent experiments in the servicing of geo-
logical parties by helicopter have proven suc-
cessful. The work of four geological parties
will be greatly speeded up through helicopter
servicing in 1966. The net appropriations for
The Department of Mines are forecast at $3.5
million for the coming fiscal year.
Ontario's programmes for the management
of our water resources are expanding rapidly.
With the announcement last July of the avail-
ability of government financing for water and
sewage treatment facilities throughout the
province, the Ontario water resources com-
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
343
mission embarked upon a new phase of water
and sewage works construction. Under the
regular programme for the development of
water and sewage works, 340 projects were
completed up to last October at an estimated
cost of $133 million. Construction on the
water pipeline to serve the London area is
continuing, a further pipeline has been ap-
proved for the St. Thomas area, and feasibil-
ity studies are being made in six other regions
of the province. Further new developments
in the field of water resources management
include an enlarged programme to combat
industrial waste pollution. In addition, co-
operation in the international joint commis-
sion investigation of pollution in the Great
Lakes is being continued, and we are assum-
ing a major role in the long-term federal-
provincial study of Ontario's northern water
resources.
The Department of Energy and Resources
Management is continuing its programme of
assistance to conservation authorities for the
construction of small reservoirs and dams.
Structures under construction or completed
number 33, with another 39 in the planning
stages. Extensive work is also planned under
the federal-provincial flood control pro-
gramme. Net ordinary and capital expendi-
tures of The Department of Energy and
Resources Management are forecast at $23.9
million for the coming fiscal year.
The government's programme of industrial
and trade expansion, being carried out by
The Department of Economics and Develop-
ment, is aimed at encouraging a satisfactory
rate of industrial growth. Through interna-
tional fairs, trade missions, local exhibits,
and investment promotion, the department
is actively engaged in advancing our econo-
mic progress.
Varied trade programmes are contributing
to a marked expansion in Ontario's exports
of secondary manufactured goods which, in
1965, approached nearly $800 million. Last
year, 18 sales missions to foreign markets
were arranged, raising to 58 the total number
of export trips since late 1962. Some 140
foreign buyers were brought to Ontario and
put in touch with local manufacturers. In
1966, these programmes will be extended.
Trade missions will be continued, not only in
established market areas, but also in regions
unfamiliar with Ontario products.
The drive to attract new investment and
stimulate local industry throughout the prov-
ince has been both energetic and effective.
New branch plants, licensing agreements, and
joint ventures, most involving foreign partici-
pation, contributed greatly to increased On-
tario manufacturing production in 1965. A
concerted drive to encourage replacement of
foreign-produced components with made-in-
Canada products is under way and will con-
tinue in 1966.
Ontario's immigration policy continues to
be a major contributor to the provincial
economy. With the demand for skilled and
professional workers exceeding the supply
available in Canada, the department has in-
creased its efforts to attract immigrants. Some
170 employers requested assistance in 1965.
The Ontario development agency has
stepped up its programme of advisory services
to small businesses in Ontario. In 1965, more
than 300 companies with combined, annual
sales exceeding $35 million took advantage
of these services. Since its inception, the
agency has counselled more than 4,000 small
businesses in the province. In addition to
making provincial guarantees of $5 million
available, the agency has been instrumental
in obtaining $15 million in additional financ-
ing from the regular lenders without govern-
ment financial participation.
In the year following the establishment of
the Ontario housing corporation, more than
100 municipalities requested housing, repre-
senting a potential programme of 9,500 units.
I am pleased to report that 1,350 units
were purchased or completed during 1965,
1,000 units are in the course of purchase or
construction, and a further 1,300 units are
at the stage of final design or tender call.
In order to achieve an immediate impact
and to ensure assembly of a significant num-
ber of dwelling units in a relatively short
period of time, the corporation has intro-
duced a high degree of flexibility into its
development programme. Techniques such
as "builder proposals" and the purchase of
existing properties have been used to supple-
ment the more traditional method of tender-
ing on the basis of plans and specifications.
In addition to its rental housing programme
the corporation has continued the federal-
provincial land assembly programme in con-
junction with Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, has undertaken a community
improvement project in northern Ontario,
and has carried out studies in connection
with Indian housing.
The Ontario housing corporation's 1966
programme in association with Central Mort-
gage and Housing Corporation will involve
nearly $100 million. Rental accommodation
will continue to be assembled through a
variety of techniques, using the method or
methods appropriate to each municipality
344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
involved. In addition, other facets of devel-
opment which appear possible under existing
legislation will be carefuly explored with
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
There is an obvious connection between
the provision of public housing, the allevia-
tion of poverty, and the provision of a physi-
cal and social environment that will permit
families to move into the mainstream of the
social and economic life of the community.
To date, the Ontario housing corporation's
activities have been concentrated on specific
areas. In the future, we believe that through
new approaches our housing operation will
become an even more active agent in com-
munity development.
In The Department of Labour, during the
past two years, both the range of services
available and the department's capability for
responding rapidly to the needs of the prov-
ince have increased significantly. This is
particularly evident in the new industrial
training branch, where the on-the-job train-
ing programme, launched less than six
months ago, is already making a notable
contribution to industry's skill requirements
and is, at the same time, opening broader
employment and earnings opportunities for
individuals.
Through a variety of incentives, the de-
partment is assisting firms throughout the
province to set up and carry out both short-
term occupational and long-term apprentice
training programmes. More than 50 short-
term projects are training almost 4,000 per-
sons in occupations ranging from sewing
machine operator to hard-rock miner. The
number of projects is increasing each week,
and the field officers of the training branch
are discussing arrangements with more than
500 firms that have signified an interest and
a need for assistance. At the same time, the
registration of apprentices in formal trade
programmes is mounting rapidly. The esti-
mates for the department provide a sub-
stantial increase in funds and staff to carry
forward, into the next fiscal year, the objec-
tives of the new programme: To provide for
large-scale promotion of the services now
available; to facilitate continued moderniza-
tion of apprenticeship programmes; and, in
the fin.il analysis, to help build a highly
skilled labour force enjoying stable and re-
warding employment.
Coupled with these human resource devel-
opment programmes are new initiatives being
undertaken by the department in co-operation
with industry and labour, to improve the
working environment throughout the prov-
ince. A balanced programme for the vital
field of safety and accident prevention,
covering enforcement of safety standards, re-
search into the causes of accidents and
accident-prevention education, has been in-
augurated.
To provide for our welfare services, the net
ordinary expenditure of The Department of
Public Welfare is forecast at $90.2 million for
die coming year. This is an increase of $4.7
million over the interim estimate for the cur-
rent year. The estimates include $8.9 million
to be paid to the Ontario medical services
insurance division for the provision of medical
services to welfare recipients and their de-
pendants. Under new legislation, which will
combine several welfare maintenance pro-
grammes, additional benefits will also be
extended to many thousands of persons in
the form of increased services and allowances
and in supplementary aid to pensioners.
A comprehensive federal-provincial agree-
ment has been signed by this government
respecting welfare maintenance and com-
munity services to our Indian population. A
new branch of The Department of Public
Welfare will co-ordinate the efforts of several
departments toward the betterment of eco-
nomic conditions, education, housing and
employment in Indian communities, as well
as the provision of welfare, health and recrea-
tion services.
Development of rest homes as a new type
of institution under the management of coun-
ties and cities is a progressive step. The rest
homes augment present facilities offering
care and a measure of nursing services to
long-term residents. There will probably be
less need for expansion in the larger homes for
the aged, and the rest homes can be more
widely distributed in local communities.
In the coming fiscal year, the rate of capital
payment to adult charitable institutions will
be doubled to the amount of $5,000 a bed.
This is further encouragement to the con-
struction of private homes for the aged in a
continually expanding system of residential
care for elderly persons.
During 1965, legislation was passed to
provide for important improvements in child
welfare services. The government has accepted
the total expense of the care of children of
unmarried mothers. Children who have ex-
perienced parental neglect and require help
in the way of protection, wardship or adop-
tion, will benefit from these measures. The
appropriation for the child welfare branch
is forecast at $14.4 million for the coming
fiscal year and includes $5 million to meet
the additional cost of implementing the new
legislation. The year 1959 marked a milestone
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
345
in the history of Ontario's health services pro-
gramme, with the introduction of the hospital
care insurance plan. The year 1966 will
signal another important and logical step
forward with the inception of the province's
medical services insurance plan. Cost of the
plan in the coming fiscal year is estimated at
$58.9 million, of which $50 million will be
provided through The Department of Health
and $8.9 million through The Department of
Public Welfare. Together with increased ap-
propriations for other health services, the new
plan will raise the net expenditures of The
Department of Health in the coming fiscal
year to $244.1 million. This is an increase of
$75.8 million over the estimated net expendi-
tures in the current fiscal year.
The new medical services insurance plan is
voluntary and offers benefits in the form of
comprehensive physicians' services wherever
they are rendered. These benefits are avail-
able to all residents of Ontario regardless of
age, state of health or financial circumstances.
Effective April 1, 1966, benefits will auto-
matically be extended to those receiving assist-
ance under welfare legislation. During the
period March 1 to May 1 next, enrolment will
be open with general coverage effective
July 1.
Those in low income tax categories— namely,
with taxable income of $500 and under for
single persons, $1,000 and under for couples
and $1,300 and under for families of three or
more— will receive assistance in the form of
reduced premiums. Where it is established
that a person had no taxable income in the
previous year, applications will be accepted
and a contract provided by the province with-
out payment of a premium. Apart from this
assistance to low income groups, the plan will
make medical services insurance available to
individual residents who wish to participate.
It will be a particular boon to citizens who
because of age, health or ineligibility to par-
ticipate in a group contract have found it
difficult to secure medical insurance.
The number of insured persons under the
hospital care insurance plan now exceeds 6.7
million and represents 99.4 per cent of the
estimated eligible population of Ontario.
Extension of the plan last September to
include as dependants under the family
coverage all those, up to age 21 years, attend-
ing educational or training institutions where
they do not receive wages or salary is esti-
mated to cost the plan $3.5 million in lost
premiums. In accordance with the policy
that I announced a year ago whereby there
would be no increase in premium rates over
the succeeding three years, we are again in-
cluding in the Budget for the coming fiscal
year an amount of $50 million to subsidize
the costs of the plan.
The provincial grants for hospital con-
struction will be increased by $11.2 million
to $23.6 million. A substantial part of the
increase consists of $6.3 million for the
special accelerated programme of grants for
schools of nursing. In addition, hospital con-
struction is being encouraged through low
interest loans which are estimated at $9.6
million for 1965-66, and forecast to rise to
$13 million for the coming fiscal year.
The expenditure of the mental health
branch, including the cost of operating the
Ontario hospitals, is forecast for the coming
fiscal year at $87.8 million, an increase of
$12.6 million over the current fiscal year. The
higher level of expenditure now being in-
curred under the mental health programme
reflects not only the increased activity and
facilities relating to the treatment of patients
but also the recent action of the government
to adjust salaries commensurate with the
duties and responsibilities of the hospital
staffs.
One of the primary objectives of the mental
health programme is to effect an appropri-
ate distribution of services such as psychiatric
units and outpatients services in general hos-
pitals. Twenty-four such units are in the
planning stage or under construction. These
services will make available psychiatric treat-
ment for short-term caj : and outpatient
services on the local levei. The newest of
such facilities is the C. K. Clarke institute of
psychiatry, which will replace the Toronto
psychiatric hospital with considerably ex-
panded inpatient, outpatient and research
facilities.
The remarkable decrease in the incidence
of tuberculosis has reduced the need for treat-
ment facilities to a fraction of those in use
a few years ago. Some of these facilities
have been procured by the government for
use in its expanding mental health pro-
gramme. Fourteen hundred beds have been
converted to other uses such as chronic care,
care of retarded children, general hospital
accommodation or the treatment of psychi-
atric disorders. In the field of tuberculosis
prevention, the government is now directing
its programme at finding and examining those
ex-patients whose disease has apparently
been cured but who, either through re-
activation or by infecting others, are respon-
sible for one-third of those people who are
found in need of treatment.
The homes for special care programme has
progressed most favourably. To date more
than 1,700 patients have been moved from
346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ontario hospitals to "homes" and it is anti-
cipated that this number will be substantially
increased in the coming year. The estimates
for this programme totalling $5.3 million
have been increased from $2.5 million.
It is proposed that in 1966-67 bursaries
now provided for medical and dental under-
graduate students will be extended to include
graduate training for health personnel in a
variety of situations which are critical to the
development of comprehensive health serv-
ices in Ontario. The demand for such per-
sonnel will be accentuated by the medical
insurance programme.
In its second annual report, the economic
council of Canada recommended that
"advancement of education at all levels be
given a high place in public policy, and that
investment in education be accorded the
highest rank in the scale of priorities." With
this, we are in full agreement. In this fast-
moving technological age, education repre-
sents an essential investment of great eco-
nomic consequence.
This economic factor is exercising a
marked influence on the educational pro-
gramme. The importance of basic skills is
being emphasized in the elementary grades;
a wide range of courses suited to varying
interests and aptitudes is being offered in the
secondary schools; facilities for technical
education are being encouraged by federal-
provincial grants; the unemployed are being
trained or retrained for specific jobs; Ryerson
polytechnical institute, the technical insti-
tutes, and the vocational centres have record
enrolments; and career counselling becomes
daily more important at both student and
adult levels.
A rapidly expanding school system raises
new questions and sharpens the importance
of others that have been with us for some
time. In this situation the value of educa-
tional research is increasingly recognized.
The combining of three organizations in the
newly established Ontario institute for studies
in education unites the former department of
educational research of the Ontario college
of education, the graduate school of the same
college, and the Ontario curriculum institute
in an integrated effort designed to discover
answers to these questions.
New attention is being given to the pro-
vision of adequate opportunities for educa-
tion in thinly populated regions. Nearly
1,000 students in northern and northwestern
Ontario are now assisted financially in meet-
ing transportation costs to university and
technical institute centres. Under recent
legislation, elementary school boards in terri-
torial districts are assisted financially in re-
imbursing parents up to $3 a day for board
and transportation payments made on behalf
of pupils attending a distant secondary
school. Study is being given to further steps
designed to improve educational oppor-
tunities in the north.
A beginning in provincially sponsored edu-
cational television was made in January of
this year when two series of broadcasts were
initiated, one dealing with the new mathe-
matics at the grade 7 level and the other
with the new grade 13 course in physics.
Long-term plans include broadcasts at a num-
ber of levels— elementary, secondary, univer-
sity, and in the field of adult education for
persons no longer at school.
Three new provincial educational institu-
tions opened their doors last September:
Althouse college of education in London, in
affiliation with the University of Western
Ontario; the St. Catharines teachers college
on the campus of Brock University; and a
vocational centre at Sault Ste. Marie. Each
of these projects has made a promising be-
ginning that augurs well for its future contri-
bution to education in Ontario.
Development of the recently proposed col-
leges of applied arts and technology is receiv-
ing active attention. Among the early colleges
established will be some created through inte-
gration and adoption of existing institutes of
technology and the vocational centres. The
colleges will provide academic courses, as
well as some vocational courses of a type
not presently available in secondary schools
and universities. An appropriation of $12.4
million will be required in the coming fiscal
year to enable the department to proceed
with the development of these colleges.
An outstanding feature of Ontario's devel-
oping educational system has been the recent
expansion of facilities and programmes in the
technical and vocational field. Despite the
emphasis that has been placed on providing
vocational facilities, the demand for addi-
tional ones remains strong. To keep pace
with modern industry's growing emphasis on
skills, the province will triple the provision
for grants to school boards under federal-
provincial agreements for the construction
and equipment of vocational education facili-
ties from $20 million in the current fiscal year
to $60 million in the coming fiscal year.
Legislative grants to school boards consti-
tute by far the largest item of educational
expenditure. Our financial assistance to these
boards is increasing very rapidly— the inevit-
able result of rising enrolment, new and
greater demands for technical training, and
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
347
higher unit costs. In the coming fiscal year,
the amount available for school grants will
be increased by $52.4 million to $383.4 mil-
lion. Thus, the introduction of the Ontario
foundation tax plan will have raised the
level of school grants by $149.7 million or 64
per cent over the first three years of its oper-
ation. Clearly, the plan is having a tremen-
dous impact on Ontario's educational system.
It is not only providing funds to expand and
improve educational opportunities, but it is
also making a very significant contribution to
the relief of local taxpayers.
Substantial additional appropriations are
also required for various other essential edu-
cational services and programmes. As a
result, the total net expenditure of The De-
partment of Education is forecast at $575.5
million for the coming fiscal year— an increase
of $124 million over the interim estimate for
the current fiscal year. This continuing and
growing investment in our young people
represents one of our best hopes for ensuring
Ontario's future prosperity and progress.
During the past year a massive expansion
of our facilities for higher education took
place. A source of great satisfaction is that it
has been possible to accomplish this expan-
sion of facilities while maintaining the quality
of the programmes offered. The result is that
more than 52,000 students are this year en-
rolled in the provincially assisted universities
and colleges of Ontario with more than
17,000 of these in the first year of their
courses. More than 6,000 students are doing
graduate work and the proportional increase
in this area exceeds the growth in under-
graduate years. Of those engaged in post-
graduate studies, more than 1,500 benefit
from province of Ontario graduate fellow-
ships.
In the fiscal year 1965-66, the sum of
$64.6 million is being paid to assist the uni-
versities. Recently, the federal government
announced an increase in its per capita grant
from $2 to $5, but instead of using a straight
per student amount for its distribution among
the universities of the province, it has pro-
posed a weighted formula based on actual
enrolments in the academic session 1966-
1967. Consequently, while the total federal
funds to be made available to universities in
Ontario for the fiscal year 1966-67 can be
estimated, there is no way of knowing at the
present time the amount to be allocated to
each university.
On the recommendation of the committee
on university affairs, it has been decided that
the amount required by the universities and
colleges of Ontario from the federal govern-
ment and this government together for 1966-
1967 is $122 million. The portion of this
being provided in our estimates is $91.4 mil-
lion, an increase of $26.8 million or 41 per
cent over the present year. Because of the
uncertainty referred to previously, the amount
of the provincial grant to be allocated to each
university has not yet been determined. How-
ever, the specific amount that each university
can expect to receive from the two govern-
ments combined will be announced in the
near future and in adequate time to permit
planning for 1966-67.
The estimates of the current fiscal year
included $100 million for the continuation
of capital expansion to provide for an aver-
age increased enrolment of 10,000 students
per year for the next five years. The amount
being provided in 1966-67 for this purpose
is $150 million. While first consideration
must always be the opportunity afforded
each individual by the provision of higher
education, the potential benefits of our
society inherent in a university population
in excess of 100,000 by 1970-71 is cause for
the greatest optimism for this province and
for Canada.
Ontario's municipalities are facing chal-
lenges which are similar, in many respects, to
those confronting the province. They have
an important contribution to make to our
economic and social progress. At the same
time, they rely heavily upon property taxes
which are not sufficiently productive to meet
their requirements. Recognizing this, the
province annually appropriates huge sums to
ease the burden of rising costs on property
owners. In the last five years we have pro-
vided an average of $500 million a year in
assistance to municipalities, school boards,
and other local authorities.
Our financial assistance has already
doubled in this decade, rising from $309.6
million in 1959-60 to an estimated $645
million this fiscal year. In this period, it
has risen substantially faster than our overall
revenues and this has occurred despite
buoyant economic conditions, improvements
in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and
various measures taken to expand our
revenues.
Aid to local authorities is obviously placing
a heavy strain on our resources. At the same
time, we simply cannot fail to fulfil our
responsibility for aiding local ratepayers in
financing essential local services. We are
therefore planning to increase our total muni-
cipal assistance by an unprecedented $127.1
million to $772.1 million in the coming fiscal
year. This increase is more than double the
348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
average annual increase of $61 million in the
last three fiscal years.
A primary reason for the rising level of
local assistance is the need to help local
taxpayers in meeting education costs. Pay-
ments under the Ontario foundation tax plan
will again be increased sharply, by $52.4
million to $383.4 million, in the coming fiscal
year. This increase brings to $149.7 million
the total increase in general legislative grants
in the first three years of the operation of
the plan. In the field of construction of
vocational education facilities, the amount
provided will be tripled, rising from $20
million to $60 million. These expenditures
indicate the vast extent of the province's
partnership with local authorities in working
together to meet the educational challenge.
Our participation in the provision of muni-
cipal roads and streets is also very extensive.
The cost of the road building programmes
of some larger municipalities is greater than
ever before. To assist in these developmental
works, we are providing for an increase of
$11.3 million to $119.8 million in municipal
road subsidies and assistance for roads in
unincorporated townships in northern On-
tario.
Local authorities receive important bene-
fits from a wide variety of provincial pro-
grammes in the health and welfare fields. In
the coming fiscal year, local hospital authori-
ties will benefit from estimated expenditures
totalling $44.8 million for maintenance, con-
struction and other hospital purposes. These
expenditures provide for a sharp increase in
hospital construction grants of $11.2 million
to $23.6 million next fiscal year. In the wel-
fare field, an appropriation of $19.9 million
will be made for general welfare assistance.
The estimates for the coming fiscal year also
provide increased aid for homes for the aged,
and funds to expand the benefits available in
the field of child welfare.
These various assistance programmes are
designed to promote the development of
essential services at the municipal level
throughout the province. In addition, to
provide flexibility, Ontario has developed
per capita unconditional grants which in the
coming fiscal year will reach an estimated
$28.3 million. We will continue to revise
and expand our aid to local authorities in
keeping with the growing responsibilities and
financial needs of our municipalities and local
boards.
The Canada pension plan consists of a two-
stage operation. First, it creates the machin-
ery to receive contributions, to pay benefits,
and to provide for the expenses of administra-
tion. These transactions will be handled
through an account to be called the Canada
pension plan account, the operation of
which is to be a strictly federal function.
Second, it provides for an account to be
known as the Canada pension plan invest-
ment fund from which funds are to be
channelled back into the economy through
the medium of the provincial governments.
After allowance has been made for three
months operating requirements, the balance
of the funds will be available for the pur-
chase of securities of the provinces, including
provincially guaranteed securities.
The provinces may borrow from the Can-
ada pension plan investment fund in ex-
change for provincial securities. These
securities must be issued to the Canada
pension plan investment fund and are not
negotiable or transferable. The term will be
20 years "or such lesser period as may from
time to time be fixed by the Minister of
Finance on the recommendation of the chief
actuary of The Department of Insurance."
In addition, the securities are subject to call
in whole or in part, at any time, on six
months notice at the option of the Minister
of Finance. These provisions are designed to
ensure that the fund will always be in a
position to meet its commitments. The
amount of Canada pension plan funds avail-
able for Ontario, assuming that we take up
our full entitlement, is expected to average
$267 million a year over the first 10 years.
Present forecasts indicate that the funds
available annually to Ontario after 1975 will
diminish each year until 1986 when no
further funds will be available.
I wish to emphasize that the responsibility
for the operation of the Canada pension plan
is vested in the federal government. As far
as this province is concerned, the Canada
pension plan investment fund provides an
assured source of capital funds to the extent
and in the manner indicated above. We be-
lieve, however, that these funds should be
used primarily to provide facilities for the
development of our human resources, especi-
ally the young people of our province. We
recognize that large amounts of money will
be required for the construction of educa-
tional facilities for elementary and secondary
schools and universities. In addition, we be-
lieve that if these funds are made available
to municipalities and school boards, then
they will be able to plan their capital pro-
grammes in a more effective manner.
We propose, therefore, to make the funds
available for the purchase of debentures
issued by municipalities and school boards
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
349
for the construction of schools, and through
the Ontario universities capital aid corpora-
tion for the purchase of debentures from the
universities. The rate of interest will be based
on the cost to the province of the funds
available under the Canada Pension Plan.
Having dealt with the programmes of
specific departments, I would now like to
summarize the overall expenditure pro-
gramme of the government for the coming
fiscal year. Net ordinary expenditure, before
providing $42 million for sinking fund and
$198 million for capital payments to be
financed out of ordinary revenue, is forecast
at $1,486.2 million. Net capital expenditure
on physical assets is forecast at $326.7 mil-
lion. We are thus planning a budget of
$1,812.9 million, or $318.8 million more
than our estimated expenditures in the cur-
rent fiscal year. This is a very large increase
and indicates vividly the growing cost of
meeting our responsibilities.
In acting to strengthen the foundations of
future growth, we have placed paramount
importance on programmes for social and
human betterment. In the coming fiscal year,
73 per cent of the increase in expenditures
has been allocated for education and health
services. The Departments of Education and
University Affairs alone will receive $157.9
million, or 50 per cent of the increased
funds to be made available in the coming
fiscal year. While emphasizing the develop-
ment of programmes for social and human
betterment, this budget also provides for an
expanded capital programme to create assets
necessary to maintain economic efficiency.
In formulating our budgetary plans, we
have given the most careful consideration
to the needs of our local authorities. Of the
total increase in our budget next fiscal year,
$127 million represents additional funds to
be paid to local authorities. Thus our ex-
penditure programme will not only enable
the government to carry out its own responsi-
bilities but takes important steps to safeguard
the financial strength of our local authorities.
The expenditure programme that I have
outlined for the coming fiscal year is indica-
tive of the growing obligations that the prov-
ince must assume in meeting the requirements
of an expanding economy. It is evident that
a continuation of the upward trend in ex-
penditures is unavoidable, as increasingly
greater emphasis is placed upon the responsi-
bilities that fall within provincial jurisdiction.
Coupled with the larger appropriations that
will be required for the creation of necessary
physical assets, and the development of
natural resources, will be the need for
greatly increased investments in human re-
sources especially for education, health and
job training programmes. It is widely acknowl-
edged that the pace of our economic progress
depends to a large extent upon the provision
of these services and the availability of an
educated and well-trained labour force.
If the province is to play its full role in
sustaining economic and social advancement,
it must have a revenue system which is cap-
able of producing sufficient funds to discharge
its responsibilities. One of the anomalies of
public finance in Canada is that while the
problems of growth and development fall
largely upon provincial and municipal authori-
ties, the tax systems of these levels of gov-
ernment do not have the revenue-producing
capacity that characterizes the tax system of
the federal government. The combined ex-
penditures of all provincial and municipal
governments now account for one-half of the
total government expenditures in Canada and
are increasing more rapidly than those of the
federal government. Yet, despite the improve-
ments that have been made in the provincial
share of the personal income tax, the major
direct tax fields which are most productive in
reflecting economic expansion and rising in-
comes are heavily occupied by the federal
government.
Thus, while the provinces and their muni-
cipalities have the more rapidly rising ex-
penditure responsibilities, the federal govern-
ment has the more productive revenue system.
With their limited tax systems, the provinces
are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain
the necessary revenues. They are currently
receiving about one-fifth of the total revenue
derived in Canada from personal and corpor-
ate income taxes. While this proportion will
rise somewhat in the coming fiscal year, with
the additional three percentage points being
made available in the personal income tax
field, it will still fall far short of providing
the provinces with an adequate share of these
tax fields. A provincial tax system, which is
limited to such a small proportion of the
progressive tax fields, simply will not produce
the growing revenues that are required in a
highly urbanized and industrialized province
such as Ontario.
As we are all aware, the entire field of
taxation and public finance in Canada is under
exhaustive study. For some time, various gov-
ernment committees and commissions have
been working in this field. Through the tax
structure committee, the federal and provincial
governments themselves are engaged in a
comprehensive review and examination of
the responsibilities, revenues, expenditures and
350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
future requirements of all levels of govern-
ment in Canada. As a result of these studies
and investigations, we anticipate that the tax
structure can, in the long run, be adapted to
provide a more equitable allocation of revenue
resources relative to expenditure responsibili-
ties. It is with this thought that we shall
approach the federal-provincial financial nego-
tiations, which will demand much attention
in the coming year.
The province, however, is confronted now
with the task of financing a substantial in-
crease in expenditures. On the basis of present
taxation the income from ordinary revenue
and capital receipts, adjusted for the antici-
pated economic growth in the provincial
economy, would be such that the proposed
programme of expenditure which I have out-
lined for the coming fiscal year would result
in a shortfall of revenue of $281 million. In
the- following year the shortfall could be
expected to increase by a further $200 million,
if we are to carry out the present programme
and those which are being initiated. Present
economic and fiscal conditions do not warrant
planned deficits of this magnitude, nor would
(he government be fulfilling its obligations to
the people of Ontario and to Canada as a
whole, if we were to proceed on this basis. I
am, therefore, proposing that steps be taken
to bring the revenue position more in line
with the anticipated expenditure.
The fiscal needs of the province, as just
outlined, have been given very careful study.
Obviously, funds must be provided for the
expansion and development of our province.
Having in mind the policy of the govern-
ment to keep the finances of Ontario in a
sound condition, we have concluded that our
financing should be along the same general
lines as in the past. That is, we should
finance some capital expansion from current
revenues and provide for the remainder of
our capital funds from borrowing.
We will, therefore, introduce legislation to
provide changes in taxation necessary to meet
our requirements, yet which will not be detri-
mental to the growth of our economy. Rather
than apply excessive rates of taxation in any
one area, we have decided to utilize several
fields.
The retail sales tax of three per cent will
be increased to five per cent and the tax will
be extended to charges for loner distance calls
and telegrams. By April, seven of the ten
provinces will have a rate of five per cent or
more.
The tax on gasoline will be increased by
one cent a gallon to 16 cents. Only the three
far western provinces will then have tax at
less than 16 cents. Refunds for off-highway
use will be 16 cents for farmers and commer-
cial fishermen and 13 cents for others.
The tax on diesel fuel for highway use will
be increased by one and one-half cents to 22
cents per gallon, maintaining the approxi-
mate relationship with the tax on gasoline.
The tax on cigarettes will be increased to
one-tenth of a cent per cigarette, which in-
crease amounts to one cent on a package of
20— or one and one-quarter cents on a pack-
age of 25— with adjusted increases on other
tobaccos. The new rates will still be much
below those of our neighbouring provinces.
It is interesting to note that federal taxes on
a package of 25 cigarettes are about 25 cents
compared with the revised Ontario tax of
two and one-half cents.
Tax on land transfers will be increased
from one-fifth to two-fifths of one per cent.
Since 1962, the federal government has
collected Ontario individual income tax. The
federal tax has been abated by rates com-
mencing at 16 per cent for 1962 and reaching
24 per cent for 1966. We have followed the
policy of keeping our rate at the same figure
as the federal abatement. During these years,
some provinces have found it necessary to set
their provincial rates at more than the fed-
eral abatement and this has been completely
in accord with the federal-provincial arrange-
ments. For the 1966 year, the Ontario rate
will continue at 24 per cent, the same as the
federal abatement.
We do not know at this time what arrange-
ments will be made with the federal govern-
ment to share the tax fields with the provinces
after the present five-year collection agree-
ment expires with the end of the 1966
taxation year. We expect that similar arrange-
ments, or not less than equivalent provisions,
adjusted upwards to meet the rapidly ex-
panding needs of Ontario and the other prov-
inces, will extend into the period subsequent
to 1966, or at least until the recommendations
of the several taxation commissions can be
studied for implementation.
For the 1967 taxation year, Ontario will
need at least the equivalent of an additional
four percentage points of tax. If the federal
abatement is similarly increased, there would
be no net increase in the individual income
tax paid by Ontario residents.
The government of Ontario will seek an
increase in its share of tax revenues of at
least this amount in the forthcoming federal-
provincial negotiations. Without such further
abatement or its equivalent, we will have no
alternative to the setting of an income tax
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
351
rate to produce an additional yield of four
percentage points.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to
ever present a budget without some good
news in it: The exemptions under The Suc-
cession Duty Act will be increased from
$60,000 to $75,000 for widows and certain
widowers, from $10,000 to $15,000 for a de-
pendent child, and from $15,000 to $25,000
for a dependent orphan.
The above tax changes, except income tax,
will become effective on April 1, next.
Finally, I should like to state that the
liquor control board of Ontario will be an-
nouncing increases in the price of liquor at
an early date.
Inclusive of the additional revenue we can
expect from the tax changes I have proposed,
net ordinary revenue and net capital receipts
are forecast at $1,728 million. Yields from
our four major sources of revenue are fore-
cast as follows: retail sales tax, $383 million;
personal income tax, $362.5 million; corpor-
ations tax, $258 million; and gasoline tax,
$257 million.
Increased revenue from the retail sales
tax of $167 million is expected to account
for more than half of the total increase in
our revenue. The increase in the province's
share of the personal income tax field from
21 to 24 per cent of federal rates of tax to-
gether with economic growth is expected to
raise our revenue from this field by $72.2
million. The yield of the gasoline tax will
rise by $25 million and revenues from corpor-
ations tax and the liquor control board by
$14 million each.
While we can expect considerable expan-
sion in our revenues as a result of the tax
measures proposed in this Budget, the ex-
pected improvement is the minimum neces-
sary to maintain the financial strength of the
province. Despite adjustments in our rev-
enues, we anticipate total revenue will fall
short of meeting overall requirements by
$84.9 million in the fiscal year 1966-67. The
extent to which we will be required to rely
upon our credit in the coming fiscal year is
reasonable in view of the expanded revenue
base and the expenditure programme to be
undertaken. Nevertheless, we have reached
no long-term solution. Appropriate measures
must therefore be planned now to ensure
that the province can fulfil its responsibilities
and still maintain a strong credit position.
As Treasurer of the government of this
province, I am fully aware of the present
complexity of our financial and economic
problems and of the sensitive relationship
between government and the provincial
economy. In the past few years, we have
witnessed a telescoping of heavy demands for
social and economic development; in the
years that lie immediately ahead, such heavy
demands will continue to be felt. In turn,
the steady growth of government expendi-
tures has broadened the direct impact of gov-
ernment on the economy and made the
provincial budget a delicate instrument of
economic and fiscal policy.
In addition to providing a wide range of
services, in which our objectives must be
ones of efficiency and effectiveness, our pro-
vincial Budget contributes directly to the
character of aggregate demand in the provin-
cial economy and to the economic produc-
tiveness of our people and institutions. To be
successful in these objectives, however, we
must avoid taxation becoming a burden on
the progress of economic growth which we
seek to foster.
With the rapid accumulation of demands
for government services and social capital
on the one hand and the objective of con-
tributing to economic growth and produc-
tivity on the other hand, the government
must follow four broad principles of econo-
mic and financial policy.
In the first place, we believe that it is
essential for the government to establish
policy priorities to assure that expenditures
will make the greatest contribution to the
development of the province. It is patently
obvious that our expenditures are outpacing
our revenues— a condition that is likely to
continue. In such circumstances, a govern-
ment must examine ruthlessly which policies
should assume priority in the broad spectrum
of economic and social application. Nor is this
a mere arithmetical ordering of expenditures.
Rather, the priorities must be designed with
a view to those policies which will have the
greatest impact on growth and productivity,
such as education and research; from such
growth, the tax revenues will be self-generat-
ing and our Budget maintained in some
order.
The second principle follows from the first
—that the government must plan its financial
and economic activity to achieve maximum
effectiveness. Both in ordinary expenditures
and in public capital investment, there must
be careful long-range planning to create the
most favourable climate for provincial growth.
In particular, each element of proposed pub-
lic investment must be carefully assessed for
its contribution to economic growth and for
its effect in counteracting movements in the
business cycle.
352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The third principle is the means of long-
range planning— the careful co-ordination of
government policies and programmes such
as those designed to contribute to the econo-
mic development of all regions of the prov-
ince. Our economic and financial research is
now being developed in a manner that will
contribute to the greater success of priorities
and planning in an applied sense— through
overall government co-ordination.
Finally, when we have established our own
priorities, planning and co-ordination, we
must view this actively in the broader con-
text of federal, provincial, and municipal
requirements. In this trinity of forces, the
provincial government occupies the position
of fulcrum— balancing its own demands on
the federal government with the needs of the
municipalities. Through the exercise of the
tax structure committee, we not only have
a sobering view of what is in store out we
also have guidelines to the fiscal requirements
of each level of government. Consequently
our policies must be formulated with a view
to possible redistribution of tax revenues
commensurate with future requirements for
provincial expenditures.
To assist the government in observing these
principles, we are establishing a co-ordinating
committee of financial and economic advisers.
This committee will consist of senior officials
concerned with revenues, expenditures, eco-
nomic policy and federal-provincial affairs—
the Deputy Provincial Treasurer, the sec-
retary of the Treasury board, and the chief
economist. These officials, through a con-
tinuing review of financial and economic
affairs, would achieve an important measure
of co-ordination among the key areas which
they represent as well as serving the govern-
ment in pursuit of the four principles that
I have set out above. They will be con-
cerned with long-range planning, for example
the application of capital funds. This gov-
ernment, through its capital projects and its
capital advances, is a major source of overall
capital investment. Care must be taken to
ensure that the disposition and timing of this
activity is designed to serve the needs of the
provincial economy in the most effective
manner.
Such are the guidelines which we believe
must be observed under the exacting but
significant financial and economic problems
facing this government in the days that lie
ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the days that
lie ahead this Budget will be remembered as
a development Budget.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, in the midst of these deepening
shadows I move the adjournment of the de-
bate.
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Fifth order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment to
the motion for second reading of Bill No. 6,
An Act to amend The Medical Services In-
surance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
( continued )
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, that is a particularly difficult act to
follow. I suspect, after that development-
sunshine-election Budget which the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) just de-
livered, so generous in its dispensations to
the citizens of the province of Ontario, that
perhaps before the afternoon is out the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) will rise in his
seat, dissolve the proceedings, and call a
very short and appropriate campaign.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise on the
Medicare bill, so-called, immediately in the
wake of this Budget presentation because I
think that the two are very strongly related.
It is singularly appropriate that one should
follow the other.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if I can venture
the thought before getting into the bill it-
self, the cumulative effect of tax increases—
I think there were seven tax increases just
announced by this government, plus a pend-
ing liquor tax, plus the possibility of a four-
percentage-point income tax next year; the
tax increases that this government has had to
impose in an era of prosperity and are
therefore totally inexcusable in the context
of the economic development of this prov-
ince—are partly accounted for by the un-
economic principles of the bill we have
before us now.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we would not need
this kind of retrogressive budget— not a de-
velopment budget, but a retrogressive budget
—if it were not that this government insisted
on bringing uneconomic bills and uneconomic
principles to the floor of this Legislature.
This Bill No. 6 is so uneconomic in principle
that the government cannot carry on and
implement it with present revenue, so un-
economic in principle that premiums are fully
three times what they might well be, so un-
economic in principle that we will have a
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
353
continued cost of medical services in Ontario
amounting to a higher percentage of the
gross provincial product than public plans in
other countries, and so limited in application,
Mr. Speaker, that we may not even be eligible
for the federal subsidy.
In other words, when the hon. Provincial
Treasurer analyzes his shortfall he should not
put it in the context of the pressures of other
things, he should take a look at that shortfall
in the context of the uneconomic pieces of
legislation which are put before this House
—this being the most dramatic thus far in the
session, to be complemented later I am sure
by welfare projects of a similar kind. This is
what fragments the economics of this govern-
ment and what continues to foist debate on
the House that relates to uneconomic pro-
grammes and uneconomic measures. Indeed
it is characteristic and ironic of Conservative
governments that they are the senior tech-
nicians of an uneconomic budget.
As it is characteristic of Toryism to present
uneconomic measures, such as those in this
bill, so it is— if I can return to the points I
was making yesterday— characteristic that we
never engage in the substance of the bill, so
it is that the government never justifies the
arguments it makes.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is
basically a lack of conviction on the part of
the government which accounts for the lack
of justification. And it is a lack of conviction
on the part of the government which
accounts for the attitude in debate.
If I may recapitulate what others on these
benches have said in the last few days, we
have not as yet seen the hon. Prime Minister
enter the debate, we have not had the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), we have
not had any inkling of any other hon. Cabinet
Minister and we have had precisely the same
backbenchers— not a single different speaker
from the back-benchers of the Conservative
Party than we had on this same bill last year.
Again, one is forced to ask, when will the
government confront the arguments made by
the Opposition? When will the government
meet the contentions we have put forward;
when will it either honourably attempt to in-
validate them, or at least develop some sense
of confrontation in the Legislature so that
we do not consistently speak into a vacuum?
Let me outline the various principles and
proposals that my party and the Liberal Party
have put before the Legislature on second
reading of this bill during the last several
days, without a single answer forthcoming
from the government.
In the early period of this debate, we took
issue with the hon. Minister of Health's varied
statements on compulsion. We pointed out
that the principles of the bill before us are
inconsistent with the principles of the Ontario
hospital services plan handed down by this
same government, and we asked why the
departure from principle. The hon. Minister
of Health has not had the courtesy to re-
spond, indeed not a single hon. member of
the government has had the courtesy to
respond.
We pointed out that whereas the hon. Min-
ister of Health is on record as opposing com-
pulsion, in fact the exclusion of groups in this
plan constitutes a very serious compulsion,
commits the government to the principle of
compulsion, and we asked why it could not
be applied to a similar universal scheme
across the province? Not a single hon. mem-
ber of the Cabinet has deigned to reply; not
a single hon. member of the government has
deigned to reply.
The hon. member for Scarborough North
(Mr. Wells) ventured yesterday the fanciful
wish that the civil service plan could be
brought into the medical plan embraced by
Bill No. 6, but everybody knows that that is
an irrelevant design, that it is an impossible
objective, that in fact the groups are effec-
tively excluded from the principles of this
bill as we see it before us. Therefore the
government applies compulsion where it
wishes in a discriminatory fashion, arbitrating
against the needy in this province, and ex-
clusively for certain groups in this province.
Yet, not a soul on the benches of the govern-
ment has bothered to reply to the arguments
we have made.
In another avenue, we on this side of the
House have attempted to document, point
by point, what we believe to have been col-
lusion between the insurance companies and
the doctors in the development of this plan-
collusion in the context of its definition with
the government— and we have given a history
of the development of this scheme. We have
challenged the hon. Minister of Health to
reveal in this Legislature every step in that
development and we repeat the challenge
today. Let him spell out the meetings with
the medical profession. Let him spell out the
meetings with the insurance companies. Let
him state on the floor of the Legislature those
factors which influenced his decision. But not
a word has come from the government
benches— just a singular contempt for the
arguments that are made.
It is not so much that we are absolutely
certain of our arguments in themselves, Mr.
354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Speaker, as we are certain of what one must
say in the absence of any reply. Why does
not the government have the intellectual
integrity to answer the Opposition charges in
this regard? Why does not the government
say, if it honestly believes it, that all other
sectors of society should be excluded from
discussions on a medical care plan, that in
fact the rest of society is irrelevant, that in
the context of Tory thinking only doctors and
insurance companies should be consulted?
Indeed, if the government took the time to
say that, one would have a great deal more
respect for it than is fostered by its absence
of participation on these points. The debate,
Mr. Speaker, is thus reduced to a travesty,
such as when the hon. member for High Park
(Mr. Cowling) extols the fact that insurance
companies pay taxes and no one replies to
the arguments put.
The hon. leader of my party (Mr. Mac-
Donald) placed before this Legislature a finan-
cial formula which we believe could apply to
everyone in the province— $20 a single person,
$40 a couple and $50 a family— to finance
universal Medicare across the province of
Ontario. No one, but no one has deflated
those figures in this House. The hon. Minis-
ter of Health sits mute, that combination of
Scottish, oriental inscrutability which char-
acterizes his presence. There has not been a
sound from the government benches. No one
contends that the figures are wrong. Never do
we get an engagement of debate on the
fundamental financing of this plan. The gov-
ernment refuses to say anything.
One must admit, Mr. Speaker, as a depar-
ture, that the hon. member for Forest Hill
(Mr. Dunlop) challenged our figures on the
ratio of doctors. I suppose I should make an
aside and say in this House that on the basis
of the tax statistics for 1965, there were 5,825
doctors practising in the province of Ontario,
making an average annual income of $21,000.
The hon. member for Forest Hill suggested
that there were 7,600 doctors practising in
the province of Ontario. Somewhere there is
a 2,000-doctor discrepancy. I hesitate to say
that 2,000 members of the medical profes-
sion have decided not to pay taxes, but I
suggest to him strongly that the diserepancy
is of his own making and the tax statistics are
obviously the authoritative source.
^ But even though the- hon. member for
Forest Hill made an effort to come to grips
with that aspect of the figures, no one on the
government benches-not the hon. Provincial
Treasurer who just presented his Budget and
is supposedly advised of financial factors; not
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Randall); not any of the other
Cabinet members— entered to suggest why the
20-40-50-dollar formula was invalid. I sug-
gest that no one objected because in fact it
is a perfectly plausible method of financing
medical care, and our hon. leader set it out in
very close form in the opening of this debate.
Let me repeat the arguments just for a
moment to remind the hon. members of the
House. The total cost of coverage on the
government's own figures of $40 per capita
would equal $260 million. The federal sub-
sidy, which is 50 per cent of the $34 figure
on a national average, would introduce $110
million. This would leave $150 million to be
raised in Ontario. The government is already
committed to $70 million financing for this
plan and that would leave $80 million to be
raised from all of Ontario, to finance a uni-
versal comprehensive plan on our $20, $40,
$50 formula.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we challenge the gov-
ernment benches— the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. Minister of Health huddled to-
gether in discussion— to answer those figures,
to explain to this Legislature and the people
of Ontario why they are imposing fully three
times the desirable rate of premium. Let
them do something else, Mr. Minister. We ask
the government to justify the $40 per capita
figure, a figure which is fully $15.90 above the
$24.91 per capita figure given by the Hall
commission in its estimate of per capita costs
in 1966.
What does the government think it can get
away with and why does it degrade the
debating process of this chamber by refusing
to confront honestly and straightforwardly the
arguments put by the Opposition? We do not
say that those arguments are infallible of
themselves. We reach out for some kind of
response from government and all we receive
is an arrogant, contemptuous disdain, never
the spark of a reply, never even the participa-
tion of large measures of Cabinet front-
benchers in debate which surely is of great
social significance. I suppose "large measures"
is not an appropriate term to describe the
Cabinet, but one thinks of them as a musical
score.
This party spelled out the priorities for this
bill. We made no mistake about it. We said
we considered medical care of fundamental
importance in the province and of first
priority. The hon. member for Riverdale (Mr.
Ren wick) said we could not afford the un-
economic plan which is being foisted upon us.
But only one government member in this
House, and not a Cabinet member, talked
about priorities— that was the hon. member
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
355
for Forest Hill. He named higher education,
he named medical manpower, he named
manpower generally, but none of them were
given any heed— not a single Cabinet Min-
ister entered the debate to indicate the gov-
ernment's conception of priority and certainly
not the hon. Minister of Health. At least last
year, the hon. Minister of Health was pro-
vocative in his opening statement on first
reading. Now there is—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! I would not like
to see the debate get into personalities and
directed to persons. The Minister of Health
will have an opportunity to enter the debate,
but it is his own choice when he wishes to
enter such a debate. I would rather the
member devote himself to the principles of
this bill.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind
saying to the Speaker and to the House
through the Speaker, that members of the
Opposition should not be asked to debate
the principles of this kind of bill without a
full opening second-reading statement from an
hon. member of the Cabinet. I suggest to
you, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this House
would have raised serious objections to the
lion. Minister of Health speaking twice in
this debate if he felt it was necessary, because
he is the man who is responsible for this
bill in his department. His action is an
abdication of responsibility.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that my
hon. colleagues have raised, and hon. members
of the Liberal Party have raised with equal
vigour, the question of federal-provincial con-
ferences which impinge directly on the prin-
ciples of this bill. We have no idea whatsoever
whether it will ultimately fall in with the
federal plan or whether the federal plan will
in fact contribute to this plan as it now
stands.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say that before we
got into the full debate on second reading,
someone in the Cabinet, preferably the hon.
Minister of Health, should have spelled out
the position of the government, precisely what
went on at the federal-provincial confer-
ence in Ottawa; precisely what the Cabinet
said, and precisely what transpired behind the
closed doors, rather than stealing silently away
and demonstrating again, a complete indiffer-
ence for the processes on the floor of this
Legislature. I suggest it is basically a lack of
understanding as to the possibilities inherent
in a democratic exchange.
It is on all those grounds, that we are
opposing the principle of this bill. We have
not received a single answer to the funda-
mental criticisms raised. We will continue to
oppose this bill, clause by clause, and year
by year, until the answers are forthcoming
and genuine debate is resurrected.
There is another and final point that I
wish to make. Fundamental to the principles
of Bill No. 6 is the attitude of the medical
profession as a profession and the attitude
of its statutory bodies. I fear, Mr. Speaker,
that many of the principles herein enshrined
will be further withered away by the attitude
of that profession. It is obvious that the
Ontario medical association has taken an
entirely discredited stand. It has become
the laughing stock of serious-minded people.
This society is too sophisticated to buy the
antiquated arguments of medical letter
writers to the Sudbury Star and those who
intoned the sentiments that apply to feudal
times, sentiments that are now several hun-
dred years out of date.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we in this party are
concerned about the rigidity and the inflexi-
bility of the college of physicians and sur-
geons in the province of Ontario, because
its stand on medical matters, some of which
have come before this House and many more
of which will come in the future, is of ex-
ceeding anxiety. The doctors' behaviour and
their attitude bespeaks a completely rigid
frame of mind and that will have to change
if the principles of this bill are to be
adhered to.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Thompson) discussed on second reading, at
close to half an hour's length, the question
of the Asian doctors and the doctor shortage.
I want to dissociate myself for a moment,
Mr. Speaker, from the relationship between
the two, because I think we make a funda-
mental mistake— I think we leave the door
open for this government. I want to point
out, Mr. Speaker, and federal Liberals have
pointed it out, that there are a great many
countries in the world which have national
health schemes and have much worse doctor-
to-population ratios than the province of
Ontario. So let us not be deflected. We
could carry out a complete medical care plan
in this province with the doctors we now
have.
I do not deny that the—
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): I do not want to interrupt but I did
not say Asian doctors, I was referring to for-
eign doctors. I want to make that distinction.
One of the papers keeps referring to the fact
I said Asian doctors; I look on it as a much
broader area than that.
356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. S. Lewis: The hon. leader of the
Opposition is right; I stand corrected. He
said foreign doctors. I would agree that in
the context of the future development of this
plan on the extension of services— of the
paramedical aspects— something will have to
be done about the shortage of doctors and
the expansion in the doctor-to-population
ratio.
But let it not be thought for a moment,
Mr. Speaker, that we do not have the medi-
cal personnel now sufficient to carry on a
universal comprehensive plan in the province
of Ontario. Let us not be deflected. And let
it also be said that the rigidity of the college
of physicians and surgeons in respect to the
foreign doctors is one of the things which
begs the question, and is one of the things
which causes us very great concern.
I say this with all the seriousness that I
can muster— some of us are greatly concerned
that one of the criteria established to pro-
nounce on the availability of doctors in the
province will be the colour of a man's skin.
We are driven irresistibly to that conclusion.
For whatever reason— and it has not yet
been defined on the floor of this Legislature
—no explanation has been given for the prac-
tices of the college of physicians and surgeons
in that regard, no explanation has been given
to explain why the tremendous postgraduate
qualifications of so many members of the
medical profession are not sufficient to com-
pensate for the supposed deficiencies in un-
dergraduate education. No one has explained
why the certification in one province and
one jurisdiction after another, across the
world, is not sufficient to enable those men
to practise in the province of Ontario.
So the college of physicians and surgeons
stands suspect in the eyes of many in this
party, and, I suspect, many in this House. It
is an attitude of mind that cannot be toler-
ated when discussing the principles of a
medical plan.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are our basic argu-
ments.
We again ask of the government, we
plead of the government, that it reply to the
fundamental contentions made, and that on
its reply the government allow tin's debate
to rest, rather than an attack on the peri-
phery and on partisanship and on all the
incidental measures. If, in fact, the reply is
made to the fundamentals, as they have been
laid out by the Opposition, then we will have
had a reasonable dialogue and we can move
to elause-by-clause discussion. Until then we
have all been paricipating in a facade rather
than a debate.
Mr. D. Bales (York Mills): The hon. Min-
ister of Health has outlined his proposals and
the basic changes to be made in the Ontario
medical services insurance bill and these are
set out in the explanatory note on its face.
Despite natural and sometimes long argu-
ment, I think most of us in this House agree
with the changes, but nevertheless I know
that there are some who think we have not
made sufficient changes.
All parties agree that medical insurance
should be made available and as soon as
possible. The main and the key difference
between us is that we believe it should be
voluntary, others believe it should be com-
pulsory. A large percentage of the employed
persons in this province are today covered by
medical or health insurance and usually the
families are covered as well. In the last ten
years, the percentage of Canadians within
this group has nearly doubled. Today nearly
12 million Canadians are included, 2.5
million within this province itself.
The medical insurance coverage is in no
way uniform and frequently life insurance
and accident and other benefits are included
as well. The important point, however, is
that when a person suffers a serious or pro-
longed illness, he should have his medical
bills met and they should not have to be
paid for out of his savings or other assets
or by putting him into serious debt.
I realize there are many people in this
province today who cannot obtain coverage
and these are our primary concern. In con-
sidering any medical insurance scheme we
must be sure that insurance will be available
to those who require it and wish it, first, at
a reasonable level and, second, that they
should not be penalized or refused by reason
of health or age or ability to pay. Since a
great proportion of the people in Ontario are
now covered, then the government must,
and in fairness, want to make sure that
medical insurance is available to those who
otherwise could not obtain it or afford it.
Under the changes in the legislation as
now proposed, anyone in Ontario may pur-
chase a standard contract through the gov-
ernment agency without restriction as to age,
state of health or financial ability to pay.
This is a change from a year ago and I think
a good one, because in this group are bound
to be included people where public money
is used for payment of premiums. That being
the case those premiums should not properly
be paid to private agencies.
The hon. Minister has set out the cost of
the insurance at $60 for a single person,
double that for a family of two, and $150 for
FEBRUABY 9. 1966
357
a family of three or more persons. The gov-
ernment is making a commitment to begin
this programme effective July 1, and three
months earlier for those who are receiving
welfare assistance. This means that the pro-
gramme will begin this year and in fact in the
next few months.
I am sure there will be many administra-
tion difficulties and adjustments needed be-
fore the programme comes to its final form,
but nevertheless basically this should be a
sound and workable scheme. The estimated
cost is $70 million to the province. This
again should be somewhat higher than last
year by the reason that the level of subsidies
has been raised, albeit slightly. If changes
are needed in these rates or the administra-
tive arrangements I am sure the government
will make them.
In the changes proposed under Bill No. 6,
certain procedures or operations by dental
surgeons normally performed in hospitals
will now be covered, whereas formerly these
same procedures were only covered if per-
formed by doctors. This is an age of special-
ists and it is wise to extend coverage in this
type of situation to operations performed by
the dentist.
Coming back to the principle of voluntary
as against compulsory coverage, in my view
the individual should retain the freedom of
choice as to coverage. The important thing
is that coverage is available to him and at a
reasonable rate, either through a govern-
ment agency, an insurance company or other
type of insurer.
The argument is made that we should not
have a separate provincial scheme but rather
one national in scope. Only last July the
federal government set out its proposals as
to the contributions and terms of participa-
tion. I am sure there will be changes made
in the definition and interpretation of the
conditions and also in the terms of contribu-
tions. The federal proposals set out certain
basic conditions before a province can qualify
for grants, and these have largely, but not
entirely, been met by this Ontario scheme.
The basic exception and difference is that
the federal government stipulates that the
provincial scheme must be universal, whereas
the provincial scheme now is voluntary. The
fact that the Ontario scheme starts this year
will in no way bar the door to any further
negotiations between this province or other
provinces and the federal government.
Last June, during the debate on the medi-
cal insurance bill, it was made clear the ob-
jective of the government was that through
that legislation, assistance would be provided
for those in the province who needed it most.
Also, recognizing the difficulty and limitations
in any new social legislation, it was made
clear that if changes were needed they would
be introduced. The government has obvi-
ously given careful consideration to the de-
tails of the plan during these ensuing months
and changes have now been proposed. These
make good sense and will provide a workable
scheme that is to be put into force almost at
once.
We listened for a long time this afternoon
to a very detailed budget. It is quite clear
that there is going to be much money spent
in a great many fields, but medical insurance
is only one programme to be brought forward
by the government that will require substan-
tial funds. Every year education must claim
a larger share of the total budget and this
year is no exception. These extra moneys are
needed and must be provided so that the
young people may remain in school longer
and have the more extensive training needed
for today's and tomorrow's jobs.
There are new and extended programmes
needed in many fields, not only in education
but in training of medical personnel, in the
care and training of the retarded, in the field
of penal reform, in construction of highways
and especially in research. These needs are
endless but the money supply to either the
federal or the provincial government is not,
and in the final analysis the public must pay
for the programmes that are provided.
The government must keep in mind the
priorities of all these fields in the normal
development and expansion of its pro-
grammes. The government must endeavour
to keep all of them in balance. No one be-
grudges the money for good programmes or
the taxes required, but the government can-
not provide unlimited funds for any one field,
even Medicare, at the expense of other valid
claims.
For these and other reasons, Mr. Speaker,
I support this bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
if I appear to be a little breathless it is be-
cause the life of an MPP is sometimes breath-
less.
I have just been engaged in talking to the
press, television, radio and others about the
Budget that was introduced this afternoon.
With my normal penchant for understate-
ment, I described it as a confused, disorgan-
ized, timorous and ultra-conservative response
to the dynamic challenges of the 1960's. Now
I have to direct my attention, without any
358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
opportunity for reorientation, toward the con-
fused, disorganized, timorous and ultra-con-
servative response of the hon. Minister of
Health to the urgent needs of the people of
Ontario for medical care insurance.
By way of preface to my remarks in sum-
ming up the position of this group on the
principle of this bill, I would like to elimi-
nate a little confusion that seems to have risen
in the minds of some people who are perhaps
prone to confusion. More specifically I would
like to refer to a headline that appeared in
the Toronto Daily Star in the night edition
of February 7, which I believe was the day
before yesterday. The headline reads, "NDP
on Robarts' Side of Medicare." The next
day this headline was altered a little bit to
say, "NDP to Help Defeat Thompson on
Medicare."
Mr. Speaker, if it should be that a prize is
given in the journalistic world for perverse
misrepresentation of facts, I would suggest
these two headlines together, or either of
them separately, would easily qualify for the
prize for this decade. As a matter of fact,
when I saw the headline I checked back on
what my hon. leader had said in case there
had conceivably been some point he had
failed to make clear, but what he said was
crystal clear. He said this group would vote
against the second reading of this bill. How
anyone could interpret that as meaning we
are on the government's side is a little more
than I can comprehend, and I am sure, sir,
more than you can comprehend, too.
We will vote against the second reading of
this bill.
My hon. leader also went on to say that
we do not support the amendment proposed
by the hon. leader of the Opposition. Under
the announcement on procedure that Mr.
Speaker made last year with regard to votes
on second reading, in which he indicated he
would return to the traditional and I think
logical way of putting the vote on second
reading where an amendment is involved, it
is quite possible for us to vote against second
reading without having to vote in favour of
the amendment. It is not necessary at all for
us to vote in favour of the amendment in
order to vote against second rending. This is
absolutely clear under the traditional pro-
cedure which Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, has
seen fit to restore in this House.
If the opportunity should arise— and I
would not recommend to any of my hon.
friends that they should place any bets that
it will arise-but if it should arise for us to
vote on the amendment proposed by the hon.
leader of the Opposition after the question
of second reading has been voted on, we will
vote against his amendment and we will pro-
pose an amendment of our own.
I think it may be worthwhile, Mr. Speaker,
to review why we will vote against that
amendment. The amendment proposes that
the bill be referred to the standing-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): This is
worse than the explanation.
Mr. Bryden: I really do not know what
Rasputin over here is growling about, Mr.
Speaker. It is probably something he had
for lunch; I am sure it could not have been
anything I have said or plan to say.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Pain and
suffering.
Mr. Bryden: The amendment proposed is
that the bill be referred to the standing
committee on health and welfare, to which
representatives of farmers, trade unions, the
business community, the medical profession
and the public should be invited. I ask you
Mr. Speaker, in the name of heaven, what
for? As the hon. leader of the Opposition
himself said, everybody knows where the
trade unions stand; everybody knows where
the farmers stand; everybody knows where
the business community stands; everybody
knows where the medical profession stands—
and if I may say so, with deference to my
hon. friend from Scarborough North who does
not happen to be here today— everybody
except him knows where the United Church
of Canada stands. The United Church of
Canada stands in favour of full Medicare as
declared by its general conference.
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): It is not
my church.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson (Scarborough East):
There is the hon. member's second one.
Mr. Bryden: Everybody knows where it
stands. I would quite agree that the general
conference of the United Church of Canada
does not necessarily speak for every single
member of the United Church any more than
any general conference speaks for every
single member of any organization. This is
nevertheless the official policy of the United
Church of Canada, just as it is the official
policy of the trade union movement of Can-
ada, the farm movement in Canada, and
all the progressive people's organizations.
The only people who are against it are the
doctors and the insurance companies.
An hon. member: And the Tory party.
FEBRUARY- 9, 1966
359
Mr. Bryden: And the Tory party. These
are the only people who are against a full,
complete, universal Medicare programme. So
why do we have to go to a committee to
find out what we already know?
This amendment, if it were adopted, would
merely be a device for stalling any action
in this field, stalling it once more. Let us
remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal
Party of Canada first proposed comprehen-
sive universal Medicare— in those days it
used to be called comprehensive health
insurance— back in 1919. That is when it
first proposed it.
When our hon. friend from Sudbury last
night was talking about certain events that
occurred in the year "nineteen and forty-
five," as he described it, he somehow omitted
to tell us what happened to the health insur-
ance bill of the federal Liberal government of
the year nineteen and forty-five. That is
21 years ago. The Liberals had a bill in
then. They still have not got on with it
and what I am desperately afraid of, Mr.
Speaker, is that we are going to have one
more stall— the twentieth in the last half
century by the federal government— a great
promise at election time and a waffle after
the election. I am only too much afraid
that this proposed amendment put forward
by the Liberal group in this House represents
a preparation by the federal government at
Ottawa for further waffling; for further
delay.
It is a great pity, Mr. Speaker, that the
group in this House which had the oppor-
tunity to move an amendment on second
reading did not take advantage of that
opportunity to create a clear-cut issue be-
tween phony Robartscare on the one hand
and comprehensive universal Medicare on
the other. It is a great pity that they were
so inept in the performance of their duty as
an Opposition and in loyalty to the principles
that they now claim they adhere to— although
that is a very recent conversion— that they
did not take advantage of their opportunity
to put the issue on a straight "either/or" basis.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Why does the
hon. member abuse us when we stand together
in principle?
Mr. Bryden: The problem is, Mr. Speaker,
when I look at their amendment I am not
sure that we stand together on principle. I
can remember being blasted from stem to
gudgeon in this House as a Marxist and I
do not know what all else by the hon. leader
of the Opposition. He did not occupy the
position at the time but he was a member
of this House. Because I proposed what?— a
universal compulsory medical care insurance
programme. So with these fellows you never
know where you are between Monday and
Tuesday or Tuesday and Thursday.
Mr. Sopha: That is the enemy; that is the
enemy over there.
Mr. Bryden: I trust, but I have some
trepidation, that the amendment they have
proposed is not a preparation for another
shift in position on this matter.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make
it absolutely clear that we will neither vote
for second reading nor for the amendment.
If the opportunity should ever arise we will
put the amendment in the form in which we
think it should be put, as a clear-cut alterna-
tive between two contradictory policies, and
they are indeed contradictory policies, Mr.
Speaker.
Let us not be misled by the dulcet tones
of some of the kind hon. gentlemen on the
Conservative benches who try to say to us,
"This bill is a step forward, a step in the
right direction; now just let us do it a stage
at a time, one inch a century and in time we
will make the mile." This is the suggestion
they are putting forward. Unfortunately, Mr.
Speaker, one never knows whether they are
stepping forward or stepping back; they are so
flexible that most of the time they are going
around in circles.
They gave us a bill last year; it was passed
in this House, I believe in June, 1965, about
eight months ago. I took the trouble to take
the new bill now before us and find out how
it affected the bill we had before us just
eight short months ago. We were told at
the time it was the last word, for the day at
any rate; it was a desirable step forward, the
most that we could do at the time; this was
the perfect embodiment of the sense of the
people of this period.
I took a look at this bill, and for my own
convenience I stroked out the portions of
the bill that had been replaced or are to be
replaced by the bill now before us. This
bill— it is an Act now, of last year— is slightly
less than 16 pages long. I do not imagine the
hon. members can see my strokings out but
if any of them would care to look at close
range they will find that slightly more than
eight pages or those slightly less than 16
pages are going to be struck out by the bill
now before us. Approximately more than
half of the bill is being struck out altogether
and approximately half of the balance is
being changed.
360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is what one calls policy formulation,
Tory style. They never know where they are
at and I do not think anybody else knows
where they are at. They gave us a bill last
year; eight months later they tear it to pieces.
They would have done a service to the House
and to the people if they had scrapped the
whole bill of last year and brought in a new
one. It would be much easier to follow.
Bring in a totally new Act, repeal this old
one. It obviously was an abortion before it
started, an abortion presided over by a
medical doctor at that.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Abortion is against the Criminal Code.
Mr. Bryden: I hate to see the hon. Minis-
ter of Health in violation of the Criminal
Code, but this indeed is what has happened.
Why did he not just wipe the whole thing
out and start with a new bill?
Some changes have been made and they
were changes that we on this side proposed
in committee stage last year. But I want to
make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that
in proposing those changes in committee
stage, we certainly did not regard them as
in any sense satisfactory. We stated our
position in the debate on principle last year,
and in the debate on principle we stated our
total opposition to the bill as not a step
forward and as not a satisfactory solution, but
as a step backward, a move to stop the de-
velopment in Canada of an adequate Medi-
care programme.
We regard the bill of this year, even
though it proposes some changes, as in
exactly the same category. One cannot patch
an inherently bad bill. One has to start
completely from scratch with new principles
and with a totally new piece of legislation.
That is what we should have before us in
this House this year. The government
admitted it was wrong last year, even though
last year it told us how wrong we were.
Now it should just admit how totally wrong
it was and come in with proper legislation.
But instead, it comes in with a bill and it is
really driving that bill forward now.
Two years ago, when we discussed our first
medical care insurance Hill — if one could
abuse terminology to describe it as that— it
was introduced, I think, about two days be-
fore the adjournment of the House, just in
time for a provincial election-shoved in here
two days before adjournment. It was not
passed, but it was obviously pushed in at the
last minute so there could be a minimum of
comment on it.
Last year the government brought in its
bill at what I think it believed was the tail
end of the session. The only thing was that
it discovered the bill was so controversial that
the session went on for about six weeks longer
than had been anticipated, so it was not quite
at the tail end of the session. But it still was
an attempt to get the thing in late to restrict
discussion as much as possible.
Now we seem to find a reversal, Mr.
Speaker, a very interesting reversal. This bill
was brought in very early in the session and
priority has been given to it, to the point
where the traditional debate on the Speech
from the Throne has simply been thrown into
cold storage. We got started on the debate
on the Speech from the Throne and we now
received the Budget today; so the Budget
debate will be starting one of these days, and
we hardly even have got more than started
on the Throne speech debate. Why? Because
almost all of our time has been taken up with
the proposed amendments to the bill that was
passed last year.
It is interesting to consider why this should
be, why we get it in so early and why there
is such a drive on to get it right through. Mr.
Speaker, I do not think one has to have any
great perspicacity to see the reasons. The
hon. Minister of Health already has his litera-
ture prepared to send out to the people of the
province with regard to a bill that has not
even had second reading. He has prepared
literature on the basis of its passing as is.
His contempt for this House is so great, that
he is not even prepared to contemplate the
possibility that his bill might have to be
changed, even though the last one was ripped
to pieces. He is going to have his safe
majority over there steamroller this thing
through, so that he will not have to scrap
any of the literature that he has prepared.
That is all ready to go out.
And why is there such an all-fired hurry
about the literature going out and the bill
going through? Because, the hon. Minister
says, on April 1 of this year he wants to bring
into force that section of the legislation—
actually it is not in the legislation; it will be,
I presume, in regulations, but he cannot make
the regulations until the bill passes— under
which people receiving assistance under old
age assistance, mothers' allowances, general
welfare assistance and other assistance pro-
grammes, as well as certain people under old
age security, will receive full coverage for
their medical bills without cost to themselves.
And by implication he suggests that naturally
the House would not wish to delay by even
one second benefits that could be given to
this very worthy group.
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
361
The only catch, Mr. Speaker, is that this
very worthy group will not get any benefit at
all under that premature coming-into-force of
that portion of the legislation. This group
that he is talking about already has its medi-
cal bills covered under the medical welfare
programme that has been in effect in this
province for, I believe, about 20 years. They
are receiving no new benefits. There is no
need to rush this bill through now in order
that these people can receive benefits by
April 1, because they already get any bene-
fits they need.
But there is, nevertheless, a group that will
get benefits by having this bill come into
effect on April 1, and lo and behold, of whom
does this group consist? Why the poor, starv-
ing, struggling, ragged medical profession.
They are the people who will get a benefit.
And that is why this bill is being shoved
through now— to give a great big bonanza to
the medical profession. I do not know if it
was necessary to do this in order to buy their
support, but if it was it is certainly a dis-
graceful state of affairs.
Under the medical welfare plan as it now
stands, the doctors receive about 30 per cent
of their scale of fees for welfare cases, and
this after all is really gravy to them, because
they have always assured us that they would
normally provide services free to these people.
They get 30 per cent of their scale of fees
under the medicare welfare plan. Under this
bill they will get 90 per cent of their scale
of fees. So this bill is being steamrollered
through this House now, to the exclusion of
the Throne speech debate and to the exclu-
sion of almost anything else, just to provide
a great big melon to the medical profession.
I listened as far as I was able, in the face
of many interruptions from the gentlemen of
the fourth estate, to the cries of woe from the
hon. Provincial Treasurer this afternoon. I
would like to apologize to him here, Mr.
Speaker, for not having been able to be
present during the whole of his statement,
but I was in the unfortunate position where
I was expected to make some statements of
my own and they required some preparation.
It also was necessary to take some time to
make them. I regret that I was not able to
listen to the whole of his address, although I
had the opportunity through his courtesy of
reading it all, so I think I am fairly familiar
with it.
I am also familiar, as I said, with his tears
of woe at the extreme financial burden being
placed on the province. Sometimes, Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if our benign Provin-
cial Treasurer really means these heartfelt
cries we hear from him about his great finan-
cial problems. Here he is, part of the gov-
ernment, which as of right now is coolly re-
fusing approximately $110 million from the
federal government, and he tells us that he
—whom we love so much and are so little
loved by him— has to stick the knife into us
to get more money. Yet on the other hand he
is turning down— or his government is turn-
ing down and he has to take responsibility
for it along with the rest— approximately $110
million which could be available for the
people of Ontario if the federal government
can be induced to go ahead with its an-
nounced plan.
The hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr.
Gomme) asked me, "When?"— at least I think
it was the hon. Minister without Portfolio.
This is a very important question and I think
the government should be concerned about
"when" too, because it had better be con-
cerned that it does not lose the money
altogether. That is what I think we have to
be afraid about.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister without Port-
folio): The hon. member would like to make
the people think it is available now.
Mr. Bryden: If Ontario would now declare
without equivocation that it was prepared to
go ahead with a complete medical care in-
surance programme— universal, available to
everyone on equal terms, equal treatment of
equals, and so on— there is no question in the
world that the federal government would be
pinned right to the mast. It could not then
weasel, in any sense, on its announcements.
An hon. member: Call their bluff.
Mr. Bryden: The provinces of Saskatche-
wan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland
have already declared without any question
that they are ready to participate in the
federal plan if the federal government would
only get cracking. The province of Quebec
has left little doubt that it is prepared to do
the same. There is little doubt that the
province of British Columbia will do so. If
now the most populous province of Canada
joined the ranks the federal government
would have no option whatever, except to
carry out its election commitments, in total.
One of the hon. members here last night
referred to the fact that the former Premier of
this province — hon. Mr. Frost — nailed the
federal government to the mast back around
1957 on the matter of hospital insurance.
The hon. gentleman failed to note, of course,
that Mr. Frost was about 11 years behind the
times. A better hospital insurance plan has
362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
been in effect in Saskatchewan since 1946.
But it is indeed true that Saskatchewan by
itself— Saskatchewan and British Columbia
by themselves— could not make the federal
government move in this field; but when the
big populous province of Ontario said, "We
are ready to move" the federal government
had no option but to carry out the promises
it had been making for lo these many years.
And exactly the same thing will happen now.
This is the critical period; this is the period
when we can go forward to the kind of
medical care programme the people of
Canada clearly want, that the Hall commis-
sion has recommended, that will be of tre-
mendous advantage to the people of Canada.
We can go forward now. But this govern-
ment stands there hesitating, trembling,
shrinking, pulling back a little, moving an
inch forward and two inches back, and is not
able to make up its mind.
Why does it not now make up its mind?
Let us go ahead, let us get this done, let us
get the $110 million that the federal govern-
ment is ready to give us. If I were the Pro-
vincial Treasurer, I would never turn down
$110 million from an honourable source: I
would take it as fast as I would get it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):
Imagine a Scottish Minister turning it down,
too.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, the hon. Minister of
Health turning down $110 million.
Mr. MacDonald: Incredible! His ancestors
must be turning over in their graves.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is a critical
period in the development of medical insur-
ance programmes in Canada. We all know
that, a few years ago, a universal compre-
hensive programme was pioneered in the
province of Saskatchewan. It led to a terrible
battle. I may say that the Liberal Party of
the province joined in the battle on the side
of the forces of reaction. It associated itself
with all the dark crypto-fascist, racist
elements in the lunatic fringe of the far right
in the province to try to destroy this bill. It
did not shrink even at suggesting that the
province should be reduced to a state of
anarchy; and. indeed, it was reduced to a
state of partial anarchy.
An hon. member: Who is the hon. member
talking about, the Premier?
Mr. Bryden: I am talking about what
happened in the province of Saskatchewan
when a comprehensive medical care insur-
ance programme was proposed in that prov-
ince, and what the Liberal Party did in that
province at that time.
Mr. Thompson: What government is ad-
ministering the medical insurance plan now?
Mr. Bryden: I am just coming to that. And
I will go further and say, Mr. Speaker, that
the tensions created in that terrible contro-
versy, in which the medical profession itself
was decried by representatives of the medical
profession almost all over the world, as well
as by almost all the press throughout the
world, resulted in the government of Sas-
katchewan being brought down. I do not
think there is any doubt at all. And I am
proud that I belong to the same party as a
government which had the courage to stick
to principle, even if it meant defeat.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
That is what brought them down.
Mr. Bryden: And the interesting phenome-
non, Mr. Speaker, is the Tightness of their
stand, even though they have not as yet
received credit for it. What they received as
their reward was defeat. As so often happens
in human affairs, those who stand for prin-
ciples suffer personal defeat, but the principle
carries on; and that bill remains in the prov-
ince of Saskatchewan without any significant
change at all under the administration of the
party that fought it tooth-and-nail and was
prepared to reduce the province to anarchy in
order to defeat it. And if anything ever
proved the value of legislation, then I say
that record proves it.
But of course our timorous friends on the
Tory benches say to the government, "Don't
do it, don't do that sort of thing." One of
them last night said, "Don't do that sort of
thing, don't bring in a bill like that. It brought
down the government of Saskatchewan, it
might bring you people down too, and natur-
ally we would newer risk defeat; we would
not want to bo defeated over a mere prin-
ciple." This was the argument that was put
forward by one1 of the hon. Conservative
speakers last night.
I say to the government of Ontario,
timorous though it is, hesitant though it is,
that it need have no fear. The battle on prin-
ciple was fought and won in the province of
Saskatchewan, and they can now go ahead
without any fear of untoward consequences
at all. In fact, they can fear untoward con-
sequences if they do not get moving, get into
step with the times, and go ahead with a
programme such as is now in effect in Sas-
katchewan.
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
363
Do we need any more eloquent testimony
of the correctness of that programme as a
means of meeting the needs of the people
than the report of the Hall commission— a
commission set up by a Tory government in
Ottawa unquestionably for the purpose of
recommending against comprehensive Medi-
care?
All the people who were on it would,
on the basis of their past record of perform-
ance and beliefs, have been expected to
recommend against universal Medicare— and
I will give these gentlemen credit, they looked
at the facts, they studied them at great length
and they acted in accordance with the facts.
The facts, as they discovered them and pro-
claimed them to the whole world, showed that
the comprehensive plan of Saskatchewan is
the kind of plan and the only kind of plan that
will meet the needs of the people; and that
the plan that was then and still is in effect in
Alberta, and which we are more or less imitat-
ing here, was simply inadequate to the situa-
tion, and was not a step forward; it made no
contribution to the situation at all.
Mr. Speaker, I do not really think one has
to make any further argument than that.
There is no longer any debate on principle;
there are simply some pig-headed Tories who
refuse to face facts. Unlike the eminent Mr.
Justice Hall, whose political record before he
was on the bench was one of consistent con-
servatism; they refuse to let the facts speak
to them. They stick in a pig-headed way,
defending the privileged interests of the medi-
cal profession and the insurance companies
to the exclusion of the need of the people of
the province.
I call upon the government to move now,
to get in touch with the times. They are no
longer living in the middle of the 19th cen-
tury, even though many of them do not
realize it. They might as well face the fact
they are in the 20th century; let them deal
with 20th century problems by 20th century
methods. If they do it, I personally will be
happy in the next election to give them full
credit for it, even though it has certainly
taken an inordinate amount of pushing to
get them to do even the little bit they are
proposing now.
I will tell them that if they will do that
they will win the next election in Ontario.
Their chances otherwise, I would suggest,
Mr. Speaker, are very remote indeed. Their
inability to face problems, to come up with
dynamic solutions, to meet dynamic chal-
lenges of the 20th century is more and more
getting across to the people and, in particular
in relation to this whole medical care in-
surance programme.
There is an old saying that you can fool
some of the people some of the time but
you cannot fool all of the people all of the
time. These fellows over here have been
trying to maximize the procedure of fooling
some of the people some of the time, but 1
am telling them that that approach has lost
its effectiveness altogether. They are not fool-
ing any of the people now, and I would sug-
gest that they either get in tune with the
needs and desires of the people, or give
up the ghost and resign. Let this be de-
cided by an election. Let us appeal to the
people. This is one of the most important
issues before this House in 20 years, so let
us have it settled; let us go directly to the
people on this specific issue.
Mr. Singer: I am waiting for the hon.
Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker: I have the Minister's name
here on my list as the last speaker.
Mr. Singer: I am waiting for the hon.
Minister of Health. If he does not wish
to speak I will not speak.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, are we going
to go through with this childish jockeying?
The Whips agreed on lists of speakers. As
a matter of fact, I was supposed to have
been the second last speaker and I was
changed to the third last speaker. It seemed
reasonable to me that the larger parties
should have a chance after me; and I would
say on the same basis that the government
surely should have the opportunity to wind
up the debate. We have been through this
childishness before. I suggest to the hon.
member for Downsview that it does not really
gain him any tactical advantage. If he wants
to speak I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
he should proceed to speak now.
Mr. Speaker: The Whips arranged the
speaking order and, according to my list,
the member for Downsview follows the mem-
ber who has just spoken, and then the Min-
ister is to wind up the debate.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the
point of order. I am quite prepared not to
participate in this debate unless a Cabinet
Minister has spoken.
Mr. Bryden: I move the previous question.
Mr. S. Lewis: I second the motion.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, speaking on a point of order. The
Whips did agree on this list, and for the
364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
f rst time probably in my life I am in com-
plete accord with the hon. member for
Woodbine.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I made a mo-
tion which I believe is in order.
Mr. A. II. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, getting a piece in here; on a point
of order, everybody is getting a piece in here.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no point of
order is in twice.
Mr. Cowling: Well, I will speak to the
motion. Speaking to the motion, as much as
I like to agree with the hon. member for
Downsview, I think he is quite within his
rights it he wants to speak at any time in the
debate, whether it has been prearranged or
not, he can do so. If he wants to sit tight and
let someone else speak I think that is his
privilege as a member; and if he cares
to speak then or not to speak I think he has
a perfect right to do so. That would be my
thought, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bryden: Well, if I may comment on this
so-called point of order, Mr. Speaker, it now
appears—
Mr. Cowling: I was not speaking on a point
of order; I was speaking to your motion.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I do not think the motion
is debatable. However, I will not make a
point of that. I would point out that there are
apparently now no speakers prepared to speak
on the motion before the House, so the only
reasonable thing is to put the question, and
I submit that we should put it immediately.
Mr. Speaker: We have a motion before the
House by the member for Woodbine that
the question be now put. All those in favour?
All those opposed? I declare the nays have it.
(-..II in the members.
As' inai
proposed
nay
1 1 1 . i
y as are in favour of the motion
by the member for Woodbine
As many as are opposed, will please
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
■ as are in favour of the motion will
please rise.
As niiinv as are
AYES
Bryden
Davison
Freeman
Gisborn
Lewis
(Searborough West)
MacDonald
Henwick— 7.
>pposed will please rise.
NAYS
Allan
Apps
Auld
Bales
Beckett
Hen
Buyer
Braithwaite
AYES NAYS
Brunelle
Bukator
Connell
Cowling
Davis
Downer
Dymond
Edwards
Evans
Gaunt
Gomme
Grossman
Hamilton
Harris
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Scarborough East)
Hodgson
(Victoria)
Kerr
Knox
Letherby
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Newman
Nixon
Noden
Olde
Oliver
Paterson
Pittock
Price
Racine
Randall
Reilly
Renter
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Bowntree
Sandercock
Sargent
Simonett
Singer
Smith
Soph a
S pence
Spooner
Thompson
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Walker
Ward rope
Whicher
White
Whitney
Wishart
Worton
Yaremko— 67.
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
365
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
""ayes" are 7, the "nays" are 67.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. White: May I point out to the hon.
members of the House, sir, that this tactic is
obstructionist in the extreme; and, more than
that, it destroys the trust that we Whips have
in one another in arriving at lists and other
arrangements for the orderly carrying out of
the business of the province in this Legis-
ture. If this type of tactic were adopted with
some frequency, and if the mutual trust that
has been developed between the Whips is
thereby destroyed, it can only be to the
detriment of the status of this Legislature and
it can only be to the detriment of the people
of this province.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, speaking on a
point of order, may I say, sir, that there are
several principles attached to the point of
order. I think the first thing is that a bill is
introduced by a Minister with absolutely
no explanation for the Opposition to debate
on, while the executive council sits quietly
and silently wanting us to debate in a
vacuum. That is the first point.
The second point, sir, is that because of
this lack of Cabinet Ministers to participate
in the debate, we decided that we would hold
back one of our members and may I say
that if it is going to be based on the note
which We have here from the government
Whip on the selection of speakers, which
was sent to my hon. friend from Downsview,
it says: "Who is next?" and underneath:
"Venn Singer." Then at the end it has— and
this is the list of speakers he has: Sopha,
Yakabuski, Lewis, Bales, Bryden and, at the
same level, Singer, Dymond—
Mr. White: On a point of personal privi-
lege, sir-
Mr. Speaker: No, it must be a point of
order.
Mr. Thompson: —so that we, sir, were
maintaining very firmly what we were going
to do: We were waiting for the hon. Minister
responsible for the bill to give some state-
ment so that after that we would be able
to make some comment with greater knowl-
edge. That is a basic principle for intelligent
debate. As well as that, from the point of
view of organization of the Whips, we never
stated that our member, the hon. member
for Downsview, would concede to not come
at the end of this debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, speaking on
a point of order. We have already expressed
our condemnation of a procedure in which
no member of the Cabinet will speak to the
principle of a bill. Indeed the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West dealt with it in
very forthright and forceful terms. That
is not the issue at stake at the moment. The
issue at stake at the moment is that, in
accordance with the procedures in this House,
the Whips agreed on a procedure for speakers
and the Liberal Party has now repudiated
its own Whip.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are in the
position where henceforth we can place no
confidence in agreements that are made; and
therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position
to say to you that henceforth we are not
going to be bound by any agreement, if this
is the kind of conduct that is going to emerge.
The government Whip is correct. This is
going to introduce chaos. This party has
botched the debate so far, and now it wants
to reduce it to chaos.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, being the subject
of this debate on order, let me speak to a
point of order. Point number one, there was
no such agreement. There was a list of
speakers from the various parties. Point num-
ber two, I sat in my place prepared to give
up my opportunity to speak unless at least
one Cabinet Minister spoke. If they all
choose to sit, they can sit until the debate is
over, and I will not rise either. They have
got as many as they want; they have got
77, we only have 23, and they can run as
many speakers as they want. Surely from
among that whole gathering they can produce
two or three or five Cabinet Ministers
to justify their stand.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important point of
principle and on this point of order there was
no such an agreement. I refuse to accept the
rather ridiculous statement that emanated
from the hon. member for London South and
came from him in a form of arrogance that
has typified his role in this House.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): May
I just speak to this point of order?
I think in the first place it is fair to say
that we will direct the debating from this
side of the House and the Opposition
members direct it from their side; if they
wish to make any comment about it, that is
their privilege. This debate is not complete
and the hon. Minister has every right to speak
last if he feels so inclined.
Hon. members will recall that on first read-
ing—and this is a principle developed in this
366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House at the request of the Opposition— if
a Minister introduces a bill and does not
give a full explanation of it on first read-
ing, the first thing is that somebody in the
Opposition stands up and says, "Are you
going to introduce this and not tell us what
it is all about?"
On first reading the hon. Minister came in
and he set out very clearly the principles in
this bill. He went through the bill com-
pletely and related what the principles in it
were. Had he spoken first on second reading,
no doubt he would have said precisely the
same thing as he said on first reading.
This is a principle, as I say, that was devel-
oped in this House at the request of the
Opposition and it is that on first reading
the Minister makes a full statement on the
bill. This is what he did. Having done that,
I think that his procedure, if I have to justify
what the government is doing, is quite cor-
rect. His position is there, and then he waits
—and he has the right, as he would have in
any Parliament, and nobody in this House
can deny the right of the Minister who
introduces the bill to be the final speaker.
It is my intention to enter this debate my-
self. However, we do not have to list the
order of our government debaters; we have
given the list that was there.
I think the point of order concerning the
relationship of the Whips speaks for itself and
I will have no comment about that. But I
will justify the position.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. There seem to be rules to govern any
occasion when the government wants to take
over and arbitrarily rule the affairs of this
House. Last year when the predecessor of
this bill was on, the same sort of discussion
took place. The way the debate ran was that
eventually the hon. Minister of Health was
shamed into taking part, then there was an
Opposition statement and then the hon. Prime
Minister got into it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, surely to good-
ness if this bill is worth defending, we have
a right to hear from a Cabinet Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister wish to
speak to the point of order?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I wish to speak on the
point of order, sir. The hon. member who has
just spoken imputes to me ulterior motives.
I was not shamed into speaking on my bill.
I am proud of very piece of legislation I have
brought into this House and I would never
be shamed into speaking on it at all. I will
tell this House, sir, through you, that when
my time comes, I will explain why I have
followed the tactic I have in this present
case.
Mr. Speaker: It has been the practice of
this House that Whips have always arranged
the speaking order and until this time the
House has always followed the order that has
been submitted to the Speaker. The list
which has been submitted to me indicates
the member for Downsview would follow the
member for Woodbine and then the debate
was to be concluded by the Minister.
I must say this, that the rules do set up
that a mover of any motion can speak either
at the beginning of the motion that he has
moved or he can speak at the end of an
ancillary motion, such as the moving the sec-
ond reading of a bill.
In the British House, the custom has been,
as I have read on many an occasion, that
sometimes the Minister, at the beginning of
moving second reading of the bill, simply tips
his hat, which is the assent to the Speaker
that he has moved second reading of the
bill and then he may or may not conclude
with a speech at the end of the bill.
It has always been my thoughts that the
Minister had the right to conclude the de-
bate on second reading, or even the third
reading, if any debate did take place on a
bill at that time which he had presented to
the House.
In view of that, the debate is open and I
shall rule that if the Minister now starts to
debate the bill, that will be the concluding
debate on this bill.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on
that ruling. I would like your authority for
saying that if the hon. Minister speaks, there
can be no speeches further than that, if he
speaks at the end of the debate. I think this
is a most important ruling, which in effect, if
this ruling is correct, means it is closure.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The chair is ready for a
speaker on this debate.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we have
gone through, as usual, a great deal of sound
and fury and we have heard some learned
arguments and some ridiculous arguments.
We have witnessed some extremely childish
behaviour, sir, and I say that in all kindness.
Mr. Sopha: Is the hon. Minister looking at
anybody?
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
367
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I am looking at
the Speaker. Yes, sir, we have seen some
very childish behaviour in the last few
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I said to you a few minutes
ago, sir, I would tell you why I had adopted
this tactic. When Bill No. 163 was intro-
duced in 1963, the then leader of the
official Opposition jumped out of his seat
when the hon. Prime Minister moved second
reading, before I had a chance to get on my
feet, and I am not usually accused of being
slow. But before I had time, sir, to get on
my feet, he was up.
When I moved second reading of Bill No.
136 last year, the same action was followed
by the present hon. leader of the Opposition,
sir. They jumped out of their seat and made
one think of that missile which recently the
United States fired, I think they called it the
Atlas Agena. You will remember, sir, that
that is the one that flopped like a lead balloon.
According to my understanding of parlia-
mentary procedure, and I am delighted to
hear you from the depths of your knowledge
and experience confirm this, the mover of
a bill— or the mover on second reading of his
bill has the right, if he so chooses, to speak
last and this was what I had expected to do.
It is quite impossible, sir, to—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sopha: What is he complaining about
the hon. leader of the Opposition standing
up for then?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I was
complaining— I thought it was patently clear
—I was complaining because there have been
so many complaints emanating from those
two little groups that I had not yet spoken.
Now it is impossible, sir, to cover the
broad range of topics that have been injected
into this bill. Never, in the 11 years I have
sat in this Legislature do I believe I have
heard the principles of a bill so loosely in-
terpreted as has been the case in this Bill
No. 6 now before the House. Indeed, we
have taken the opportunity-
Mr. Thompson: You said that last year.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —in this debate, sir,
to cover practically every topic that has any
faint relationship to health whatsoever.
We have talked about the Ontario medical
association. We have talked about the
college of physicians and surgeons. We have
talked about the powers of licensing. We
have listened to talk about all these things.
We have listened to talk about the rigidity
of the examinations and about the reasons
for turning down this and that applicant for
licence to practice. We have talked about all
kinds of things. The churches have been in-
jected into it.
Mr. Sopha: By a Tory; by a Tory.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The only thing I have
not heard them talking about is the Lions
Club.
Just this afternoon, sir, the hon. member
for Woodbine got tremendously upset be-
cause I, an Aberdonian was turning down
$110 million. We are not turning down $110
million. We have not even seen the colour
of the federal government's money yet. And
we have not heard too much about it, other
than a general type of proposal that was
made to the Prime Ministers of the provinces
last July.
As I have stated in this House and as is
obviously patent in this Bill No. 6, there is
no relationship whatsoever between this bill
and the proposals put before the provincial
Prime Ministers by the Prime Minister of
Canada. This bill is an entirely different
matter, but I hope to point out that the dire
prophecies that the hon. members opposite
have put forward concerning it cannot come
to pass.
Then another member of the socialist
group, I believe the hon. member for York-
view (Mr. Young), said yesterday in his boom-
ing pulpit voice, all Canada wants this. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think that
was hardly consistent with fact and those two
little groups are always talking about con-
sistency.
Indeed, I can recall— is it two elections, or
is it three federal elections ago— the only
party which put forward in the Dominion
election Medicare as a plank in the platform-
Mr. Thompson: The Liberal Party.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It was not the Liberal
Party— the Liberal Party put it forward in
1919— it was Tommy Douglas of the socialist
party in Canada. And what happened to
him? Mr. Speaker, if I recall rightly, he was
defeated in his own riding; he the Prime
Minister of the province, who had repre-
sented his people in that riding all of his
20-odd years in political life. He was de-
feated in his own riding and his party and
368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Dominion of Canada sent back the puny
little few, as they always have done.
Mr. Thompson: Well, he had a lot of other
things that were wrong.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Now, Mr. Speaker, if
this is consistent— the beliefs of these few
people here that all Canada wants this— then
I do not understand what consistency is.
Mr. MacDonald: Seventy-eight per cent
wanted it in 1945.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: You know, as I listened
to the socialist members this afternoon, I
could not escape the feeling that they are
very anxious to keep us in power and this is
very nice to know, because I know that a lot
of the people whom they think vote for them,
vote for me. But it would seem to me, sir,
that they are most anxious to keep this party
in power and this is most pleasing. If they
are so sure we are wrong, sir, then why do
they not defeat ns and then they would have
the opportunity to put their philosophies into
work?
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister should
say what the principle of the bill is before
he finishes.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am coming to the
principles of the bill, but I am claiming the
same poetic or political license, or parliamen-
tary license, sir, that you have been indulgent
enough to extend to them over the last two
or three days.
As I stated, sir, at the outset, they have
completely lost sight of the bill. The hon.
member for Riverdale indulged in the great-
est flight of fancy I ever heard. I am quite
certain he has been reading Ian Fleming,
007. Perhaps he is now 007V2, I am not sure.
He indulged in great flights of fancy and in
conjecture and in speculation about what has
happened, what is happening and what will
happen.
They have expressed fears. The hon. leader
of the Opposition was dreadfully fearful and
so suspicious, sir. Indeed, when he spoke
about my being schizoid, I got the opinion
because of his persecution and suspicion com-
plex, that he was suffering from paranoia.
Mr. Thompson: I think the hon. Minister
was catatonic.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Atomic. And then we
were told by the hon. member for Woodbine
about the province of Saskatchewan— I am
sorry he has left his seat- and the dynamic
programme for the 20th century that was
originated there. But Mr. Speaker, it did not
become successful. It really hurts me to say
this— but I must give credit where credit is
due— that it took a Grit government to make
the plan successful. It took a Grit govern-
ment in Saskatchewan to put the province on
the rollers to success. The economy of
Saskatchewan has boomed since. That is the
last kindly thing I am going to say about the
Liberals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get gack to—
Mr. MacDonald: The people will put it to
pasture next year.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am sorry, I must not
look directly at the hon. member.
In trying to get back to the principles of
the bill, sir, which are clear-cut and quite
readily understood, as I suggested the other
day — and the hon. member for Sudbury
reminded me that I occasionally use biblical
terms— the principles are so simple that a
wayfaring man, even though he be a fool,
may not err therein. I still maintain the
same. The principles are clear-cut and simple
and easily understood.
But I want to divide my presentation into
two parts. First I want to deal specifically
with the amendments to Bill 136 and then I
shall try to sort out, although this will be very
difficult, the various points raised by the hon.
members during the debate.
The prime purpose for Bill No. 136, as
was clearly outlined in this House a year ago
by the hon. Prime Minister and by myself,
was to ensure that through the Ontario medi-
cal services insurance plan adequate medical
care will be available to all the people of
Ontario wherever they reside, whatever the
state of their health and whatever their
financial status or resources may be.
To achieve this primary objective we intro-
duced these amendments to Bill No. 136. All
of these amendments, we are quite convinced
in our mind, will further enhance our ability
to provide a medical services insurance plan
for all of the residents of Ontario, at reason-
able cost and covering a comprehensive range
of physicians' services.
The amendments to Bill No. 136 fit into
three categories. I shall try to expalin to this
House why they are proposed.
First of all, looking at the extent of the
population covered, you will recall, sir, that
in the original bill a division of The Depart-
ment of Health was to be created to provide
a standard medical services insurance con-
tract which was to be available to people
receiving benefits under the various social
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
369
assistance Acts, and this group would auto-
matically be covered and would not be re-
quired to pay any premium.
Then it was proposed that persons with
income not sufficient to be subject to income
tax will also be eligible for coverage at no
cost to them; all they will have to do is apply
to the division for a contract. They will
differ somewhat from the first group in that
we already have the first group on record and
it will simply be a matter of receiving those
records from The Department of Public Wel-
fare and issuing a contract to those people.
May I inject here, sir, a misapprehension,
and I am bound to say in a little sadness that
I think that this is a deliberate misinterpreta-
tion or misrepresentation, because the hon.
members who speak about these people who
are in receipt of social assistance now getting
medical services coverage, know perfectly
well this is not right. They are covered
under the present plan for a minimum of
medical services coverage. It provides the
doctors' services in the home or in the office
only— it provides nothing else. It was never
intended to be and it was never represented
as a comprehensive coverage.
And then partial support will be provided
for other groups in low income categories,
and the amount of assistance will be noted
later, and indeed it is already on the record,
Mr. Speaker.
In addition to this, because of further
study— and I am very sorry here, Mr. Speaker,
that I have to disillusion these hon. members
over here, because while I am quite prepared
to admit that they did say a great deal about
the things that we have embodied in our bill,
I cannot in honesty, sir, leave them dreaming
that they were responsible for the changes.
I would like to say to you that when my
own people studied this matter of medical
services insurance I think they have studied
—indeed I am sure they have studied— every
conceivable plan, every plan that is in oper-
ation in any nation, in any state in this
whole world. And indeed they themselves
conceived many plans.
In addition to this I can name many hon.
members on this side of the House, sir, who
put forward the proposals which are em-
bodied in the bill. I suppose the immediate
reaction will be: Well, why did you not
listen to them? Mr. Speaker, we did last
year what we believed the province could
do.
We believe we did what we stated at
that time and what I still believe to be true
in the light of our experience at that time,
we put forward what we believed was a
good first step. We now see that we can go
further, we can take a bigger step. I think
you will recall, and every hon. member in
this House will recall, that at no time has
this party ever suggested that our proposal
was the final or the perfect plan. And we
will not suggest that even when we have the
fully rounded programme of which so many
of the hon. members opposite speak.
Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these
socialists do not have a corner on the milk
of human kindness, and I often have had
occasion to say this before. We are con-
cerned about people and about their welfare.
I think more than that we are imbued with
a far deeper sense of responsibility because
we know from experience, past and present,
that we have the responsibility of making
these provisions and being sure that they
will work and being sure that they are good
and that they are sound.
It is awfully easy to talk, sir, and I think
you will find it recorded in Hansard that I
have said time and time again that these hon.
friends of ours can talk as much as they like
about these things because they know that
within the span of most of us here they will
never be called upon to assume the respon-
sibility to do it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the—
Mr. MacDonald: Famous last words!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: After the Oshawa deal
I will be using those words a lot longer.
The hon. member did me a great deal of
good down there.
One of the chief amendments we have
made in this bill then, is that the government
now proposes to make the standard medical
services insurance contract available on a
voluntary basis to all residents on an indi-
vidual and family basis. These changes will
mean that private carriers will not parti-
cipate in the government plan but will con-
tinue to provide coverage for groups and
any individual who elects to join the private
carrier.
We believe now that medical services in-
surance will be universally available to all
of the people of Ontario, and therefore cer-
tain of the amendments which are placed
before this House, repeal or amend those
sections of the Act referring to private
carriers or to the corporation. They would no
longer provide insurance within the terms of
the Act.
It is our intention to provide a plan which
provides benefits covering practically all
370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
services provided by physicians. It has been
decided to remove the limitations originally
contained in the benefits set out in schedule
A of the original Act.
In addition, benefits have been extended
to provide payments under certain circum-
stances to dentists for certain surgical pro-
cedures when they are carried out in a
hospital. These procedures have been
identified by the Royal college of dental
surgeons and the college of physicians and
surgeons as procedures which might be per-
formed either by a dental surgeon or a
physician.
With these changes exclusions will now
be limited to two circumstances only. Physi-
cians' services are already provided under
certain federal, provincial or other enact-
ments such as national defence, The Work-
men's Compensation Act. In appropriate
circumstances individuals will receive benefits
under these other Acts rather than through
the Ontario medical services insurance plan.
This does not represent a gap, it just avoids
duplicate payment.
Certain limited services are excluded from
the plan including examination for the
purposes of application for insurance, for
employment, for admission to a school or
university, camp or association; group in-
oculations, examinations of the eyes by re-
fraction.
May I inject here sir, because the hon.
member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) was
concerned about this, it is no oversight nor
is it any deliberate discrimination whatso-
ever, it was decided, as I explained last
year, that because of the very great number
of complexities and difficulties in this field
at this time we were not providing as a
benefit examination of the eyes by refraction,
but this does not mean that the optometrists
are excluded for some sinister or peculiar
reason. The optometrists have been told very
clearly on many occasions, both by myself
and by the hon. Prime Minister why they
were being left out at this time, and the
same tiling goes for chiropractors. It is not
that wo have anything against them, or that
there is any discrimination; it is simply be-
cause of the fact that the benefits are not
included as yet.
Let me remind the hon. members, sir,
when they are talking about all of these
things, and in the same breath talking about
the federal proposal or the federal plan:
There is no federal plan. There cannot be a
federal plan, because health is a provincial
responsibility under the Constitution of this
nation. But in the federal proposal, sir, it
is specifically stated, and it was emphasized
by the Prime Minister of the nation, that it
covered all physicians' services. The one
other exclusion is services for which no
charge would be made in the absence of
insurance. That would apply to cases in an
institution, where the medical care is pro-
vided, the doctor being paid on a salary
basis.
Mr. Thompson: Does that include mental
hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not at the present
time, but I hope to say something more about
them later on.
Mr. Thompson: In this debate?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: In this debate.
It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, to remove the
special waiting period for maternity benefits,
and we do this with a great deal of hesitation
because we still believe that this is a costly
service and might well cause us a little bit of
difficulty.
Mr. Speaker: I do not like to interrupt the
Minister but I take it that he has a con-
siderable amount of material that he wishes
to give us yet.
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves the adjournment
of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow I would like to continue
with this debate and then I would like to go
to Order No. 1, the adjourned debate on the
amendment to the amendment to the motion
for an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) would tell us when he intends
to proceed to the committee stage of this bill.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I
will have to wait until it receives second
reading, but I will give the hon. members
notice. It will be my intention to proceed
rather rapidly, but I will give the hon. mem-
ber notice so that he will know beforehand
when we are going to proceed. In other
words, it will not go into the committee
stage immediately after we complete second
reading.
FEBRUARY 9, 1966
371
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon.
Prime Minister if there will be a private
members' period tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, I thought I made
it clear that we will deal with the private
members' resolutions and bills on Tuesdays
and Thursdays. That will come; and then, of
course, there is a night session; and, while I
am on my feet, let me say we will meet every
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday night, and
we will set 10.30 p.m. as a target for com-
pletion of these night sittings. I do not want
rigidity on this because sometimes, as the
hon. members know, the debate just natur-
ally continues longer, but I would like to sit
on a regular three-nights-a-week basis and
attempt to be finished at 10.30.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Will we start at two o'clock?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, three o'clock.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 14
ONTARIO
Hegialature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 10, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 10, I960
Presenting reports, Mr. Yaremko 378
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, on second reading,
continued 385
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Singer, agreed to 397
On notice of motion No. 5, Mr. Nixon, Mr. L. M. Hodgson, Mr. Bryden 397
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Trotter, agreed to 407
Recess, 6 o'clock 407
Erratum 407
375
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have, as
guests in the Legislature today in the west
gallery, students from St. Peter's separate
school, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's first report which was
read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Prl2, An Act respecting Hunting-
ton University;
Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Charlotteville;
Bill No. Pr23, An Act respecting the town
of Thorold.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr24, An Act respecting the Gana-
noque high school district.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to make a report to the hon. mem-
bers of this House with respect to the labour-
management dispute at the Oshawa Times. I
have just come from a meeting where a
memorandum of agreement was signed by
both parties at about a quarter to three this
afternoon.
This agreement will be taken to the mem-
bership of the guild later today and, until it
is ratified, no statement will be made by the
parties with respect to the terms of the
settlement.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): If I could add to the hon. Minister
of Labour's statement, I would like to say
Thursday, February 10, 1966
that, from our side, we feel a sense of relief
that negotiations are now taking place; and
it looks as though it may be the end of the
strike.
But I would like to say sir, that on this—
Mr. Speaker: Order! There can be no com-
ments on ministerial statements. You can ask
the Minister a question; if he cares to answer
it is all right but the member cannot make a
statement himself.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask a question of
the hon. Minister then, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but you cannot make
statements yourself.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister if we could have a guarantee that, when
any group, big labour or big business, takes
it on its own right to abuse the law of the
land, even though we may consider it is a
bad law, they must recognize they must keep
to law and order; and recognize that the prec-
edent set by having this strike settled is not
a precedent, which is going to mean that we
could have lawlessness in our society?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, the posi-
tion of the government has been stated by
the hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) in
this House during this current week.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to
a question which was addressed to me yester-
day when, regretfully, I was unable to be in
my seat.
The question asked by the hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) was: In view of the
latest in a series of fatal accidents at the inter-
section of Highways 5, 24 and 99, what is
The Department of Highways prepared to do
to eliminate the serious safety hazards at this
point?
The answer is that, while it has been estab-
lished that the latest in the series of fatal
accidents referred to by the hon. member
was the result of driver failure— in that the
driver of the vehicle on Highway 5 failed to
observe the stop condition, in spite of the fact
376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that a flashing beacon is operating on the
stop sign at this location— nonetheless I share
the concern of the hon. member, and I have
directed that a further and even more inten-
sive examination of the intersection be under-
taken. All aspects, including signs, protective
and warning devices, channelization, pave-
ment markings, sight distance factors, and so
on, will be gone into thoroughly by the ap-
propriate people in The Department of High-
ways.
I have also requested the assistance of the
hon. Attorney General in making available
to us traffic safety officers from the Ontario
provincial police for the purpose of our
investigation; and the good offices of the hon.
member who is particularly familiar with the
intersection, and who helped with the pre-
vious investigation, are again solicited.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question to ask of the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), of which I have
already given him notice.
The question is as follows: Could the hon.
Provincial Treasurer inform this House what
progress the civil service commission has
made in negotiating increased wages for the
highway employees in Essex, Kent and
Lambton?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I have been informed that, by
mutual agreement— that is, by agreement of
the management side, the civil service com-
mission, and the civil service association—
this matter will be placed on the agenda of
the joint council and will be discussed at a
meeting to be held on Monday next, that is
February 14.
Mr. Spence: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? Could the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer give us some assurance that
this matter will be settled within a few days?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
quite sure that the hon. member understands
that, when wages are being negotiated, I am
not able to look into a crystal ball and assure
the hon. member at what time a settlement
will be reached. I can only assure him that
everything that can be done is being done
to hasten the negotiations.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner).
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
in reference to Reeve James Service's brief
to the provincial government regarding a
code of ethics for municipal officials and
employees? Does he intend to take action
this session with this regulation?
Question 2: If so, would it be for all
municipalities in Ontario?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the ques-
tion of the hon. member I am not aware
whether or not Reeve Service has communi-
cated with the hon. Prime Minister of the
province (Mr. Robarts), in connection with
this matter. But I can say this: The Minister
of Municipal Affairs has not received a brief
from Reeve Service regarding a code of
ethics for municipal officials and employees.
Therefore, being unaware of the contents of
the brief, I am unable to comment at this
time.
However, in the hope that I might be
of greater assistance to the hon. member in
answering his question, I had a member of
my staff communicate with the office of his
worship, the reeve, but unfortunately that
person could not reach the reeve. However,
a person at the reeve's office advised the
member of my staff that the reeve's code of
ethics has not been circulated, and will not
be circulated, until it has been submitted to
the board of control and the council of the
township of North York.
In light of this answer, therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I am unable to make any further
comments with respect to part 2 of the ques-
tion of the hon. member.
Mr. Bukator: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker, if I may? Would it not be good
business for the hon. Minister to consider
such a code for all municipalities in the
province? And if so, would he not consider
it in this session?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I would
bring to the attention of the hon. member
that there is already a section of The Muni-
cipal Act dealing with this very important
matter. And furthermore, I believe I did
make a statement during this present session
of the Legislature that parts of The Munici-
pal Act were being— or rather, amendments
were being— studied in light of the report
of the legislative committee which reported
towards the end of the last session; and that
it was my hope that part 2 of The Municipal
Act, which deals with this question of conflict
of interest and relevant matters, would no
doubt be coming to the House for amend-
ment later on during this session.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
377
Mr. Speaker: I would like to finish ques-
tions before any points of order. The member
for Riverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question in two parts for the hon.
Attorney General.
In light of the statement by the hon.
Minister of Labour, and the denials by the
hon. Attorney General yesterday of state-
ments attributed to him, will he now advise
the House if there is any need to his knowl-
edge, or in his opinion, for him to consider
intervention in Oshawa by the Ontario pro-
vincial police to maintain public order? And,
second, did any discussion take place at the
meeting on February 7 about the place of
injunctions in labour disputes in Ontario?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made
by my colleague, the hon. Minister of
Labour, and also in light of the fact that
this question is framed as a request for an
opinion, I would advise the hon. member that
I do not feel I should be expressing opinions
at this time.
He does ask as to my knowledge, and I
would simply say this: I have not received
any request from the head of the munici-
pality, the mayor of Oshawa, for assistance.
I think I have previously informed this
House that I met the mayor some few days
ago and assured him that if a request for
assistance was received, it would be at once
forthcoming, for the maintenance of law and
order.
The answer to the second part of the ques-
tion is "No."
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Attorney General permit a supplementary
question?
Will the hon. Attorney General remove
the pressure of the threat of intervention by
the Ontario provincial police from the possi-
ble ratification of the memorandum of agree-
ment announced by the hon. Minister of
Labour, by assuring the House, the citizens
of Oshawa and the people of Ontario that
so long as the citizens of Oshawa continue
to conduct themselves in the same peaceful
manner as they have since the dispute
began—
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the member
is out of order on his supplementary ques-
tion; as he is making a statement with it;
and as any question is not supposed to ex-
press an opinion or be argumentative in any
way, I think perhaps the same applies to
supplementary questions. I am of the opin-
ion that the supplementary question goes
beyond the form that a question should take.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Prime Minister,
notice of which has been given. The ques-
tion is in two parts:
Did the provincial government make rep-
resentation to the federal board of transport
commissioners when hearings were held by
them in regard to the cancellation of the
CPR Dominion?
And second, in the light of the board of
transport commissioners' statement, does the
government intend to make representations
to the federal Minister of Transport?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in each case the answer to the
question is "No."
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Prime Minister allow a supplementary ques-
tion?
Does this indicate that the government is
in accord with the decision of the board of
transport commissioners?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it does not
so indicate. As far as this government is
concerned, the whole question of this trans-
continental train is purely a matter for the
federal government. There are a great many
elements to be taken into consideration in
regard to service in other parts of the
country and it was the feeling of this gov-
ernment that the board of transport com-
missioners might very well deal with this
problem in the national context in which it
exists, and therefore we did not make any
representations.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile).
Could the hon. Minister inform this House
what steps the government will take to help
alleviate the problems existing regarding the
budgeting for child welfare in Metropolitan
Toronto?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that
the metropolitan children's aid society nor
the Catholic children's aid society are finding
any financial difficulties in maintaining their
programmes. I have no advice as to whether
the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto will
accept the budgets proposed by these
societies. It would appear that from January
378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1 of this year the province will be assuming
67 per cent of the total cost of child welfare
in Metropolitan Toronto as compared with
slightly over 40 per cent in former years.
As I have previously indicated, the province
will continue to advance its share of children's
aid budget.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a supplementary question?
Could he advise this House whether other
children's aid societies have encountered the
same problem as the Toronto society?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The answer is "No," Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond).
Does the hon. Minister consider that the
action of the medical officer of health in
Pittsburgh township, in the Kingston area, is
justified in instructing milk receiving plants
to refrain from picking up milk from those
farm families subject to quarantine because
of scarlet fever among school age children?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to pass
judgment on the actions of the medical officer
of health. He is charged with certain respon-
sibilities embodying concern for all aspects of
the public health so long as he works within
The Public Health Act. I can say that under
certain stated conditions, however, milk may
be removed from any premises on which a
carrier, patient or contact of scarlet fever and
other diseases named in the communicable
disease regulations resides.
These are briefly: (1) That the medical
officer of health prescribes the precautions
to be taken by the carrier, patient or contact
to prevent the spread of the disease and is
satisfied that the precautions will be observed;
(2) That the milk will be delivered to a dairy
which also includes a creamery and pasteuri-
zation plant; (3) That the operator of the
dairy undertakes to pasteurize all the milk,
or heat it to a temperature of 161 degrees
Fahrenheit for not less than 16 seconds and
cool it immediately thereafter to a temperature
not higher than 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if I might ask a supplementary ques-
tion.
Would the hon. Minister look into the
matter, because in neighbouring counties
delivery is permitted; and second, even within
this township there is an inconsistency in
that delivery is permitted if the child happens
to be below school age?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
already asked that a thorough investigation be
carried out and that we get the specific
reasons why this action was taken.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): Mr.
Speaker, I beg leave to present to the House
the following reports:
1. The annual report of The Department
of Highways for the fiscal year ending 31st
March, 1965.
2. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission
of Ontario 1964 annual report.
Mr. Farquhar: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order, and I refer to some implica-
tions made last night to the effect there is
some confusion and a lack of proper under-
standing between Whips.
I would like to take exception to any such
references. There was no misunderstanding.
As the Whip of my party, I have always sub-
mitted the order of our speakers and I have
always held to this unless there was some
special circumstance which I had previously
discussed and clarified with the government
Whip. As long as I am Whip, this will always
be the situation.
This order was followed by my party in
this particular debate. The hon. member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer) was the last speaker
for my party and he made the decision that
he would only speak if a Cabinet Minister
preceded him, which was his privilege.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Farquhar: My responsibility is to
provide the government with the order of
speakers from my party and it is the gov-
ernment's responsibility to then provide their
order of speakers. I have kept faith with
that and I am sure the government Whip
knows that has been the case in every circum-
stance so far.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): May I ask the
hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? May
I ask the hon. member who has just spoken
if he advised the other Whips of the decision
unilaterally made by the hon. member for
Downsview that he would deign to sneak only
if a Cabinet Minister preceded him? Did
the other Whips know about this? If so,
I have something to take up with my own
Whip, because he did not tell me anything
about it.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That was
my decision.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
379
Mr. Bryden: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that arrangements are practically impossible
if there are mental reservations about them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Are there any other points
of order on the subject? If so, I would like
them expressed now, since it has been
opened.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, let me join in
this just for a moment on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: On a point or order?
Mr. Singer: Yes, on a point of order.
Point No. 1: I confirm completely what the
hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin has
said.
I would say to this House, sir, that if he
made a commitment in my name, which I
knew about or which I did not know about,
I have sufficient faith in the hon. member
for Algoma-Manitoulin that I would abide
by that commitment. In this case, the only
commitment that was made was that I was
one of the speakers in the order given for
our party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in case there is any
doubt in the minds of some of the hon.
members on the government side, let me
quote just a phrase or two spoken by the
hon. Prime Minister yesterday, which con-
firms this position. After saying: "It is my
intention to enter this debate myself"— and
the hon. Prime Minister said that yesterday
afternoon— he said, "We do not have to list
the order of government debaters. We gave
you the list that was there."
That is the point! Now, Mr. Speaker, if
it applies to the government, and who better
could be an authority for the government
than the hon. Prime Minister, surely it
applies to every member of this House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If I may speak to this
point of order, my intent in making that
remark was simply this, we would not list
whether a Cabinet Minister or a non-
Cabinet Minister would be the next speaker.
All we do from this side of the House is
list those members who are going to speak
and the order in which they are going to
speak.
We do not say to hon. members opposite,
"We want to hear from the member over
there, before we will follow, or the mem-
ber over here." We just list members from
our side of the House who are going to
speak; and this is what I meant by that re-
mark. It is not up to us to confer with
the Opposition in deciding on the basis of
where a member is from or what posiT
tion he may hold, when he speaks in the
debate. We just give them a list of members
as we choose them, in the order in which
they will enter the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, last night before the hon. Minister
of Health began to speak you ruled that he
would be the last speaker in the debate.
Quite frankly, I hoped that this ruling would
stand without having to be subject to re-
vision because of pressures in the House.
However, Mr. Speaker, if for whatever
reason this debate is going to be open now,
once again I have to inform you that we
have two further speakers to take part in
the debate. We are willing to abide by your
ruling if your ruling remains, but if it is not
going to stand I am hereby informing you
that we have two further speakers. Further-
more, I think it is only fair that we should
know how many more speakers there are
going to be, and from which party, and that
our two speakers will then be put in an
appropriate order instead of being bunched
at one point.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order I would like to state very emphatic-
ally that if you suggested, which I think you
did last night, that a Minister, in the
introduction of a motion or a bill, is the last
speaker, and the member of the socialist
party said that he would concur with that,
to me this would be one of the most
dangerous rulings that you could make. I
could see a situation where a Minister
may introduce a bill, one of the government
members may get up and speak on it and
then the Minister might speak next and close
off all debate and stifle the Opposition. And
for that reason, sir-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: That could happen under
the ruling which you are suggesting. We are
going to stand, sir, on guard for the rights
of the Opposition if others would deny us
that right.
Mr. MacDonald: There are ten Opposition
speakers in the debate.
Mr. Speaker: I have expressed an opinion
on the particular debate that took place
yesterday. I expressed my opinion on that
particular debate.
Now if everyone has raised the points of
order that they wish to raise, I would like
to-
380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if you are going
to make a ruling-
Mr. Speaker: Do not anticipate what I am
going to say, because I had occasion to look
at the transcript of Hansard this morning and
I spent some time on our rules, as well as the
authorities to which you refer, and I am
going to make this statement now.
As the mover of an order of the day, such
as a motion for second reading of a bill
which is an ancillary motion and not a sub-
stantive motion, unlike the mover of a
substantive motion the mover may only speak
once, it is the custom and practice of the
House that he may choose his time to speak.
That is, he may speak at the time he moves
the order or may simply indicate that he
moves second reading and reserve his speech
for a later stage of the debate. If you look at
May, 17th edition, page 446, this is the way
May reads:
The only exception to the rule that the
mover may only speak once is when by the
indulgence of the House the Minister may
be given an opportunity to reply.
Which quite often happens here, Ministers
often rise on an ancillary motion like moving
second reading of a bill and then have some
further remarks to make later after others
have spoken. If he secures the indulgence
of the House he may speak again at the end
of the debate. Lewis, on page 29, has this to
say:
In the Ontario House it has become the
custom to expect a member, in moving an
order of the day, such as the second read-
ing of a bill or similar order, to make his
argument in favour of his motion when the
order is called.
But he calls attention to the custom in the
British House which allows him to reserve
his speech until later in the debate. This has
also been the custom in the Ontario House in
my time and was in fact followed several
times last session, as I have mentioned.
The whole question of the order of speak-
ing in the House is governed by custom and
practice, you cannot hang your hat on any
particular rule in any rule book; or in any
of the authorities I have read I have not
found it.
The mover of an order of the day has by
custom and practice the right to choose his
own time of participation in a debate in
exactly the same way as custom and practice
dictates that the official Opposition has the
right to speak before the third party in the
House on matters. On all major debates, in-
cluding the Throne and Budget debates, the
order of speaking is arranged by the party
Whips, and if this is not to be followed by
the members it would mean that a member
for the third party could, by getting the
Speaker's eye, rise in his place and speak
before the leader of the Opposition in a
debate.
So therefore, my understanding of parlia-
mentary practice is that it is based on mutual
consideration and good manners. This is the
foundation for the arrangement of the list of
the order of speeches furnished to me by the
Whips. If this is not to be followed, and it
is my wish that it continue to be followed, it
will seriously affect the orderly conduct of
debate and place the chair in a very difficult
position. For these reasons I am of the
opinion that the hon. member for Downsview
—now I am stating an opinion— having been
given every opportunity to speak at the time
arranged by the Whips as I understand it, by
the list that I received, and having declined
to do so, has forfeited his right to speak in
the debate.
Now the alternative is to scrap the whole
practice for the arrangement of orderly de-
bate. I would be pleased to have the guid-
ance of the House in this matter before I
make any ruling and I am going to ask for
that guidance now. Have any members of
the House anything to offer to resolve this
particular situation? I ask for the guidance
of the House at this time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would like to make a
comment or two in this regard. I had pro-
posed taking part in this debate myself and
my name did not appear on the list of
speakers that our Whip had, so I suppose I
might be considered to be in breach of the
Whips' arrangement, although I do not think
that I am because I do not think anyone can
deny that it is the right of the leader of the
government to have the last word on any
piece of legislation for which he inevitably
and eventually must take full responsibility.
So I do not worry too much about that from
a technical point of view; but what does
concern me in this present situation is that
we can see a breakdown in what has been,
through the years, a very satisfactory system.
Despite the efforts of the hon. leader of the
Opposition to insinuate otherwise, as long as
I have led this government and as long as I
have had the responsibility of leading this
House, there is not a single man who has
ever had anything to say on any subject who
has not had an opportunity to say it.
If we start from that—
Mr. Thompson: May I just remind—
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
381
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, Mr. Speaker!
An hon. member: The height of rudeness!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. leader of the
Opposition has a thousand opportunities to
make comments on the matter.
Mr. Thompson: Why did I not get my
resolution last year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: But certainly he must
take the opportunity he has in the House to
make comments and I will only say that he
had many opportunities last year to say any-
thing he wanted in that regard.
Now the other point I want to make is
that if we do not have some order in the
conduct of affairs here today we are not
going to be able to get on with the business
of the House, because we are wasting time
at the moment in what is fundamentally, in
my opinion, a rather ridiculous argument,
and we will have to resolve this point.
That is the general aspect— not to get back
to the specifics. We all want everybody to
have an opportunity to express their opinion,
if we are to function as a Legislature.
We are here to debate the issues of the
day, and those who want to speak must have
an opportunity to speak, but they must have
that opportunity within certain rules, or we
will have no order and we will find it com-
pletely impossible to do the business of the
province, because we will spend all our time
in procedural wrangles such as we are in at
the moment. I might say that this has been
the situation in the Parliament of Canada,
and because they have been able to get their
rules straightened out in the last two or three
months, there is some semblance of order
now appearing in the conduct of business
there.
That, as far as I am concerned, is the
general aspect of this question. To get to the
particular point here, I want to speak in this
debate. I honestly do not know whether
the hon. member for Downsview wants to
speak or not, but the hon. leader of the third
party has indicated that he has two people
who might like to speak.
Mr. Bryden: This is in the light of the new
development.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, of course. I would
make this suggestion: Let the hon. Minister
finish his remarks, and let us arrange some
order of speaking upon which we can agree.
I will finish the debate for the government
side and I will do this on the condition that
we are not—
This is no opinion on the ruling that you
have made, Mr. Speaker. But before this
House expresses itself on that ruling, which
I suppose eventually it must, I would ask
that the leaders of the three parties meet with
the Whips and find out if we could not settle
this matter in a sane and civilized fashion,
and get back to orderly conduct of the
business here.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit
puzzled at the moment. Before the hon.
Prime Minister rose, I was going to say that
I thought the outcry from the Liberal ranks—
that we should get our rules back in order
in this House— was going to be achieved by
your statement, I believe it would have been
achieved. The hon. Prime Minister has now
indicated— and when he indicates, since there
are 77 on his side of the House, I suppose
that is a call for support— that the debate is
now going to be opened up again, and there-
fore I suppose we are faced with the fact
that your proposal is likely to be upset.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me say this—
Mr. Speaker: I wish to say I did not make
a firm ruling. I think perhaps the Prime
Minister said that I had made a ruling. I
expressed an opinion.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not understand it.
I am only making a proposal. If it is not
acceptable, it is perfectly all right.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I recognize
that you have not made a ruling; you asked
for some comments from the House, and the
hon. Prime Minister has indicated that now
he wants to get into the debate. The only
way he can get into the debate is to open it
all up again.
We have indicated the circumstances in
which we will co-operate in some ad hoc
arrangements to achieve this, if there is a
decision to open up the debate again.
But I come back to the basic point. We
have got to get some order established so
we can avoid chaos. I suggest that your
initial statement is the way to restore order.
We have been going through this debate on
a one, two, three basis, from the Conserva-
tive, to the Liberal, to ourselves. When the
conclusion of the debate emerged, we should
in fact, have been the last speaker before
the government. This was the order in which
it should have come, but we felt it was only
reasonable, in order of the preference that
is given to the senior Opposition party, they
should have the last word before the hon.
Minister of Health. Therefore, the hon. mem-
ber for Woodbine agreed, because he felt
382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it was the reasonable thing to do, that he
would speak third last. It was left for some-
body from the Liberal Party to speak second
last, and for the hon. Minister to conclude
the debate.
I submit to you that your original state-
ment is correct; that when the hon. member
for Downsview was given an opportunity
to speak, and he decided to forego it, in effect
he decided to forego his opportunity to enter
the debate. We are going to have chaos if
each one of us can have reservations as to
under what circumstances we will come in.
Even when you have a sequence of people
among the various parties, the result would
be an Alphonse and Gaston act with every-
body saying "I will not speak until you
speak" and will wind up having no debate
at all.
This, I suggest, is chaos. My hope would
be that your suggestion to the House, by
way of resolving this, will be followed. If it
is not, I have indicated to you that we have
two speakers and then I trust we will accept
the hon. Prime Minister's suggestion of
getting together in some fashion under the
gallery, and deciding in what order they are
going to speak, so that we can have an orderly
conclusion to this debate.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I notice
that the hon. Prime Minister said that in
Ottawa one of the things they did was sit
down and examine the rules. May I suggest,
that one of the things I and my party have
been asking for for two years is that the hon.
Prime Minister of this Legislature do just
that.
Every day we see rules broken in this
House. Yesterday in the Budget debate, we
saw a rule broken, but because of my respect
for the lion. Provincial Treasurer I did not
stand up on my feet and protest it. We are
actually seeing a rule broken in the whole
precedent of how this— the procedure and the
business of the House— is run every day. It
seems to me it is pointed up more clearly
that we need to co-operate to have a look at
the whole rules and procedures of this
House. We must have harmony and respect
for each other on this.
I have been denied— and T say this to the
hon. Prime Minister and others— I have been
denied last year this very resolution; it was
not brought. I really should have had the
resolution brought according to the rule
either on a Monday or a Wednesday or a
Friday, but the rule is broken and yet the
hon. Prime Minister is deciding if he will
bring forward a resolution or not. That is
just one example.
May I say, sir, that with respect to this
situation we have now, I have the deepest
respect for the Whip of my party; he comes
from an honourable family in politics. He
has the highest record, from the point of
being a man of his word, and he met with
the Whip of the government. He gave him a
list of speakers—
An hon. member: The hon. leader of the
Opposition is missing the point again.
Mr. Thompson: He gave a list of speakers
to him. The New Democratic Party leader
suggests there is an order that takes place;
there is a Liberal, one from the New Demo-
cratic Party, and a Conservative. On this
particular occasion, quite rightly, the hon.
member for Downsview was waiting, in that
order, to follow and to hear from a Conserva-
tive speaker. He sat in his seat in order to
hear that.
Mr. Bryden: We changed it for his bene-
fit.
Mr. Thompson: We now find, as well, that
there was an intention on the part of the
government to have the hon. Prime Minister
come in. As far as I am concerned, I look
forward to hearing him, but he was not on
the list. So if we are going to all get into a
little wrangle and argument on this thing
about the list, we will find that the govern-
ment itself was at fault— I agree with the hon.
Prime Minister— unless the three leaders get
together with the Whips and sort this out.
Let us get rules in this House, get a
select committee on rules and procedure, so
we can have order and respect; and you, sir,
when you rule, should not have to say, as
you did a couple of days ago, "Well, perhaps
it is rule 31-A, but the practice is that we
break that rule." I think that puts you in an
invidious position.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a comment on this. I think I am in-
volved personally, to a certain degree. I will
say that I have no objection to being played
for a sucker if I am dumb enough; but when
it is done on the basis of an absolute breach
of faith, I object.
It is perfectly ridiculous for anyone to
suggest to this House that three parties will
submit lists of speakers, which are three
separate lists with no meshing of the lists.
How can you ever have an order of debate
in that fashion? We have been following what
worked out to a rule-of-thumb order. It de-
veloped that each party had about the same
number of speakers, so it was going: One,
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
383
two, three — Conservative, Liberal, NDP;
which was reasonable enough.
Then we came to what we were led to
believe was the concluding stage of the
debate and it was suggested to us that, fol-
lowing that order, I would come on before
the hon. Minister. So I decided to come on
first, ahead of the Liberal. The way it was
originally lined up, the hon. member for
Downsview was to come on, I was to follow,
and then the hon. Minister was to wind the
thing up. That was the understanding, as
clear as day, but it was pointed out to me,
and I agreed, that that was really unreason-
able; so, for this last round, we should switch
it— I should go on ahead of the hon. member
for Downsview. He should then follow and
the hon. Minister would wind up. I was
willing to accommodate. I thought that was
a gentlemanly thing to do among gentlemen,
and that there was a gentlemen's agreement.
Speaking orders are never determined by
rules. They are determined by gentlemen's
agreement. So I did it. Of course, we all
know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday was
Budget day and there was no hope that any-
body speaking on Bill No. 6 would get his
name in the papers. I went ahead anyway,
knowing full well that my immortal words
would be lost on the public. But then we
found our hon. friend from Downsview, who
was shocked to find that I was through at five
after five, starting to jockey so that he could
get on today.
Mr. Singer: I really did not pay that much
attention to the hon. member.
Mr. Bryden: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,
if this is the kind of cheap childish jockeying
that is going to go on that there can be no
gentlemen's agreements about anything. And
if some members are to have mental reserva-
tions about what their Whips say, then we
cannot have an orderly system of debate at
all. What if every member sits back and says,
"Well, I will not go on until you are on, and
you will not go on until I am on"? We
would sit here for three hours, and nobody
would say anything. It would be news, I
admit, but it would not make for the orderly
conduct of the business of this House.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say that someone suggested we
get down to business— I second the motion.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Why does the hon.
member not take charge of things?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, I want to mention one point. I
think the hon. leader of the Opposition has
unintentionally misinformed the House; but,
before I deal with that, my hon. friend from
St. George (Mr. A. F. Lawrence) has passed
me a note. "To paraphrase Gilbert and
Sullivan: 'We have got him on the list but
he never will be missed'."
Now, sir, I think unintentionally the hon.
leader of the Opposition has misinformed the
members of the House. When we went
into the close of this debate yesterday, we
had the following names left: Gisborn, Wells,
Sopha, Yakabuski, Lewis, Bales, Bryden,
Singer and Dymond.
There were two Liberals, three New
Democrats and four Conservatives. Obvi-
ously we could not alternate in an exact
fashion because of the small number of
Liberals remaining. We did strike this list
however. That was done, I think, 24 hours
or maybe even 48 hours before we moved
into the closing course of the debate. It
certainly was accepted by all the Whips.
There was no intention on either side to
gain some kind of cheap political advantage,
one over the other.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I think the dis-
cussion we are having is a most salutary one.
The tight halo that surrounds the head of
the hon. member for Woodbine-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Singer: All right, I will not deal with
him. His remarks speak for themselves.
Originally, Mr. Speaker, when this dis-
cussion started yesterday, the question re-
volved—and it has gotten off on a completely
different tack now— on whether or not the
hon. Minister, when speaking, wound up the
debate. It was your opinion, sir— I do not
know whether you made a ruling or not, but
it was at least your opinion at that time
that the hon. Minister in speaking was wind-
ing up the debate.
I pointed out to you then, and let me
point out, sir, with a little more clarity
now, that if that is the rule, surely we
should know it; because as recently as June
1, 1965, that was not the rule, sir. On June
1, 1965, as recorded on page 3533 of
Hansard, when the debate on the predecessor
of this bill was taking place and the hon.
Minister of Health was speaking, you were
quoted as having said, sir:
Order, order! The Minister can state
his views. There are other members left
to speak who may disagree with what he
has said and they will have an opportunity
to reply later.
384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The point is, sir, that at that stage in the
debate perhaps 25 or more members of
the House had already spoken. The fact
is, sir, that the same sort of manoeuvring
behind the scenes took place and it was only
by, not a confrontation, but a jockeying be-
hind the scenes, that that was finally agreed.
We were suspicious, and naturally suspicious,
that there might be the sort of manoeuvring
going on on the government side that has
since become obvious was going on.
There was no intention, apparently, of
having the hon. Minister of Health wind
up the debate, or to go by the rule that you
thought perhaps did exist, because the hon.
Prime Minister said, and these are his own
words: "It is my intention to enter the de-
bate myself." It would seem to me, sir,
that it is high time that we brought order
out of this chaos, and the order is not going
to come in the unilateral determination of
speaking order by the government Whip. If
there is going to be an order, it is going to
be by common agreement of the three
Whips.
I suggest, sir, that the remarks of the
hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin did
not say that there was agreement about any
order. It was merely a submission of Liberals
who were going to speak; that was all it was.
There was no allocation in that, and if you
want to quote him further on that I am sure
he can speak for himself. I checked this
carefully with him. I have also checked
carefully with his assistant, the hon. member
for Kent East— who is not in his seat at the
moment— and he said exactly the same thing.
So from our Whip and our deputy Whip
there was no such agreement. That is for
certain.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is not what the
hon. member for Woodbine said.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I do not care
what the hon. member for Woodbine says,
now or at any other time; I am telling you
what the facts are.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: He is an honourable
man.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I would think
that if there is going to be order brought
out of this— and no one can question for a
moment that the government has the right.
By virtue of their 77 members, if noth-
ing else, they have the right to speak last in
any debate. But surely, sir, if they want
everyone to live by the rules, at the time
these lists are being made up somebody
could whisper in the ear of the government
Whip that either the hon. Minister of Health
or the hon. Prime Minister or the hon. Min-
ister of Labour, or whoever it is, is going to
be the last government speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the way they are jockeying
now, we do not know. They take unfair ad-
vantage, and this is not the way they should
be playing. They now come in and say that
everyone else is in breach of faith except
themselves. Here is the record, and the rec-
ord indicates that it was not the govern-
ment's intention to have the hon. Minister
of Health speak last, it was the hon. Prime
Minister's intention. Sir, that is abusing the
privileges of this House.
I submit that the time has now come to
clarify this and let us carry on in a way that
we can carry on. And one of the first indi-
cations of being allowed to carry on in that
way would be for the government to say:
"On the debate on this bill that is now before
us, our last speaker will be—" whoever they
want. But they have to keep faith with the
House and not play footsy, as they have
been doing all the way through.
Mr. Speaker: Has everyone spoken who
cares to speak? If so, I would like to sum
up the matter in this way. First of all, I
would like to thank the members for the
guidance which they have given me on
this matter— at least some of the mem-
bers. I think perhaps what some of the
members have said can be a solution to the
particular problem we are faced with at
the present time.
It has been suggested by, I think, all
three parties, that the leaders of the three
parties get together with the Whips and I
would like to be present also—
An hon. member: Why don't we all go?
Mr. Speaker: —in order that I will know
what agreement is finally reached; so that,
when I get a list laid upon my desk, that
will be the order of speaking unless there
is some very important reason preventing
the member from taking his place at the
time he is to speak. I believe that is a
very good proposal and I intend to call such
a group together to see if we can work out
something.
For the present, however, I think what
the member for York South has said is
eminently sensible; that we have to settle
this on an ad hoc basis for today. The
Prime Minister has also expressed a wish
that he would like to speak on the debate.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
385
As long as I can remember in my experience
in this House, the Prime Minister has always
been given the courtesy of this House to
speak if he cares to and to wind up a debate.
But what we seem to confuse— and I say
this in no manner to the leader of the
Opposition to dispute what he said because
I am not really debating— but we sometimes
confuse a rule with a custom or practice of
the House. As I said before, we do not have
a definite rule on precedence— on order one,
two, three but only on the practice that the
House has determined over the years. The
practice has grown that if the Minister
wants to wind up on a bill that he has
brought into the House that is his privilege,
he can speak at that time in the debate.
Mr. Singer: But surely—
Mr. Speaker: I believe the Prime Min-
ister should be allowed to wind up the
debate on any particular important subject.
On minor matters the Speaker can definitely
rule this is so, or this is such and this will
be the course we shall take. But on such an
important discussion as is now before the
House, Medicare insurance, Bill No. 6, the
last thing I would want to do is to curtail or
to restrict debate. In view of that fact, when-
ever the time arrives I am going to allow the
debate to continue after the Minister has
spoken.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Sixth order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment to
the motion respecting second reading of Bill
No. 6, An Act to amend The Medical Services
Insurance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
( continued )
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, when the hour for adjournment
arrived last night I had just lightly dealt with
the preliminary matters pertinent to this bill
and had got to the place where I had begun
to discuss the principles inherent in the
amendment. You will recall, sir, that I had
stated the first principle was an amendment
which would allow us to further enhance
our ability to provide a medical services in-
surance fund to all of the residents of Ontario
on an individual basis at reasonable cost and
covering a comprehensive range of physicians'
services. I then spoke at some length about
the extent of the population covered, pointing
out that those who were presently in receipt
of social assistance under one of the many
Acts in vogue in this province would receive
a standard comprehensive coverage contract
at no cost to themselves.
I further stated that those whose income
in the year 1965 was too low to be subject
to income tax would also receive a compre-
hensive standard contract at no cost to them-
selves.
I pointed out also that in addition to that,
sir, people in a low income bracket, although
they had income subject in some degree to
income tax, would be eligible for support
under the terms of our bill.
In addition, I pointed out to you, sir, the
government by the amendments now before
the House proposes to make the standard
medical services insurance contract available
on a voluntary basis to residents on an indi-
vidual or family basis. That means that the
private carriers, I emphasize, will not partici-
pate in the government plan but will continue
to provide coverage for groups and any
individuals who like to join them. For that
reason, of course, there are quite extensive
deletions to the bill as it was passed at the
last session of the Legislature.
I mentioned again the benefits which are
comprehensive in scope and are extended
beyond what was laid out in our programme
for last year. Included in this was one im-
portant matter, of course, that maternity
benefits would now carry no waiting period.
I am coming, sir, to the point of the next
basic principle, and that has to do with the
remuneration to physicians provided by this
bill. We have carefully reviewed this subject
again and it is now considered equitable to
everyone to propose that payments to phy-
sicians be 90 per. cent of the current Ontario
medical association schedule of fees. This
takes into account current practice in doctor-
sponsored plans and the increased level of
payments which the physicians will now re-
ceive from low-income groups and it is in
keeping with what obtains in certain other
provinces and jurisdictions.
These are the major changes in Bill No.
136 inherent in these amendments, Mr.
Speaker. Before dealing with the Act, I
would like to give some further information
to the House, information which I know will
be of concern and interest to every hon.
member.
With reference to the starting date, the
programme of those receiving assistance
under various social assistance Acts is sche-
duled to begin on April 1, 1966. The general
386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
programme is to start on July 1, 1966. This
staged approach is considered desirable to
permit efficient administration and adequate
time for general enrolment. The government
intends to ensure that the public will be com-
pletely informed on all details of the Ontario
medical services insurance plan. It is hoped
to begin the public information programmes
just as quickly as possible after this bill is
assented to in this House and to continue
these special arrangements until the end of
the open enrolment period on May 1 of this
year.
In the matter of enrolment, those individ-
uals presently receiving assistance under the
various social assistance Acts will be enrolled
automatically. The open enrolment period for
all others will be March 1 to May 1, 1966.
Those who are receiving benefits under any
of the following Acts will not be required to
pay a premium: The Blind Persons' Allow-
ances Act; The Disabled Persons' Allowances
Act; The General Welfare Assistance Act;
The Mothers' Allowance Act; The Old Age
Assistance Act and The Rehabilitation Serv-
ices Act.
In addition, the plan will automatically
provide fully paid coverage for all old age
security pensioners who may be eligible for
such coverage.
People who have been resident in Ontario
for the past 12 months and who paid no in-
come tax on earnings in the previous calendar
year will be entitled to benefits without the
payment of a premium. They will only be
required to make application in order to
establish eligibility.
Assistance will be given to the following
people provided they have been resident in
Ontario for the past 12 months and make
application to establish eligibility:
As stated at the first reading of the bill,
Mr. Speaker, for the single person the com-
plete cost will be $60 per year of which the
subscriber will pay $30 and the government
will pay $30. For the family of two, the total
price will be $120 per year; the government
will pay $60 per year and the subscriber $60
per year. For the family of three or more,
covering the head of the family and all de-
pendants, with a total taxable income in the
previous calendar year of $1,300 or less, the
total cost will be $150 per year; the govern-
ment will pay $90 per year and the sub-
scriber $60 per year.
I need not remind hon. members that a
dependant is an Ontario resident who is the
spouse of the head of a family or a child
under the age of 21, unmarried and depend-
ent on the head of the family for support.
People who find that they cannot continue
to pay for all or part of any medical services
insurance contract because of unemployment,
illness or disability may apply to the Ontario
medical services insurance council for tempor-
ary assistance towards membership in the
plan.
Now provision has been made in these
amendments, sir, to add a category to the
group outlined in Bill No. 136 and that is the
group lying outside of the income taxable
groups already mentioned. There are three
categories: The single person, covering only
one member, the price will be $60 per year;
the family of two, covering the head of the
family and one dependant, $120 per year; and
the family of three or more, covering the
head of the family and all dependants, $150
per year.
Out-of-province benefits have been pro-
vided for. When an insured person gets serv-
ices available under the plan from a doctor
outside the province Ontario medical services
insurance will pay the fee that is authorized
in Ontario or the amount of the account if
this happens to be less than the Ontario rate.
On the matter of waiting periods: Benefits
will start two months after the end of the first
open enrolment periods. That will be on July
1, 1966. For all subsequent open enrolment
periods the waiting period for benefits will
be one month. That is, benefits will begin
one month after the close of the open en-
rolment period. Applications received at
other times will be subject to a waiting
period of three months. The waiting period
of three months, of course, is consistent with
the arrangements obtaining now in hospital
insurance, and in all circumstances every
effort has been made to ensure that these
two programmes dovetail.
There will be freedom of choice for
patients and doctors. The patient is free to
choose his own doctor, and this same free-
dom is observed for the doctor within the
ethics of his own profession.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the
beginning, in the second part of this pres-
entation I will try to deal with points raised
during the debate, points which I have
not already covered.
First of all, may I say, sir, that I was en-
couraged by the manner in which the leaders
of the Opposition parties, the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Thompson) and the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald),
opened the debate on amendments to Bill No.
136. It was quite obvious that they had little
to say in criticism of this amended bill, so that
most of their remarks were personal in
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
387
character to distract attention, I fear, from the
lack of substance.
Now the hon. leader of the Opposition,
who unfortunately is not here to listen to
what I have to say, makes a great deal of
the fact that I changed my mind. And so
upset did he become about this that the
only thing he could think of to cure this,
sir, was, "The Minister should resign." Well,
you know I have never been taught to run
from a fight. And I always remember the
words of a former President of the United
States, Harry S. Truman: "When you can't
stand the heat in the kitchen, you've got to
get the hell out." So I want to serve notice
on my hon. friend— I do not know if that is
parliamentary or not, sir; however, it is in
the Bible— I want to serve notice on my
friend, the hon. leader of the Opposition,
that I am in the kitchen, sir, and I am still
stoking the stove.
But let me look at this attitude. If that
be so, has the hon. leader of the Opposition
got such a short memory that he cannot re-
member in the year 1963 his party, of which
he was then a member although not the
leader, but the then leader and the party
changed their mind, their collective mind
on this topic, Mr. Speaker, five times in one
session? I did not hear the hon. leader of
the Opposition stand in his place on one
occasion and say that his erstwhile leader
should resign because he had changed his
mind. By strange coincidence, I am reading
something of the history of the Liberal Party,
or it was called the Grit party then. There
were two kinds of Grits, clear Grits and I
do not know what the others were, dirty
Grits, I suppose, by inference, but—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mostly
Presbyterians then.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, grits are some-
thing we used to feed the chickens.
The party was then under George Brown.
I was struck by two sentences which I read
in this book and I think I would commend
them to the hon. leader of the Opposition.
In Brown's time it was said that: "The Grit
Opposition is now a mere congeries of dis-
cordant opinions. The party is a body of
men, united chiefly by the emotional warmth
of their antagonisms."
All we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is change
the name of the leaders and we have the
same situation. That was written in 1859,
or about the party in 1859.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was another
matter about changing minds.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would permit a question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, I
would not.
Forty-seven years ago, in 1919 to be
exact, there was then a young man, full of
vim, vigour and vitality, who came forward
to lead that same Grit party; and in the
ambitious programme which he presented to
the people of Canada, there was one plank
in the platform— health insurance. Mr.
Speaker, that was in 1919, 47 years ago. And
the Grit party ever since has weaved and
waffled and weaseled, and I am not sure that
we are much nearer health insurance as the
late Mr. King envisioned it now than we
were at that time.
It was rather amusing, however, Mr.
Speaker — and unfortunately, too, the hon.
member for York South is not here— it was
rather amusing, too, to hear him accuse the
hon. leader of the Opposition of speaking
such a long time and burying his facts in
irrelevancies. At the same time, the hon.
member for York South admitted that they
were also his facts and, because they lacked
substance, he in turn proceeded to a per-
sonal attack upon me rather than limiting
his remarks to the amendments of the bill.
Well, the hon. member for York South, hav-
ing some of the same roots as I have, will
remember an old saying that I think all of
our mothers told us: "Sticks and stones will
break my bones, but names will never hurt
me."
Now what did these hon. members really
talk about, Mr. Speaker? They spoke about
compulsion, high risk coverage and other
matters which, by stretching the interpreta-
tion of the principles in this amended bill
before us, they used to take up the time of
this House rather than directing their atten-
tion to the passage of a measure which is of
such great importance to the people of
Ontario.
They spoke in such absolute terms, for
example implying that 40 per cent of the
population does not qualify for group cov-
erage and therefore consists entirely of high
cost cases, people who are chronically ill,
elderly, or for other reasons are heavy users
of medical care services. And this, of course,
as every hon. member in the House knows,
is nonsense.
They talked about administrative costs as
if these were the major items in the cost of
medical services insurance, instead of admit-
ting that the real factor of cost is related to
medical services themselves.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They spoke also of portability without rea-
lizing that the provincial programme has
been designed so that portability can be an
effective factor as soon as programmes are
developed in other provinces, and indeed the
Ministers of Health of all of the provinces
have already met on this particular topic
and we are quite prepared to throw into
operation the required organization and pro-
cedures for portability as soon as plans are
developed.
Now, this type of smokescreen I suggest
to you, sir, is not in the best interests of
the people of Ontario and it does not reflect
any credit on the hon. leaders of the Opposi-
tion parties. I would expect something better
of them, sir. I would expect that they would
attempt calmly and soberly to look at the
bill and point out to the people of Ontario
what really is offered by it.
The hon. leader of the Opposition accused
me of drawing red herrings. Well, Mr.
Speaker, more and more, as I listened to him,
I got the idea that the fish he was using were
decayed mackerel.
The primary theme of the—
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister does better
when he is quoting-
Mr. A. E. Thompson: (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): I do not even answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Nobody does here!
The primary theme of the hon. leader of
the Opposition was compulsion. I must ad-
mit that I found it very difficult to follow
this reasoning in a number of the points
which he raised. However, his objective in
applying compulsion appears to be universal
coverage and this, of course, has been an
underlying principle; universal availability
nas been an underlying principle in our
thinking right through this piece. Bill No.
136 as amended will make medical services
insurance available to everybody at reason-
able cost. The government plans, when
complemented by other insurance arrange-
ments, will we believe achieve a population
coverage which is generally interpreted as
universal.
The hon. leader of the Opposition sug-
gested the government was not interested in
quality of health care; but I remind him,
through you, sir, no insurance mechanism
guarantees or provides for quality of care.
It is rather concerned with availability and
with paying for the services. This is a matter
which becomes lost in the cloud of fog that
has been thrown around this matter at all
times. However, the government has already
announced a very big programme for the
development of health resources in this prov-
ince and it is in this way that it will be en-
suring that the best possible health care will
be available to the people of Ontario.
The hon. leader of the Opposition appeared
to be worried about psychotherapy; I agree
with him this will be one of the problem
areas. We are under no illusions about this,
we know it will be a difficult area. However,
we prefer to deal with it within the general
arrangements of claims adjudication rather
than discriminate against it. It would be in-
consistent, sir, if we in Ontario were to dis-
criminate against the mentally ill when the
full burden of our health theme over the last
seven years at least was that the mentally
disturbed patient should be looked upon as
a sick person and given, as far as is humanly
possible, equal treatment.
He asked for a definition of psychotherapy.
I have to say to him that while I am prepared
to give it to him, it is difficult to understand,
and I have very grave difficulty sometimes
in understanding it myself. I am quite sure
the hon. leader of the Opposition knows the
definition:
Psychotherapy within the practice of
medicine is a psychological method of
treatment in which a professional relation-
ship is established with the patient and
used for the purpose of removing, modify-
ing or retarding a disease process, or of
favourably influencing and/or preventing
pathological patterns of behaviour.
Any licensed medical practitioner, by
virtue of his training and experience, is
qualified to use psychotherapy as a method
of treatment. Those physicians qualified
as specialists in psychiatry have, by virtue
of training, achieved a greater competence
in psychotherapy.
The distinction between the practice
of psychotherapy by a psychiatrist and
other physicians should, therefore, be
recognized. Drugs and other methods of
treatment may often be used as adjuncts
to psychotherapy but do not constitute
psychotherapy in themselves.
That is the end of the quote, sir, and I
have to admit it is a rather involved
definition.
The hon. leader of the Opposition also
considered that the government—
Before leaving that, I should make it as
simple as I possibly can: If a doctor practises
what he believes is psychotherapy, or psychi-
atric treatment, on his patient that is quite
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
389
satisfactory to us and to the plan. If it is a
recognized treatment given by a duly quali-
fied and licensed person, in our opinion that
is quite satisfactory.
The hon. leader of the Opposition also
considered that the government programme
would cover a substantial proportion of
persons with chronic illness, and the elderly.
I agree that this might very well be so, but
because of the potential numbers eligible for
this programme we expect to have a good
cross-section of the population.
We have already pointed out that, poten-
tially, 40 per cent of the population is eligible
to be enrolled under this programme. Just
because they cannot be enrolled in groups is
no reason to believe, or no reason to suppose,
that they will have any higher percentage of
poor risks than will the 60 per cent who are
covered under groups. Groups are not separ-
ated out by the equality of their risks defin-
itively, but are covered as a group.
He also suggested that the premiums were
not high enough. Here again I am not certain
as to whether he was proposing an increase in
the level of premiums. We consider that the
proposed premiums are equitable and fair. It
is interesting to note that the actuaries in
British Columbia— a province with medical
charges comparable to Ontario— have estab-
lished the same level for family premiums as
would apply in this province— on the advice of
our actuaries, who assure us that they believe
this is a fair and equitable premium.
He also suggested, in the best Ian Fleming
style again, that there was a secret report,
and referred both to the Ontario hospital
services commission and Saskatchewan. Mr.
Speaker, the facts are these— and I already
submitted this information in answer to a
question from an hon. member on the Oppo-
sition benches some days ago, when we intro-
duced Bill No. 136. It was passed by the
House last session, and we immediately began
to set up the organization to operate this
programme.
We called on that branch of government
which is expert in these matters, the organi-
zation and methods section, and they carried
out a study on the organization and opera-
tions for medical services insurance. During
this period of investigation, the members of
this task force and others carefully consid-
ered the interrelationship of medical services
insurance and hospital care insurance. They
obtained information on programmes, not
only in Canada but in other countries. This
led to the recommendation, and nothing else,
sir, for an administrative pattern. When
these were received a management committee
was established, charged with the responsi-
bility of implementing the programme as laid
out by the organization and methods section
of government.
I want to emphasize, sir, that this section
of government has nothing to do with The
Department of Health. I believe it comes
under the supervision or the purview of the
Provincial Treasurer and is set up for the
very purpose for which we use it. They
are experts, I believe, in their field, and
looked upon outside of government as experts
in their field. I have no reason to argue with
the report, and I would have been very
unwise had I decided not to accept the
recommendations they made.
The management committee and the vari-
ous task forces have studied the arrangements
in depth and this detailed appraisal led to the
administrative system which we are now
implementing. I am satisfied that we had the
best possible advice and that the organization
as established is a good one.
I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker, and I
would expect that the hon. members-
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister a question? I wonder if in this report,
and I am saying in the structure of the hon.
Minister's plan, whether there was considera-
tion given to using the experience of PSI. I
am not saying that we would want this; but
where you, as a government, would contract
it for a number of the individuals who had
applied to you, you could direct them over
to PSI. I say this because if you had done
this— with PSI you have got a whole staff
there— you would not have to go to the ex-
pense of building and recruiting more staff.
Was this given consideration?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it
actually was. I have to record here publicly
that PSI, as well as many other carriers in
the field, from the start of our involvement in
this field, came forward voluntarily and put at
the disposal of government all the wealth of
their experience— and it was great— all of the
statistical information, organizational know-
how and so on.
But it was early decided, of course, that
any contract that was supported in any way
by public moneys would not be handled by
any carrier outside of government, and for
this reason it could not be farmed out, as it
were, or we could not contract it out to PSI
under those circumstances, nor to anybody
else.
It would have been very difficult, I have
to point out, to select PSI as opposed to any
390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other carrier, because while PSI is the largest
carrier, and I must admit with some prejudice
one of the most experienced carriers, there
are others who have done a very excellent
job in this field. Other service programmes
have been in existence longer, actually, and
have also done a very excellent job in this
field. One would be hard put to know just
how to divide this up, even if it were accept-
able, but I am sure the hon. leader of the
Opposition will recall that it was anathema
to them at least, and I admit to some of our
own people, that this business would be
contracted out.
I started to say that I would expect hon.
members of the Opposition— indeed I would
be disappointed if they did not remind me
I said in this House that the programme, as
we put it before you last year, was to be
housed in the OHSC building and would be
meshed as far as was possible with their pro-
gramme. Well, we very quickly learned, after
we called the organization and methods
people in, that this was totally impossible
from the standpoint of lack of space. I was
quite staggered, I frankly admit, when told
this programme would call for 67,500 sq. ft.
of office space. All that PSI could give me
at the most by quite extensive reorganization
would be about 15,000 sq. ft. of space. There
are certain procedures which are dovetailed
in—
Mr. Thompson: You mean PSI—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not mean PSI,
I mean OHSC, because I had said last year
that it would be housed in the OHSC build-
ing, as OHSC had one floor vacant at the
time and we knew they could make a little
extra space available to us.
When I spoke in this House, I had not con-
sulted any of the experts in organization and
methods, and I felt that one and a half floors
at the most would easily handle this. The
programmes are so different in their financ-
ing and their mode of operation that they
cannot dovetail at the present time.
I think the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has made it quite clear that this will
be under constant study and review, having
in mind the possibility of effecting further
economies in the administration pattern.
The hon. members appeared to attribute
increased costs primarily to administrative
costs, as I have said. This is not the case,
as major expenditures for non-profit medical
insurance services programmes-this is well
documented— are related to payment for medi-
cal services. I have just pointed out why it
was that we could not dovetail the two
programmes at the present time. I did begin
to say, however, that certain features of both
programmes are being dovetailed— this works
in certain cases— and I have just been advised
today that field services, for instance, and
field offices insofar as our programme will
need them, will make use of the field offices
which now exist and are operated by OHSC.
In that way there will be no duplication
and I can assure you that, wherever it is
possible, duplication will be avoided scrupu-
lously.
The hon. member for York South indulged
in a one-night mathematical spree and came
up with figures which were intended to con-
found the Legislature. Some of these figures
were obvious but in other circumstances, as
so often happens during a spree, he tended
to become confused. I should in fairness say,
Mr. Speaker, that perhaps he has studied
new maths and I am still back with the old
maths, so I may be doing him an injustice
in questioning his mathematics. However, his
figures did seem quite a bit confused to us;
and it was a rather strange coincidence, I
thought, that his confusion in each case
resulted in the use of figures which tended
to increase support for his own thesis.
I was pleased when the hon. member for
Forest Hill (Mr. Dunlop) pointed out some
of the inaccuracies; and I am not going to go
over them again, except to point out that it
could be indicated that the hon. member for
York South at one point in his calculation
used a per capita cost which related to 1967,
population figures which were valid in 1964,
and for practising physicians the figure which
was valid in 1962. I am sure that the most
authentic record we have of practising physi-
cians at the present time in Ontario is 7,600.
The hon. member for York South also
questioned the estimate of a per capita cost
in 1967 of $40. I want to make eminently
clear that this figure has not been pulled out
of the ether. We are very much concerned
about this figure because it is high in relation
to other figures.
I think though, Mr. Speaker, that the
sooner we stop quoting the figures that are
outlined in the Hall commission report the
better off we are. The Hall commission
report, insofar as its statistics are concerned,
is obsolete. It was obsolete the day it was
published.
I had the pleasure last evening of sitting
on a panel with Professor Blishon, who was
the director of research for that commission.
One of the things he said, while recognizing
that their statistics were not valid today, was
that they still believe their projections were.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
391
But I took issue with him on that, with
respect to certain figures which we can prove
are not applicable to Ontario.
He did in this case, however, point out
that their figures were applicable to Canada.
But I want to inject here that one of the
things he said in answer to a question from
a member of the audience was: "The big
insurance companies are not making a great
lot of money on this business of health in-
surance." And I leave it at that.
However, on the $40 figure, we have to
agree with the hon. member that per capita
estimates are most complicated, particularly
when they have to be made in advance of a
programme. And we must try to estimate
what they will be since we have to have
money voted by this Legislature to meet our
expenses as we go along. However, our
economists have very carefully analyzed all
available data referrable to the province of
Ontario— and let us remember that the pro-
gramme I am putting before this House is
concerned only with the province of Ontario,
and my only interest in costs referrable to
other provinces in Canada is for comparison
purposes alone. Our economists, I say, have
carefully analyzed the available data, and
on this basis the estimated cost for 1967 is
$40 per capita.
It is interesting to note that in personal
conversation with federal government offi-
cials, very recently, they gave us to under-
stand that their estimate of Ontario's cost is
very close to our own. And it is passing
strange that their estimate -of the national
average has already been changed from $28
last June or July, which was then mooted to
$34— and I am not certain that that is the
final figure they have come up with for the
present time.
Mr. Singer: When was the $28 figure?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Last July, at the
federal-provincial conference they spoke of
a national average of $28 per capita when
the $14 subsidy was mooted. Now that
figure is changed, according again to per-
sonal discussions with them, to more of the
order of $34 as a minimum; and Ontario's
figures are very close in their estimation
even, to $40.
Several speakers spoke about priorities
and phasing, and the government here
agreed that it should be an essential feature
of the development of comprehensive health
services for the people of Ontario. However,
an important question is: Who should estab-
lish these priorities in a field of provincial
jurisdiction? Did the provinces, Mr. Speaker,
last July or prior to last July, agree that
compulsory medical services insurance
topped the priority list? Should there not be
some flexibility which would allow for the
different circumstances which prevail across
this country?
Why did the federal government fail to
place— as we insisted many times, and have
insisted many times at least since I have
occupied this chair— the inclusion of the
patients in mental hospitals and tuberculosis
sanatoria in the first place, as every prov-
ince in Canada did?
It was a sight to behold, sir: Ten provinces
—even our sister province, la belle province
de Quebec, agreed with us on this resolution
that mental hospital patients, and those
patients in tuberculosis sanatoria, should
immediately be enrolled under the provisions
of The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: And yet, the federal
government has consistently and persistently
turned a deaf ear to all of our pleas.
An hon. member: What other pleas?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Many of them. We
agree that some uniformity in development
is desirable, but we also believe that a
consensus was available which would have
allowed for some flexibility in establishing
need.
Some hon. members spoke about the
federal proposals, but their remarks did not
indicate that they had made any attempt at
analysis. The government, with a respon-
sibility to the people of the province of
Ontario, did ask the federal government for
clarification of a number of points which
could have very significant financial and pro-
gramme implications. And, as previously
stated in this House, the hon. Minister of
National Health and Welfare has assured me
that he will answer the questions that we
have put to him and give us every oppor-
tunity for full and frank discussion.
Mr. Singer: What are those points?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Minister: He has spoken about the
fact that he needs clarification—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: They are still under
discussion, Mr. Speaker, and this is not the
place nor time. I do not believe it is neces-
sary to bring them to this House at the
present time because this is a matter for
392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
discussion between two levels of govern-
ment. When we have reached conclusion,
or if we reach a stalemate, then I think that
is the time to bring them back to this House.
When the government has had an oppor-
tunity, the government which will be re-
sponsible for putting into operation any
programme upon which we might reach
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, a most important point-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Minister: He talks about the fact
that he needs clarification; may I say he may
find that we are very much behind him if he
wants clarification, not only to the House but
to the public. My question is: What does he
need clarification on? No one knows what
his stand is. Could the hon. Minister list what
he needs clarification on?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the gov-
ernment with which we are dealing knows
perfectly well what our stand is.
Mr. Thompson: We do not.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, may I re-
mind the hon. members that this is a matter
for agreement between the governments, be-
fore it comes back to our Legislature. The
government must have a programme to bring
to the Legislature. I do not think for one
moment, sir, while we appreciate the moral
support of the hon. leader of the Opposition
and his group, that they can help us in our
immediate discussions. If they can, they can
go and talk to our friends down there if they
will listen to them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There is nothing secret
about it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Let
us know without so much prodding, then.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Does the hon. member
tell us what he talks to his friends about?
Certainly not.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: So is yours.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: When we come to de-
cisions we will bring them to this House and
put our programme before this House, be-
cause this is governmental responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the most important point
which should be emphasized is that the On-
tario plan will be in operation this year and
will provide comprehensive benefits to the
people of this province now.
I hope that the hon. members in Opposition
are not suggesting that we should delay medi-
cal services insurance in this province until
some future time. It would indeed be a
strange stand and one which would be diffi-
cult for them, I am sure, to justify to the
people.
I want to make eminently clear, sir, that
in presenting this bill to the House we are
talking of a programme that we want to pro-
vide for the people of Ontario beginning in
July, 1966. Now what happens after that is
still to be determined, and with its usual
sense of responsibility I can assure you, and
can assure this House through you, that the
government is very keenly aware of its re-
sponsibilities and is currently discussing these
matters with the other level of government
involved; but at the present time this bill is
to provide services which we believe large
numbers of people in the province of Ontario
need and deserve, and they need and deserve
it now.
And therefore, in conclusion, I would like
to urge that this Legislature endorse The
Medical Services Insurance Act at its second
reading, because this legislation will provide
a programme with the following advantages:
It is universally available to all residents
on an individual and family basis, regardless
of age, state of health or financial status.
It is comprehensive in that it provides in-
surance coverage for practically all physicians'
services.
The financial barrier is removed by provid-
ing assistance to lower income groups and
complete coverage for those who are still
more in need.
It has been set up in a manner which will
encourage portability and which will provide
for out-of-province benefits.
Benefits will be available to social service
recipients on April 1, 1966, and to the gen-
eral population on July 1, 1966, instead of
waiting for some time in the future.
Patients will have free choice of their doc-
tors and doctors may practise within or out-
side of the plan without penalty to the sub-
scriber.
And I repeat, sir, that it is voluntary; and
in that regard I would just like to draw to the
attention of the House a very little squib that
I cut out of the newspaper last evening. It
had reference to a lady in that fine province
of Saskatchewan who appeared before the
courts and was fined because she had refused
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
393
-to pay her hospital premiums. She decided
that she would like, rather, to do this for
herself. I wonder if the hon. member for
York South would have one of us go out and
tell her to continue to resist, that she might
well be at the "core of history."
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the
lion. Minister permit a question— not on the
last point he raised, I do not want to get into
a debate on that theoretical one. Would the
hon. Minister permit a question?
Mr. Speaker, accepting the estimate of the
government of a $40 per capita cost and
accepting the prospect of a 50 per cent sub-
sidy of a $34 per capita national average,
namely, $17 per capita in Ontario, would the
hon. Minister comment on the figures which
I submitted to the House as to how we could
divide up the remaining amount that would
have to be raised in premiums in order to
give coverage to everybody? I am sure that
it was inadvertently that he did not deal with
those particular figures that I presented to the
House, and I think they are by far the most
important. Would the hon. Minister care to
comment on this way of giving complete
coverage to everybody right now for $20,
$40 and $50 premiums?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I can only comment,
Mr. Speaker, by saying that I did not leave
them out inadvertently, but because I am
not prepared; our studies have not embraced
this completely yet. But this is a matter
that is being very much studied and is part
of our discussion with the federal govern-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: I submit they are ac-
curate.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): I have a ques-
tion I would like the hon. Minister to an-
swer if he will. At the present time some
of the co-ops in the province of Ontario, in-
cluding the one to which I belong, the
Bruce county co-op medical services, are
giving this comprehensive coverage for fam-
ilies for $150 per year and they pay 100 per
-cent to the doctors. Would the hon. Minister
explain why, using the same $150 under gov-
ernment service, only 90 cents would be paid
on the dollar to the doctors concerned?
Surely the figure of $150 should be down to
$140 rather than $150. If the co-ops can do
it, why cannot the government do it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, while
this will come up in committee meeting, I
can only state briefly at the present time
that my figures and my statistics are based
entirely on the advice I have been given by
economists and actuaries. I have to admit I
must depend upon them because they are
the experts in this field and I do not pretend
to be such.
I am quite certain— in fact, I know— that
they have looked at the figures and the oper-
ations of the co-ops and I have to say, as
the hon. member knows full well, that it has
always been a source of great amazement
to me that co-ops do the excellent job they
do on as little money. I know of no other
body that can do it. That is really the most
complete answer I can give the hon. member,
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister a question?
Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps we have had
so many-
Mr. Thompson: He said he would answer
it, sir.
Mr. Speaker: Asking questions should come
during committee of the whole House. I
do not think we should get into second read-
ing questions and answers-
Mr. Thompson: It is really on the basis of
what he talked about, Mr. Speaker. He has
been kind enough-
Mr. Speaker: I will allow this one question
and then we shall go ahead with the princi-
ple of the bill.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could the
hon. Minister either refute or establish a
rumour which I have heard, that a meeting
they had last week with the insurance com-
panies and doctors was called because the
basis on which the hon. Minister had decided
the cost of the medical insurance plan, the
basis on which that decision was made, was
the OMAC schedule of several years ago
rather than the up-to-date OMAC schedule?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is completely with-
out foundation. In fact, sir, we have used
the most up-to-date figures because the Act
lays down that the schedule in effect when
the Act comes into force will be the sched-
ule which will guide our payments for the
first two years of operation.
I would only say that there are the weir-
dest and wildest rumours floating abroad and
I would caution the hon. members not to pay
any attention to them, because I can assure
them, I do not like dealing behind closed
doors and generating all the confidential stuff
394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that one hears and is paraded in this House.
The confidentiality was all over when it was
presented in this House, the confidentiality
was all over when the bill was written and I
could not care less who had it. If it had not
been a case of wasting public funds I would
have made a copy of it available to every
hon. member. It would not have been of any
interest to them. There is no attempt on our
part, sir, to hide any of the negotiations we
have been involved in up until the time our
bill is presented to this House.
Mr. MacDonald: Twenty-four doctors and
11 insurance companies shaped your original
legislation.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, they did nothing of
the kind.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might
have a small contribution to make to this
debate, but before I say what I am going to
say about the government plan, let me just
deal for a moment with my acrobatic friends
over on the left. I would think that
they should line themselves up for the con-
test, the appropriate contest, at the next
Olympics or the British Empire Games, be-
cause they jump around and change their
position so well that their role in the acro-
batic affairs could be a very good one.
The hon. member for York South delivered
himself of a wonderful critique of the
amendment introduced by my hon. leader
(Mr. Thompson) at the time he spoke at the
beginning of this debate.
Mr. MacDonald: He certainly got to the
hon. member.
Mr. Singer: The hon. member for York
South had these interesting words to say, and
I think it is worthwhile just referring to
a few of them— whether this kind of an
amendment was not suggested by the federal
Liberals in order to—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: The hon. member for York
South also criticized that portion of the hon.
leader of the Opposition's amendment which
called for covering a full drug plan:
This amendment gets them off the hook,
so that we will be stuck with the govern-
ment's highly unsatisfactory proposals. It
is a perfect example of how the Liberals
bungle their job of the official Opposition
and, through their ineptitude, leave the
province to suffer without any relief—
and so on and so on.
Then he went through the wonderful exer-
cise of saying:
By reason of the rules of the House,
we are going to have to appear as though
we are voting with the amendment but
really we are not. We are really not. We
are going to have to stand with the hon.
Liberal members of the House and
appear as though we are voting with them
but I want to make it clear [he says], I
want to make it abundantly clear that we
are not. We disagree with it, it is the
wrong thing to do.
The fact is that he knows, just as well as
any hon. member of this House, that this is
the only way he can express his opinion.
This is the vote he is going to cast; he is
going to cast one vote in this debate and he
will be voting with the amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of personal privilege— on a point of
order.
I stated, Mr. Speaker, as you know the
rules of the House on second reading have
been clarified; but apparently the hon.
member for Downsview has not yet caught
on— in the first vote the question is on the
main motion— nothing to do with either
amendment. Only then do we get around
to the amendments. If the hon. member for
Downsview has not grasped that, I should
think he would go back and read my speech,
because the fact of the matter is that the
first vote is going to be on the main motion.
If the main motion is defeated, then we
deal with the Liberal amendment. We do
not have to consider the Liberal amendment
at all on the first vote; we are neither voting
for it nor against it on the first vote. And if
this is wrong, I invite you to correct it so
that we can keep the confusion from getting
greater in the mind of the hon. member for
Downsview.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. member should
listen a little more carefully.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, it is painful
enough to have to listen to the hon. member
for York South and then read newspaper
clippings, without having to go back again
and read it in Hansard.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we go on. He
goes through all these steps, one by one,
and says:
Now if by any strange circumstance, if
all 77 of the hon. members over there
happen not to vote for their bill, which I
suggest is not very likely to happen, then
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
395
we would have another amendment. Well
then we would vote against the Liberal
amendment and then we would have an-
other amendment and this is what our
amendment would say.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Exactly.
Mr. Singer: Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this
is very fine logic. And I am sure that all of
the good socialist members, particularly the
hon. member for York South, particularly
his colleague from Woodbine, stand behind
those remarks 100 per cent; they always said
it and they always did mean it.
Mr. MacDonald: We are opposed to the
principle of the bill.
Mr. Thompson: Does he stand by what he
said?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: I thought, Mr. Speaker, it was
worth passing note at least, to go back into
Hansard and read some of the speeches that
were made last year. And I noticed, Mr.
Speaker, for instance, that the hon. member
for Yorkview (Mr. Young), in the middle of
his speech said: "Certainly I support the
amendment"— the Liberal amendment, ex-
actly the same as it was last year. And when
the hon. member for Yorkview was finished
he sat down and said, "I urge you to vote
in favour of this amendment because it is a
good one."
Mr. Bryden: Would the hon. member per-
mit a question, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Thompson: No, sit down. The hon.
member has muddled it up. He has slipped
a bit.
Mr. Bryden: The procedure has been
changed, but he does not know it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I looked on the
remarks of the hon. member for Riverdale
(Mr. Renwick) and during the course of his—
Mr. MacDonald: That was early in June
but the procedure was changed on June 21.
The Speaker clarified the rules.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
An hon. member: There is only one party
in the House that is enjoying this.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I looked on the
remarks of the hon. member for Riverdale
and he said in conclusion, in his remarks: "I
think the idea of referring this to a com-
mittee—which is the essence of our amend-
ment—is a good one."
Let the committee take it away, let the
committee be instructed, and let it do those
things my hon. leader suggested, and this is
fine. Mr. Speaker, my good friends, my
jumping friends over here, are now telling
us about the change in rules. Last year we
had a different set of rules on this par-
ticular point. We operated in a different
way. I am sure that my hon. friends will
recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year this was
the way the voting was done, and I am
reading now from page 3555 of Hansard of
last year, and quoting your words, sir:
When the members feel they are finished
with their interjections, I shall put the
amendment which is before the House.
Now the only amendment before the House,
Mr. Speaker, was of course the amendment of
my hon. leader. To continue quoting you,
Mr. Speaker:
The amendment before the House at the
present time was moved by Mr. Thompson
and seconded by Mr. Oliver. I do not think
I should have to read it again.
And I think, sir, just to refresh your memory
and mine, the amendment I contend was
almost substantially the same.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is out
of date.
Mr. Singer: "Following the vote," Mr.
Speaker, these are your words:
Following the vote on the amendment,
we shall take a vote on the main motion.
All those in favour of the amendment, as
moved by Mr. Thompson, will please say
"aye."
Mr. MacDonald: What date was that?
Mr. Singer: Page 3555— June 1.
Mr. MacDonald: June 1. Sure, and the
ruling was on June 21. The Speaker's ruling,
putting the rule back into order, was June 21.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, can you not keep
him quiet, please?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Here are the dates. The
hon. member is living in the past.
Interjections by hon. members.
396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Once again he does not
know what he is talking about because the
rules have been restored—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad I am
not getting through to them, but I think—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: I admit they are embar-
rassed, Mr. Speaker, but let them keep in
order.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid I will
have to ask the members to stop the
interjections. The member for Downsview
has the floor. Whatever he may say, whether
it is June 1, or 21, let the member make his
speech without interruption.
Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To
continue:
All those in favour of the amendment, as
moved by Mr. Thompson will please say
"aye." All those opposed will please say
"nay." In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
And then there was a recorded vote. And I
think it is of more than passing interest to
read who voted "aye" and who voted "nay."
Among those people who voted "aye" were
Messrs. Bryden, Davison, Freeman, Gisborn,
Lewis (Scarborough West), MacDonald,
Young and Renwick.
An hon. member: A fine body of men.
Mr. Singer: All eight of them. So, Mr.
Speaker, there can be very little doubt that
the whole object-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is quite
obvious they do not want to hear, and if they
think they are going to interrupt this argu-
ment just by talking loud, they can talk loud;
but the argument is still going to go on. It
will wait until until their noise-
Mr. MacDonald: We know it will; but it
is still wrong.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the
socialist leader has come into this House
determined to take a stand against this, no
matter what it is-no matter what they did
last year, no matter how clearly they ex-
pressed themselves. The record speaks for
itself. And it is really of no importance but
when, in his unctuous manner, with his halo
tight around his head, he gets up and says:
"This is a ridiculous amendment, it might
have been written in Ottawa, we could never
in a million years support it," I just suggest
Mr. Speaker, that the record should show
clearly that from one period to another, from
June 1 of 1965 until February 10 of 1966,
those eight members do not know which
way they are going.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: You did not say it last
Saturday.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I think that is
enough.
An hon. member: We agree.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the main issue
here really is what kind of a programme we
are going to have. We have a programme-
well, I suppose we can call this one, the latest
version, Medicare '66— not to be confused
with Medicare '65, not to be confused with
Medicare '63.
Medicare '63, you remember, Mr. Speaker,,
was the great plan that allowed those imagi-
native gentlemen, who design the Tory ad-
vertising, to put on their ad a little box
beside "Medical care for everyone in On-
tario," the tick mark and the word "done."^
My friend, the hon. Prime Minister, is de-
lighted at that. I think he has even shown
his good sense of humour, at the imagina-
tion of these fellows. But we had the first
reading of a bill in 1963—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
did what I said I would do.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Prime Minister said
it was done. He said it was done.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: On a point of order.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, am I disturbing
the hon. Prime Minister again?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: On a point of order. I
must say in reference to this particular point
—and I have had to say this about 10 times
in this House— in that advertising I said I
had done what I said I would do concerning
Medicare, and that is quite correct.
Mr. Singer: It being almost 5 o'clock I
suppose I had better move the adjournment
of the debate, since there is another order.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
397
I will have, I hope, the original ad so that
we can read it to the House when this debate
resumes.
Mr. Singer moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
5 by Mr. R. F. Nixon:
Resolution: That this House take the
appropriate action to:
1. Create a permanent system of voter
registration to replace the existing enumer-
ation of voters.
2. Amend The Election Act of Ontario
to:
(a) reduce the eligible voting age from
21 to 18 years;
(b) provide for the payment of set
funds from the public Treasury to cover
expenses incurred by candidates in pro-
vincial general elections or by-elections;
(c) require the printing on all ballots in
all provincial elections of the candidate's
party affiliation.
3. Petition the federal government to
permit individual contributors to political
parties recognized in provincial general
elections to claim the full amount of their
contributions as a deduction from their
taxable income per tax return year in the
same manner and in addition to the de-
ductions allowed as contributions to chari-
ties, specifying that the only contributions
eligible for deduction are those made to
the provincial association, the local constit-
uency association, the official agent of the
party leader or the candidate.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! May
I say, sir, that I appreciate that we are fol-
lowing some kind of a very flexible order in
connection with private members' bills, but
I just want to refer, sir, again to the fact
that under rule 28 (a) it is stated that private
members' bills come up on Monday, come up
on Wednesday and come up on Friday. May
I say, sir, that I understand through the
Whip that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) is now coming to an approach where
there will be, as in Ottawa, two days in which
we will have one hour; but one of our prob-
lems has been that we have never known,
first of all when the debate will go on and
how long we will debate. I spoke on a reso-
lution several days ago and I was not sure
whether I would have an hour or whether I
would be able to continue. I ask that there
be clarification as soon as possible just what
the rules will be on private members' bills.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I want to rise to make a few brief
comments on this particular point. Basically,
I think there is a need for clarification. If we
are going to have only one hour's debate,
and therefore get into the pattern of Ottawa
where that resolution in effect goes to the
bottom of the list, where it might come up
again, it seems to me that the kind of debate
we had the other day is rather ludicrous.
We did not have even the complete pres-
entation on the part of the mover of the
motion. There was no opportunity for any-
body from this party to express his view with
regard to it. There was no opportunity,
whether or not there was a desire I do not
know, on the part of anybody on the gov-
ernment side to speak to a motion. That this
motion should go to the order paper, and I
fear lie there and die there, it seems to me
makes a travesty of the whole proposition
of a debate.
If we are going to have, I submit to you
Mr. Speaker, only one hour's debate, then
I think we have got to consider the mover of
the motion will speak only 20 minutes and
that will give an opportunity at least for the
others— spokesmen from the other parties— to
be able to get in a comment in that one
hour. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with
your fairness, you would agree automatically,
that the introduction of a motion in which
the hon. leader of the Opposition speaks for
the whole hour and this then goes to the
order paper!— What— to die? Or are we going
to come back to it?
Neither the government nor the New
Democratic Party has an opportunity to talk
to it. It is not an intelligent way to debate
resolutions, and I would think even the hon.
Prime Minister himself would be persuaded
that this is no improvement over past pro-
cedures. So I wonder if we cannot get some
clarification preferably now rather than later.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
thought I had made it quite clear that it was
my intention to call these resolutions on Tues-
days and Thursdays at 5 o'clock and the
period would be one hour, and I think it is
quite reasonable.
Now I would like to make this very clear,
that the hon. leader of the Opposition, as
398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
leader of the Opposition, put his resolu-
tion on this order paper as a private member.
This I think really goes to part at least of the
crux of the situation, because I really do not
know how many there will be here in due
course. Frankly, I think it might be at least
equitable if we were to— I do not know
whether this one will ever be called again
because there are many more standing in
the names of other private members— it may
be that we should revert to the practice in
other jurisdictions where they are drawn,
where they are put in a hat and in the
presence of the Whips are drawn to see
whose resolution will in fact be called.
We have to face the prospect that it may
be some will not be called, and this has been
true in every jurisdiction, because we cer-
tainly cannot set aside time to deal with all
private members' resolutions. It could very
well be possible that the entire order paper
could be loaded with resolutions on a wide
variety of subjects. So this is the problem,
that there will be many of these resolutions
that may never be reached. This is true in
Westminster; it is true in the House of
Commons and in other jurisdictions. The
right to have a particular bill or resolution
called, may depend upon a calling by lot.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned I would
be delighted to take this up with the two
who raised this subject, because it is private
members' business and we will arrange it in
any way the private members would prefer
to have it arranged. It has nothing to do
with the government except that we are
interested; and we may be interested in what
is presented there but we are talking about
the time allotted for private members.
If the limitation is 20 minutes I venture to
state, as I read this, if my experience is any
indicator I can tell hon. members there are
certain resolutions here that will not be de-
bated for ten minutes. In light of what has
happened in fact in prior years, some of these
were left on the order paper in previous
years and the leader of the Opposition
dragged them all out, I think to prove or
attempt to prove, that this government left
them on the order paper. They were left
there because nobody would debate them.
They were put on there and called—
An hon. member: Oh no!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Oh, they were, and
other ones! I can go back over the order
papers and check throughout and find where
we have gone to the member who put
it on the paper and he says: "Well, I had a
chance to debate it but I expressed all my
points on the government bill that was here
for discussion and therefore did not bother
calling it." This is why some of them are
left on.
I would be delighted to get rid of this
disorder. These private members' bills con-
cern all the private members in the House.
I would be delighted to get together with
the hon. leaders if they want a limitation of
debates. I can see the situation where, if
one expects one of these to be recalled he
could have one man speak for four hours,
but what happens to all the other hon.
members of all the other parties who have
their ideas?
If hon. members want to impose— and I
would suggest that they give this a little
thought— I would be quite happy to consider
it, because as far as I am concerned the hour
is there and it shall be used to the greatest
convenience of the private members in the
House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, all I want to
say is that we would be delighted to meet
with the hon. Prime Minister and get ground
rules. I would not have spoken for an hour
if I knew this debate was only going to be
for that length of time; I would have
shortened it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I might say, just to
carry this to its conclusion, the point of
limitation of speaking on any private mem-
ber's resolution to my knowledge has never
been raised before in this House. It has
been the accepted thing that the private
member spoke as long as he liked on his
resolution, and when he was finished if any-
body else wanted to speak they did so; if
no one wished to speak then that might be
the end of it and we would proceed to
the next.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, just one
minute so that we can conclude this. The
hon. Prime Minister has made an offer that
we should get together and resolve this. I
welcome it and we shall certainly co-operate
to the full. I think we need to have that one
ground rule clarified, that he in effect has
said that there will be no more than one
hour's debate on each resolution, and within
that framework then whoever is appointed
to go and work out procedures can operate.
I hope we can do it as soon as possible.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will do these two
things, Mr. Speaker, at the same time. I
hope that we will be able to meet on Mon-
day, because what I really seek is to get this
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
399
matter straightened out so that we can get
on with our business.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, 1
move, seconded by Mr. Spence, resolution
No. 5 standing in my name.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this matter of
election reform has been raised in this House,
or at least on the order paper, in every year
since the last provincial election in 1963. In
the past, however, my resolution has called
for a committee of the House to be set up to
examine the various proposals that would be
put to it by the chief electoral officer and by
members of this House, as well as by
citizens of the province. But naturally, if we
were to call for a committee and this were
acceded to at this time, the committee would
only succeed in deliberating for a year, and
would bring in its recommendations next year,
1967, which I would think will be an election
year, and so it would be of no use as far as
the development of our electoral law is con-
cerned.
So I thought, this year, since my interest
centres on the points raised in the resolution,
I would bring them as direct recommenda-
tions rather than a call for a committee; and
it is in this connection that I would like to
discuss them briefly with you this afternoon.
I want to make clear at the outset that
the list of recommendations in the resolution
is by no means a complete one. You are
aware, sir, that on the order paper under
private member's business there are some
bills, and perhaps a resolution further on that
deals with other electoral reforms. I do not
want you to get the impression, sir, that the
points raised in this resolution are by any
means what I would consider a full list of
the improvements that we should bring about
before we go to the people again.
I feel that a committee should be set up
after each election to look carefully into the
procedures as they were applied at the most
recent date. The chief electoral officer and
many others could make their recommenda-
tions, because surely in this province we have
not achieved perfection in democracy nor in
the electoral procedure. So, certainly, you
can expect a resolution like this to appear
on the order paper and be discussed in this
House after each election, as I think properly
it should.
I would like to say something about what
has gone on in other jurisdictions. We know
that committees and commissions at the pro-
vincial level, and at the state and federal level
in the United States, and presently under the
direction of the House of Commons of
Canada, have examined carefully into elec-
toral reform and certain modern considera-
tions that might make the system more
efficient. This has resulted in recommendations
that public moneys be used to subsidize
bona-fide electoral candidates in any and all
political parties; it has resulted in a reduction
of the voting age in some cases to the age of
19 in British Columbia and Alberta, and to
18 in Saskatchewan and Quebec. We know
that this recommendation has been made by
many other responsible people, including the
hon. Prime Minister of Ontario— and, as I
read the speech by the hon. member for
London South (Mr. White), by certain in-
fluential groups in his area as well.
This reference to the reduction of the vot-
ing age is only one of the recommendations
in the resolution and I would like to deal with
them as they are in the resolution— in a brief
and, I hope, useful manner.
The first one calls for the establishment of
a permanent system of voter registration in
Ontario. All of us as politicians are familiar
with the rat race that develops as soon as the
writs are issued, because we do not have
a system of permanent returning officers and
we do not have a permanent voters' list. So
we must appoint enumerators in urban areas,
representing the government party and the
party that achieves the runner-up status in
the last election.
In rural areas, the government has the
entire responsibility in this regard and in-
dividuals are selected to see that the lists are
in order. But the cost for this is 20 cents
per name put on the list and is therefore
very high when we consider the size of the
electoral list in this province. I maintain that
a useful system, based on the municipal
lists, which could be amended for our par-
ticular needs, could be co-ordinated by per-
manent returning officers appointed in each
riding as has been done federally for some
time. In this way we would save money,
and we would have an up-to-date voters' list
ready for the use of the candidates and the
electorate on very short notice indeed.
Further in my remarks I am going to
recommend that public moneys be used to
assist bona-fide candidates in putting before
the electorate their own ideas and the policies
for which they would stand, by using these
moneys in the assistance of their campaign.
And the money saved in establishing a per-
manent system of voter registration would
cover the requirements that I am going to
suggest later in my remarks.
So I would submit to you, sir, that the
establishment of a permanent system of voter
registration is efficient and would be money-
saving, and something that we should look
400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
into and that we should establish in this
province.
If you will permit me, I will leave my
remarks having to do with the reduction of
voting age till last, and move on to the
section of my resolution which provides for
the payment of some funds from the public
Treasury to assist candidates in provincial
elections and by-elections. It is my view— and
I think all hon. members would concur in
this— that the candidate or those candidates
who have large funds at their disposal have
an obvious advantage over their poorer breth-
ren when they go to the people to present,
not only their own personalities and vigour,
but also their concept of the issues of the
day.
In this way, sir, the candidate who has
access to these larger sums of money has an
advantage to begin with over these others.
I submit that we in Ontario should make
funds available to do away with this artificial
and unfair advantage. We can do this on a
reasonable and democratic basis. We can do
this with moneys that would be largely avail-
able from savings in the institution of a
permanent voters' list.
Now, I am not here to talk in detail as
to how the amount would be set and how it
would be paid. Obviously, very careful safe-
guards would have to be worked out, and
the money would be used in conjunction
with careful audit and scrutiny of the finan-
cial returns; not only of the candidates, but
of the political parties they support.
I think these funds could be made avail-
able, either directly to the candidate for use
as he sees fit under the restrictions and
limits of The Election Act, or the money
could be spent by the chief electoral officer
in providing the minimum requirements so
that the candidates can put their case before
the electorate.
The expense of a reasonable brochure, its
printing and its circulation, time on local
television and radio where it applies, the
provision of a suitable hall for a public meet-
ing at which candidates would have a chance
under independent chairmanship to state their
views and be subjected to the questions of
the electorate, are all the measures that
might come under the support that the
Treasury of this province might very well
provide.
Now, I am not saying for a moment that
the support of elections has to be taken over
in its entirety by the Treasury of the prov-
ince, because part of the initiative that every
candidate can, and does show, is his ability
to marshal support of his friends and the rest
of the electorate, not only in working for
him but in supporting his cause with money.
It seems to me that these contributions,
which should be carefully governed under
revisions in our Electoral Act, should be sub-
ject to taxation benefit so that they could be
written off in much the same way as dona-
tions to charity would be considered.
I think we should remember that our
friends in the NDP to the left, who do re-
ceive donations from some labour unions in
the province of Ontario-
Mr. MacDonald: Open and public.
Mr. Nixon: Certainly, open and public. On
a basis of a check-off, these people who make
this donation actually have their tax returns
made beforehand and they are tax free.
Surely this should be extended to the rest of
the citizens of the province.
I submit that the argument having to do
with audit and scrutiny of the books of can-
didates and political parties is something that
we will be discussing when other private
members' bills are put before us. I person-
ally will support them, and our party has in
the past. There are some reservations. Rut
they would be supported in principle. It
seems to me that these donations must be tax
exempt if we are going to get the citizens of
Ontario to take their responsibility seriously
in the support of democracy as it works
through the party system we presently use.
To move on, Mr. Speaker. A further re-
quirement of my resolution is that the print-
ing on the ballots used in the provincial
election would indicate the candidate's party
affiliation. We have seen many instances, and
I am sure all of us could recall cases where
the party affiliation is not one that is of much
value. We in the Liberal Party are proud of
this affiliation and make use of it because the
electors in our campaigns are persuaded that
the issues that we bring before them and the
stands that we take on these important issues
in the province are the right ones. We cer-
tainly feel that our candidates should be
identified with the party. I would think that
this is something that would be agreed to by
the supporters of the other parties in this
House.
I can well remember occasions, however,
when candidates for the Progressive-Conser-
vative Party were very loath to have this
known; they certainly did not want the name
of their leader known in the last federal elec-
tion in our particular area, but it is also true
that the reverse applies. Rack in 1963 we had
some Tories who were not running as Pro-
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
401
gressive-Conservatives at all, but they were
running as Robarts candidates and this, of
course, was thought useful in some areas.
But I am not suggesting that we would allow
the candidates to put on the ballot some little
three-word slogan, but it it would be useful
to the electors if it clearly stated the party
affiliation of the candidate—
An hon. member: And the history.
Mr. Nixon: Certainly there is a confusion in
names in some cases, and this could be done
away with if this small addition were made to
the ballot. I sincerely and strongly advocate
it to the consideration of the House.
I think that the most valuable recommend-
ation in my resolution has to do with the re-
duction of the voting age in this province to
the age of 18. This has been discussed in
the Legislature before and, as I said at the
opening of my remarks, it has been supported
by the hon. Prime Minister himself.
We know that in the elections committee
of the House of Commons of Canada it re-
ceived unanimous support, but no action has
been taken because there is a committee
appointed that is looking into electoral re-
form which, I am told, is expected to report
in the near future. I hope and trust that
among the amendments placed before the
House of Commons by the government now
in office this reduction of the voting age to
18 will be included.
An 18-year-old who is called upon to de-
fend his country should be given the right
to vote; the fact that many of our young
people are already earning sufficient money
to be subject to the income taxes of our coun-
try, and if not that they pay taxes under
other legislation; many of them are married
and raising families. But it appears to me
that the outstanding reason for the reduction
of the voting age at this time is the active
idealism that has developed among our youth
in the past few years.
Many of us can remember political discus-
sions in our high school and university years
which were, I would submit, not nearly as
informed nor active nor useful as those that
are taking place now among our young
people. As a teacher and as a politician
I have had an opportunity to talk to a good
many of these young people and not all of
them had the same political affiliations of
which I am so proud. But these people have
been aware of the issues and they have had
new ideas that surely we need, not only in
this Legislature but in the community at
large.
I think this active idealism has shown itself
in some ways that not all hon. members of
this House would support. We have seen our
young people demonstrating their support
or their active opposition to certain policies
of this government and even governments
outside of our jurisdiction entirely. I person-
ally commend them for this and am proud
of the fact that they have broken out of their
shell and are taking this active part in the
responsibilities of the community.
For this reason I feel that we should ex-
tend the franchise to them. I have taken
every opportunity to question them myself
and I must say that a good many of them,
not a majority in my personal poll but a
good many of them, will say: "I do not think
we are mature enough." In discussing the
matter I have come even more strongly to
the opinion that they can discuss it so fully
and with such maturity that they give the
lie to their own opinions when they oppose
the position that I stand for today.
I think of the way education has developed
in making our young people aware of the
issues of the day. My son, who is in grade 7,
brought home his answers to an examination
that he took at Christmas that had to do with
his opinions of American policy in Viet Nam
and President de Gaulle's difficulties in his
election, which was underway some months
ago. I was surprised and amazed, and indeed
very proud of the grasp that these young
people have of the important issues. Our
teachers, our progressive teachers and the
education system in general, I feel, has
come a long way toward involving our young
people in these affairs of the community.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would
advocate to your active consideration the pro-
posal that the voting age be reduced in the
province of Ontario. We need the idealism
more than anything else that these young
people can add to the general body politic.
Their opinions on the issues are valuable
ones, they are opinions that would make
our work here more effective than it is at
the present time.
I am proud to have had this opportunity
to speak in favour of the resolution and will
look forward to the opinions expressed by
other members.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson (Scarborough East):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join
with the hon. member for Brant in dis-
cussing this resolution. I should hope that
he does not feel at this time, nor that
the House feels, that I am going to debate
this resolution and these many points in a
402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
very formal fashion, because on some of
them I find myself somewhat in agreement.
So therefore, what I am doing here is putting
forward my point of view in relation to three
parts of his resolution.
The hon. member for Brant, of course, has
certain areas of experience which I have
not; and that is that he has children who are
advancing in school age, he has been a school
teacher and therefore has talked and dis-
cussed these issues with the students. I have
not had those opportunities; I believe he has
been elected twice and I have only been
elected once. So probably he should be
more satisfied with the system under which
we conduct elections at this time than I
should. But I should hope he will not out-
live me in terms of numbers of elections in
which we participate in this House from now
on. We are even now.
The point of registration of voters is one
that I can support. When I was a member
of the select committee on municipal affairs—
I joined that committee at the tag end for
the fourth report — there was a great deal
of agreement and I was in agreement with
the committee on the basis of voter registra-
tion, a voter registration that could be used
for the three levels of government— muni-
cipal, provincial and federal— and therefore
cut out the cost of the enumerating we have
been having about every 18 months for the
last five or six years.
The registration that the hon. member for
Brant proposes, I should hope, would be one
of all people eligible to vote and not one
based on the United States system where it
becomes the responsibility of the citizen to
go and register. This system of registration
in the United States has caused a great deal
of difficulty, and when one is approaching
elections the drive to have people register
from each of the parties is as expensive and
arduous in some cases as the actual election
campaign itself. Therefore I should hope
that he is speaking of a registration system
that would involve all the people and not
one where the people have to use their own
initiative to go and register.
The question of voting at 18 is one that
has fascinated the newspapers in the prov-
ince for some time, going back to the Liberal
Party platform preceding the 1963 election.
I have a few of the clippings and they are
quite extensive expressing the views taken
by the various writers and columnists in the
papers of this province.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Excuse me, it was
the federal platform at that time. This
resulted in the Commons election committee
and the Liberals bringing through a proposal
which we have not heard too much of since.
But there does not seem to be— from a cross-
section of newspaper columns— any basic
agreement on voting at 18. So therefore, as
I say, it is not something teenagers are
clamouring for at this time.
I think probably before we consider voting
at 18 we should, from this Legislature, bring
about a process whereby everyone who is 21
years of age has a vote in municipal elec-
tions within the province. I think before a
government calls an election, they should be
careful not to disenfranchise thousands of
people because they happen to be away from
their constituency, as the students were in
the election in November of last year.
My personal view of voting at 18 is that
I am in favour of it. When I was 18 I was
a member of the Royal Canadian mounted
police in Canada, and I was working and
taking a full role in society. I feel, looking
back at that time when I was 18, I would
have been competent to vote. Probably the
vote would have been Conservative, but I
do feel I was aware of the problems of the
nation.
Mr. MacDonald: He just said "probably."
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: What is that?
Mr. Thompson: The word there.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Word where?
Mr. MacDonald: You were going to vote
Conservative.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Now just a minute.
We will have a couple of comments on that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: The hon. Prime Min-
ister of Ontario has stated that, should
voting become accepted at 18 in a national
election, he would then encourage the Legis-
lature to bring about amendments so there
would be voting at 18 in the province of
Ontario.
An hon. member: With the Liberals now,
eh?
Mr. Thompson: Is that the federal or Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Not necessarily so.
provincial party? The Liberal Party and the New Democratic
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
403
Party platforms have now carried this pro-
vision of voting at 18 for some time. I
suppose they have been in Opposition so
long here in the province of Ontario, that
they feel the natural rebellion of youth
would rise and turn the government out.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): You have
that in mind.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: I do not think that
would happen.
Mr. Thompson: There are others as well.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: It is not a question
of—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: That is your desire,
yes. The Metropolitan Toronto Conserva-
tive association, in a vote taken at the Inn
on the Park, decided against the provision
of voting at 18.
Mr. Nixon: Why did they do that?
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Because a majority
was against it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: Gladys Taylor, writing
in the Toronto Telegram Monday, November
7, had a number of things to say, and I would
like to quote one paragraph here—
Mr. Thompson: What seat does she repre-
sent?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Are you for
or against?
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: If the hon. member
had been listening he would know.
Mr. Gaunt: The hon. member says he is in
favour of it and then gives all the arguments
against it.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson: This is a quote from
Gladys Taylor:
If the Conservatives could have dis-
played the "for motherhood and against
sin" courage of the Liberals and the New
Democrats and joined the current popular
youth kick which now seems aimed at giv-
ing us fuzz-faced government, they could
have got on the kid vote bandwagon and,
as the ballot-hungry Liberals and New
Democrats have done, formulate policy that
would appeal to the juvenile voter.
And she goes on to say that on one hand the
Liberals and the New Democrats pretend the
18-year-old is mature enough to vote, but on
the other they deny a belief in his maturity
by wooing him with policies aimed at what
one editorial called "youth's fundamental irre-
sponsibility."
So that was the position of Gladys Taylor
—opposition to this vote. If the Opposition
parties felt that this vote would divide, based
on the appeal and the platforms of the three
political parties, I wonder would they be so
anxious in order to bring the voting age
to 18?
I think we should turn to youth and listen
to what they have to say. The young people
in a poll in Canadian High News returned
16,000 questionnaires— 69 per cent in favour
of voting at 18. But there are other articles,
other editorials where polls have been taken
and the students have not suggested voting
at 18.
In the Toronto Daily Star in a question-
naire—I do not know what the random sample
was— but in a questionnaire there were six
students out of nine not in favour of voting,
and three that were in favour of voting at 18.
So therefore, I again point out, this does
not give a measure of desire by the people,
the teenagers, to vote at 18.
Now before political parties thrust the re-
sponsibility of voting onto the youth of the
province, I think they should consider the
difficulties the youth have at this time. These
young people are asked to make decisions in
their teens, affecting their whole life; and yet
we also say: Should they have the guidance
of government, and yet not be part of it?
So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel we should
be very careful in reducing the voting age
to 18. Yet I think as the teenagers express
themselves, and as they become more aware
and responsible, I think it should probably
be given to them.
Now in speaking to the question of election
funds the hon. member for Brant seemed
all in favour of the public Treasury sup-
plying the money for operating an election
campaign. I believe that any public grant
or any public assistance to candidates run-
ning in provincial or federal elections would
only raise the total spending on elections by
the amount of the grant. I think that when
candidates enter their names to be elected
and they wish to be elected, they will spend
that money they can afford to put their point
of view across to the people. I believe when
we started to develop rules relative to who
would be qualified for the grant we would
404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
then start to create a situation where you
may bar some legitimate independent candi-
date, and I do not think this should be done.
I think that public moneys provided to
candidates would create a false impression of
the amount of support that any one given
candidate in an election campaign would
have. This was exemplified in the federal
election, where the polls showed that the
Liberal Party running in the last national
election would overwhelmingly sweep the
country, and yet when the votes came in this
was not the case. Moneys to all the parties,
or to the candidates, could give a false im-
pression of the general support these candi-
dates are getting.
Candidates offer themselves and their
money. They spend their money, they offer
their time, and in many cases with us younger
members we interrupt careers that probably
will suffer because of our involvement in
politics. I do not think an additional amount
of money from the Treasury, or the lack of
that amount from the Treasury, makes a dif-
ference whether we offer ourselves or not. I
think this principle of the state giving money
to political candidates, eventually will lead
to the state saying who can be a candidate.
In conclusion, I would just like to mention
that I am in favour of voting at 18, but I be-
lieve a great deal more consideration should
be given than we have up to the present
time to this connection. I think that we
should not give public money to candidates
who wish to become members of this Legis-
lature.
I do appreciate the opportunity to partici-
pate in this debate and I want to feel that I
have made some contribution, and I hope that
we can initiate a new round of discussion
among the younger people in terms of their
voting at age 18.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly do not want to be responsible
for talking this motion out. Therefore I will
try to state the position of our party on the
various items referred to in it as briefly as
possible. This resolution, in my opinion,
raises some important questions and I think
it would be desirable for the House to de-
clare its position now.
To run through the specific items as
quickly as possible, I would refer first to
item No. 1 proposing that consideration
should be given to the creation of a per-
manent system of voter registration in place
of the present system of enumeration. We
have some reservations on that matter.
I myself think that, notwithstanding all
the unkind things that are said about it, the
present system of enumeration works out
very well; and there are very few people
indeed who are actually deprived of a vote
because they fail to get on to the list.
There are difficulties in this system. There
are difficulties also in a system of voter
registration. There is no perfect system, so
we do not really take a very strong position
on point one. On the other hand, in order
to support the general principle indicated
in the resolution, we would be quite happy
to go along with that part of the resolution
on the understanding, of course, that these
are matters only to be taken into considera-
tion.
With regard to item 2 in the resolution, I
will leave clause (b) aside for the moment
and deal only with clauses (a) and (c). Clause
(a) proposes that the voting age should be
reduced from 21 to 18. Our party has been
on record to that effect for so many years
that I cannot remember how long it has
been, and is still on record. We believe
that the need becomes more urgent all the
time.
It is an obvious fact that human beings
nowadays mature more rapidly than they did
even a generation ago. In fact I am always
amazed when I meet teenagers to note how
smart most of them are, how sophisticated,
and how much they know. I would say they
are a lot smarter than teenagers were back
in that remote past when I was a teenager.
It is only sensible that we should keep our
laws up to the times and invite these young
people to participate in the democratic pro-
cess at the age of 18.
I understand, from a discussion held by
the Metropolitan Toronto Progressive-Con-
servative council not long ago at the Inn on
the Park, that the Progressive-Conservatives
would like to exclude the people between
the ages of 18 and 21 because they are
afraid that those people would likely vote
New Democratic. I think that their fears
may be well founded, but I do not think
that that is a reason for disfranchising them.
The Conservatives might as well face the
fact that, in the course of time, they will
become 21 in any case and they will un-
doubtedly continue in their present impulse
to vote New Democratic.
As to item (c), printing the name of the
party affiliation on the ballot, this matter has
been well expounded by my hon. friend from
Brant. I do not want to repeat what he said.
It is an obviously desirable move. It assists
the elector in making his identification on
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
405
the ballot and anything that assists the
elector is good.
The third item in the resolution suggests
that contributions to political parties should
be exempt for income tax purposes. I would
agree with that, although I would suggest
that there should be some upper limit con-
tributions of up to $100 or up to $500. I
am not concerned about the precise upper
limit, but I think there should be some limit.
What we are really concerned about are the
small contributions made by individuals. I
think we all want to encourage that type of
contribution, and one way of doing it would
be to permit the contributor to claim the con-
tribution as exemptions for income tax pur-
poses.
I was a little touched by the reference of
my hon. friend from Brant to the effect
that the working men who contribute 60
cents a year to our party somehow manage,
by virtue of the fact that they do it through
their dues, to get an income tax exemption
on that 60 cents. It really must amount to
a considerable sum.
Mr. Nixon: What is the overall contribu-
tion?
Mr. Bryden: Well, we have published our
figures. I do not have them handy, but they
are readily available. It is about the equiva-
lent of what you get from one corporation.
I think that, in the course of a year in this
province, we get about 40 per cent of our
total budget from contributions made one
way or another from trade unions. As I
say-
Mr. Nixon: Is it the usual procedure for
such contributions to be paid out of the
union treasury when they are not made
through the check-off?
Mr. Bryden: Yes, it is.
Mr. Nixon: In that case, they are also
eligible for income tax exemption.
Mr. Bryden: I am not disputing that fact,
if they are ultimately made through dues.
An individual can claim this 60 cents or
whatever it may be, it may be a dollar in
some cases, for income tax purposes, and I
think that is good. I think, if a person
makes a contribution of $1 or $10 or $50 to
the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party,
he should also be able to claim that as an
exemption for income tax purposes.
I have concern about the huge contribu-
tions which corporations make to some
political parties, not to ours. My hon. friend
from Parkdale (Mr. Trotter), I think, said
not so long ago that about 80 per cent of
Liberal finances come from corporations.
These are not at all in the magnitude of 60
cents or a dollar a year according to my in-
formation. I would suggest that corporations
usually also contrive to obtain income tax
exemptions on their contributions simply by
putting them down as a business expense.
I have a bill before this House which I
hope may be called for second reading some
day. It would require that all such con-
tributions be made public just as contributions
to our party are already made public by
voluntary decision of the party.
However, my point is that I support the
principle contained in 3. If we got to the
point of drafting actual legislation I would
suggest that there should be an upper limit
on the amount that could be claimed for
income tax purposes.
I now come to the one clause that I had
set aside for the moment, namely clause (b)
of section 2, under which it is proposed that
The Election Act of Ontario should be
amended— and I am now quoting:
—to provide for the payment of set funds
from the public Treasury to cover expenses
incurred by candidates in provincial general
elections or by-elections.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that our
group here does not subscribe to the prin-
ciple set forth in that clause.
Mr. Nixon: What about the hon. member's
group in Ottawa?
Mr. Bryden: I was just going on to say
that there are arguments both ways on this.
As far as I know pur group in Ottawa does
not subscribe to it either— although I think
that some individual members have in the
past suggested that it is a matter that could
be considered. I am not suggesting that it
is not a matter that could be considered, I
am merely saying that we, after having
thought about it for a good many years— and
I may say having at one time been more or
less favourably disposed to the idea, back in
the days when Senator Douglas in the United
States was expounding and advocating it
quite strongly— we tended at that time to be
influenced by his arguments.
Since then we have given further con-
sideration to the matter and we are very
doubtful about its soundness. We really do
not see why the public Treasury should be
called upon to finance the election campaigns
of individuals or parties.
406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What we think is desirable is something
that is in another bill and I will not discuss
it now. I hope I will have a chance to dis-
cuss it on another occasion, but we think it is
desirable that there should be a limitation on
expenditures. I think if there is a limitation,
then we get into the realm of fairness with-
out having to call on the public Treasury
at all. But the danger of having election
campaigns financed largely or entirely out
of the public Treasury is that political parties
themselves and members of the Legislature
will in effect become part of the bureaucracy,
there will be a merging of the public service
with the political representative, and I think
that is most undesirable in a democratic
system.
I think they should be kept entirely
separate. The elected members should not in
any sense be identified with the public
service. Furthermore, I would suggest that
the elected representatives ought to be identi-
fied and dependent upon the people who do
the voting. I think it is a good thing for a
party to have to go to the people to seek
its funds, as long as the total amount of
money to be spent is reasonably limited so
that it simply does not become a battle of
plutocrats to determine who is going to win
an election.
As long as we have that safeguard then I
think it is very desirable for the politicians
to have to go to the people for money.
It will help to keep them in touch with the
people. There is nothing that will make a
politician remember who it is that he depends
upon, better than the knowledge that he is
going to have to go to these people, not
only for their votes but also for the money
which he hopes to use to elect him.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
the system of contributions to political
parties from the public Treasury that has now
been approved in the province of Quebec is
an iniquitous provision. It is a conspiracy by
two parties who happen now to be in power
to keep themselves in power, one or the
other, forever, by the use of public funds.
It is so rigged that it would be very difficult
for any other person wanting to challenge
those parties to ever get in. A man who
wants to run against the people now in there
will have to contribute through his taxes
to their campaign fund and then will have
to finance his own campaign on the side.
That can be the effect of the Quebec legis-
lation and I think that is iniquitous.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): I would like to ask the hon. member
a question on that. Is he aware of the fact
that any voter in Quebec, anyone who runs
in Quebec and gets 20 per cent of the vote,
is entitled to share in that participation? Is
he aware of that?
Mr. Bryden: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Anybody who gets 20
per cent of the vote— if there were five candi-
dates and three got 20 per cent, those three
would be able to get 15 cents for each name
on the voters' list by way of a subsidy after
the event.
Mr. Bryden: I know this is a matter of
great levity to the parties that now have the
controlling position in Quebec, but surely it
is a well-known fact that in a democratic
society new ideas and new people are often
unpopular in the sense that they have very
little popular support to begin with. It is
not easy if you are making your first try,
with something new, to get 20 per cent of
the vote. So that per cent effectively elimi-
nates any challenge from somebody who is
not now in the group; that is objectionable in
my opinion.
If money is to be provided out of the
public Treasury to candidates then it should
be provided on an equal basis to all qualify-
ing candidates. Otherwise there is a serious
interference with the democratic process.
Certain people are put in a preferred position
by the use of public funds. They happen to
now be in the position where they can control
the public funds, so now they are going to
divide the pie up among themselves to keep
themselves there to the exclusion of others,
and I say that is an anti-democratic philos-
ophy.
However, that was as an aside. It is not
implied in this resolution that there would be
an undemocratic limitation of that kind if
the principle proposed in clause (b) of sec-
tion 2 were adopted. I do not see any sug-
gestion there that there would be that kind
of limitation. So I am not raising that objec-
tion in relation to the resolution. My objec-
tion in relation to the resolution as it now
stands is as I have already stated, that it
helps to keep politicians responsible to make
them go to the people for their money.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
say that we support the resolution in general
with certain reservations that I have already
stated with regard to section 1 and section 3,
but that we cannot in any way see our
way clear to supporting clause (b) of section
2. Therefore I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis,
that the section be amended by striking out
clause (b) of section 2 thereof.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
407
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bryden moves, seconded
by Mr. S. Lewis, that the motion be amended
by striking out clause (b) of section 2 thereof.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: I would suggest the hon.
member adjourn the debate; the clock indi-
cates two minutes to six.
Mr. Trotter: One of my longer speeches,
Mr. Speaker. Very well.
Mr. Trotter moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I might say that at eight o'clock
we will go into the Throne debate for the
whole evening and tomorrow morning we
will resume the debate on Bill No. 6.
It being 6.00 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
ERRATUM
(February 8, 1966)
Page Column Line Correction
301 1 35 Change to read:
stitutions): The hon. member for Sudbi
objections to that.
has
No. 15
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 10, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
! ?
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 10, 1966
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. White, Mr. Newman,
Mr. Edwards, Mr. Young 411
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Young, agreed to 434
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Allan, agreed to 434
4U
• -
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The first order: Re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the Speech of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the open-
ing of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, some of the hon. members will re-
call that before I adjourned the debate last
week I presented certain statistical evidence
using Dominion bureau of statistics figures
to indicate that the numbers of university
graduates in all faculties, except medicine,
had increased very substantially during the
past six or eight years. I contrasted that with
the situation in the medical profession, in
which the number of graduates had remained
more or less stagnant at 850 per year for
quite some years.
This portion of my speech was very accur-
ately reported in a headline article in the
London Free Press, in fact I felt compelled
to tell the managing editor that it was the
most accurately reported news article I had
seen in a very long time. As a consequence
I have received a number of submissions
from the medical profession, several of which
I would like to read to hon. members. I do
so, Mr. Speaker, primarily to point up the
fact to the hon. members, and perhaps more
particularly the younger or newer members,
that this is without doubt the most powerful
forum in which a member of the provincial
Parliament can make his views known to the
populace.
The first letter I have comes from a Sena-
tor, who is also a doctor, in which he says:
Dear Mr. White: As a fellow Conserva-
tive I am a little concerned-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. White: I am coming to the hon.
gentlemen opposite in a minute, Mr. Speaker.
As a fellow Conservative I am a little
.;' cdncemed about your remarks pertaining
Thursday, February 1.0, 1966
to the distinguished and noble profession
of which I have been a member for over
35 years. Your remarks the other day
sounded more like a member of the NDP,
etc.
The next letter comes from , a very fine
woman— and by the way 1 must say that is
the kind of insult that touches me the deepest
—the letter comes from a very fine woman
in Kinmount, Ontario, who says:
Dear Sir: c
I certainly agree with your remarks on
the front page of Thursday's Toronto
Daily Star. We have a daughter who is
attending the University of Western
Ontario, etc., etc.
In this letter she makes clear that her
daughter, having acquired 71 per cent aver-
age, was not admitted into the medical
school, that she is completing her B.Sc. this
year in the hope that she will be admitted
next year.
I am going to have to tell this very fine
mother that her daughter's chances are
negligible because one of the statistics I did
not mention last day, sir, is the fact that
although there have been almost a constant
850 students graduate per year in medicine,
only 70 of those were women. If I am not
mistaken, if my memory serves me correctly,
there was never any variation, every year 70.
women graduated, ' no more and no less; so
her chances are not very good out of a
population of 20 million people.
The next letter I have comes from one of«
the more distinguished doctors in London,
who happens to be a friend of mine, in,-
which he says:
Dear John: It was too bad that our dis-;
cussion last evening could not have been;
prolonged, etc. - r)
The impression so far as the profession ■
is concerned, following your remarks made
in the House last Week, is that you feel I
that the doctors themselves have in some
way limited the number of graduates in
order to maintain a high business level on
their own behalf. Of course, the doctors t>
have nothing to do -with the .candidates
going into medicine! bts&Uloiq . ;:
412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This brings me to the next point I would
like to make. In the article on the front page
of the London Free Press to which I have
referred, the distinguished dean of the school
of medicine at the University of Western
Ontario said that the reason there were not
more medical graduates is because there
were an insufficient number of medical appli-
cants.
I regret to say that this response is com-
pletely inaccurate. The condition described
may have prevailed some years ago, it has
not prevailed in recent years. At the Univer-
sity of Western Ontario there are 450
students in basic science courses, of that
number 250 call themselves pre-med students
—a designation which was done away with
not very long ago, I think, perhaps to miti-
gate the embarrassment that the large
numbers of applicants must have caused. Of
that 250, 170 can be expected to complete
the pre-medical course with sufficient stand-
ing to enter the medical course. Of that
170, 150 will have those personal attributes
so necessary for a doctor in the service of his
community.
At the University of Western Ontario
medical school only 60 students have been
accepted per year. We are building a $7
million medical school in London. The
number of students it will accommodate is
75 in the freshman year, so that there will
be 150 applicants from the University of
Western Ontario alone and in addition to
that there will be large numbers applying
from basic science courses at the University
of Waterloo, the University of Windsor and
other institutions where they provide basic
science courses, but not medical courses as
such. And so, sir, there will be four or five
suitable applicants for every pupil place
in the University of Western Ontario medical
school. The explanation provided by the
dean is, in my opinion, completely unsatis-
factory.
I turn now to the next item on my small
list. Some hon. members will remember a few
years ago I criticized the limitations that had
been placed on the workmen's compensation
board by this Legislature whereby a man had
to have an accident per se before he could
qualify for compensation. I am very glad to
say that several years ago, in an amendment
to The Workmen's Compensation Board Act
this provision was relaxed so that any dis-
ablement arising out of employment, in
addition to accidents as such, qualified an
employee for compensation.
This has gone a very long way towards
solving the problem I have described before.
We continue to have difficulty with certain
marginal cases that I would like to describe
to the hon. members.
If a man has a little accident after a
short employment, and if he is sophisticated
enough, or knowledgeable enough to report
that accident quickly, he will say he twisted
his back while pushing a hand truck through
a factory, then that accident will be com-
pensable. If another man, who is highly
sophisticated in the art of protecting himself
has an accident, let us say while gardening
at his home over the weekend, if he can find
his way into work and on Monday pretend
to have an accident, he also will find himself
protected.
If a man has had a long service job in an
industry involving very heavy work and if at
the end of this long period of time his back
gives out, he will now be protected, since
the amendment to the legislation passed a
few years ago.
What about the employee whose back
gives out on the job after some short period
of time? What do we do about him? Well,
the fact of the matter is that unless he is
prepared to go through rather an elaborate
deception, he is not protected and I suppose
in most cases he finds himself on some form
of welfare.
I discussed the matter— as my hon. friend
from Scarborough West (Mr. S. Lewis)
knows because he was in my office when the
conversation took place — I discussed the
matter with the vice-chairman of the work-
men's compensation board. He has told me
that he thinks this problem cannot be solved
by amending our Act here, that it is some-
what unfair to charge the employer with
the full cost of looking after a man who has
had chronic back trouble, that in those juris-
dictions where this has been attempted the
employers have required a very high standard
of physical examination before admitting or
retaining employees in their company. So
the danger is, if we were to broaden the Act
in this fashion, a number of older employees
would be dismissed.
I think the problem can only be solved by
a radical amendment to the disabled persons'
allowance programme initiated in Ottawa;
and I speak very feelingly in saying, sir, that
I think this must be the most inadequate
legislation now existing in Canada. In my
personal experience over the past seven or
eight years, a constituent has to be disabled
to the point where he can scarcely flutter
an eyelash, or move a finger, before he
qualifies. And so a person with a chronic
heart condition, who is incapable of working,
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
413
who is incapable perhaps of looking after,
we will say, her own household, this person,
if she is able to get up and move around
in some fashion, is disqualified from the
disabled persons' allowance.
I would hope that a very clear message
went forth from our government and our
Legislature that this inadequate legislation
must be brought into the 20th century and
without delay, so that these injustices which
all of us have seen— as evidenced by the desk
thumping which has just taken place— will
be at last eliminated. The cost would be
minimal because while these persons who are
rejected for disabled persons' allowance end
up on a form of municipal welfare, or some
other form of welfare— usually municipal—
they become a charge on the state, so the
only thing really that is accomplished is that
their own self-esteem is destroyed.
I would like to tell the hon. members about
several voluntary programmes in London.
For some years the law profession has carried
on a legal aid society at which clinic citizens
of modest means can acquire the legal advice
and the legal representation that they require
to satisfy their rights as citizens. I, myself,
started a clinic in London five-and-a-half
years ago. Every week at the YMCA in
London, at an appointed hour, I attend; and
in a small advertisement in the London Free
Press I invite constituents with suggestions,
queries, and problems to visit me. In the past
five-and-a-half years I have had more than
2,000 citizens come to me with questions.
I am glad to inform the House that the
legal aid committee sponsored by the barris-
ters in London is broadening its services, and
that they are going to include some debt
counselling services. I have put the request
to the chartered accountants association in
London that they work with the legal pro-
fession in making this a full-blown debt coun-
selling service, not unlike the two such
services that are staffed here in Metro
Toronto. I am glad to say that the president
of the chartered accountants association has
received this suggestion very favourably, and
he is optimistic about getting the support
of his membership.
I am glad to tell the House also that the
chamber of commerce is considering the
initiation of a consumer fund clinic. The
federal member of Parliament from London,
my friend and colleague Jack Irvine, is con-
sidering a complementary political clinic to
my own. The reason I am telling this story,
sir, is that I suspect many of the hon. mem-
bers of this House could themselves initiate
such a service, certainly in urban areas;
and they might persuade professions like
lawyers, chartered accountants, municipal
councils, and so on, to participate. My hope,
I will say unabashedly, sir, is that we can
have half-a-dozen clinics meeting simultane-
ously in some convenient location, like the
library or the YMCA; that such services will
be well publicized and that our citizens will
be able to come and get this type of assist-
ance.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that
we do this because of the increased com-
plexity and scope of government, and the
encroachment that government occasionally
makes into the lives of our citizens.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Would the hon. member be for an
ombudsman as well as this?
Mr. White: Well, my hon. friend knows
I am because I have spoken on that subject.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, my friend, I
was the first to speak on it although you and
I were quick off the mark with that together
a few years ago.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It is my
bill.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Surely
it is the absence of government rather than
the encroachment of government
Mr. White: That is your pet. Our biases
now reveal themselves.
The hon. member for York South, in
speaking on the Throne debate, made some
comments that I feel, Mr. Speaker, are obvi-
ously in error. Unintentional as this may be,
I feel compelled to correct him.
He said on page 138 of Hansard:
This year, student fees across the whole
of Canada represented an outlay of $90
million to $100 million. Now that the fed-
eral government has begun to accept its
responsibilities for financing higher educa-
tion, at least to some degree, I would sug-
gest it is a fair proposition that half of that
cost should be accepted by Ottawa.
I would like to make it clear I am quoting
from the hon. member for York South.
That would leave $50 million to be met
by the provinces. The share for Ontario
of such a provincial commitment would
be in the range of one-third, roughly $17
million. Last year, the outlay for Ontario
in capital and operational grants to the
universities was $163 million. This year,
it undoubtedly will be higher.
Now the argument is fallacious, sir, as I
attempted to indicate in my interjection, and
414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that was responded to by the hon. member
who said:
If the hon. gentleman thinks my analysis
is completely false, I invite him to get up
on his own time in the Throne debate and
deal with the issue.
And here I am.
Now, sir, the reason that it is false is this:
My hon. friend uses the assumption that free
university education would not increase en-
rolment beyond its present limits. That is—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
make no such assumption.
Mr. White: Of course you do.
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about the
cost now for elimination fees.
Mr. White: Yes, I know. The hon. mem-
ber is talking about the cost in terms of the
people in university now and he assumes that
that enrolment will not burgeon if university
education is free.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the hon. member op-
posing it?
Mr. White: At the present time I am not
opposing it philosophically, I am opposing it
from an economic point of view. I think the
Budget yesterday might have indicated to
some of the hon. members, like my friend
from York South, that there are certain eco-
nomic restraints placed on all provincial
governments.
He assumes that free university education
would not increase enrolment. The enrol-
ment at the present time is in the neigh-
bourhood of 45,000 students in this province.
The provincial grant, as the hon. member
mentioned last year, was $163 million, of
which perhaps some $50 million was provided
by the students themselves. I suggest, sir,
that if university education was free there
would be tremendously increased demands on
university facilities, and that the cost would
not be $17 million, but perhaps $250 million
-which is an extra four per cent on the sales
tax or it is—
Mr. MacDonald: That's far-fetched.
Mr. White: Well, indeed it is. And so
<we find ourselves, I think, not persuaded by
a- philosophical point of view but by the
economic realities of our provincial product,
that we can go so far and no farther without-
; Mr. MacDonald: Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. White: Indeed, I will.
Mr. MacDonald: Since it has been pointed
out many times that there are by assess-
ments of results and IQ's and so on, approxi-
mately 30 per cent of the people who are
entitled and capable of absorbing university
education, that would be approximately
three times what we have now. Three times
17 million is 51 million— not 250 million.
Would the hon. gentleman like to comment
on that?
Mr. White: Well, indeed, I will. This is the
silliest comment yet, Mr. Speaker, because it
would not be three times $17 million; it
would be three times $163 million. And, in
point of fact, because of the very heavy ini-
tial cost, it would not be three times $163
million but rather three times $163 million
plus several hundred million dollars.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is op-
posed to those capable of getting education
getting it.
Mr. White: No, I am simply saying that in
my experience as a university lecturer most
students who have (a) the ability, (b) the
vigour, and (c) the determination, can now
acquire a university education. I look for-
ward, as a matter of fact to that day.
Mr. MacDonald: The facts don't back you
up.
Mr. Thompson: I just want to ask the hon.
member if he feels that the economy of
Newfoundland has suffered because of the
one-year free university education?
Mr. White: I am glad my hon. friend asked
that because, of course, that is just political
hocus-pocus. The Newfoundland programme
is political hocus-pocus. We now offer the
equivalent of a free one-year to everyone in
this jurisdiction because of the free grade 13,
and that is actually what my hon. friend's
colleague, Premier Smallwood, is doing.
Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. member ever
correct?
Mr. White: That is political trickery at
its worst. And I can give additional evidence,
Mr. Speaker, of some of the other decep-
tions practised in that jurisdiction with
respect to some of the university programmes
they offer.
I move on to another statement which J
feel warrants correction.
Mr. MacDonald: A privilege^ not a right.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
415
Mr. White: Another statement— oh, by the
way, these interjections remind me, Mr.
Speaker, of the most amazing incident that I
have witnessed in the last eight or nine years
in this Legislature. My friend, the hon.
leader of the Opposition, was speaking last
Thursday evening on the rights and the
freedoms of the private members of this
Legislature, and of the obvious necessity for
a private MPP—
Mr. Thompson: Never an interjection dur-
ing it.
Mr. White: —to ask oral questions, etc.,
etc. When he was part way through his
oration, my hon. friend from Muskoka— my
friend the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr.
Boyer), one of the most distinguished, mod-
erate, sensible and intelligent men in this
House, whose riding we all enjoy— rose to his
feet and said: "Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
leader of the Opposition permit a question?"
and the answer was "No."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. White: No, he would not let this hon.
member ask the question. So I suggest, sir,
that he defeated this whole argument and
cast into oblivion the high phrase that he
was utilizing.
Now I turn to Hansard, page 139, con-
tinuing the speech given by the hon. member
for York South:
For the majority of our people the
problem is not a job.
That, by the way, is an interesting con-
cession. I am glad the hon. member recog-
nizes that employment in this jurisdiction
is 97.5 per cent, in a system where 97 per
cent is considered full employment.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a great government.
Mr. White: It is a great government, as
my hon. friend says. Now to quote the hon.
member for York South:
For the majority of our people the
problem is not a job. They have that.
Quite right.
Their problem is how to make their
income meet their family needs and they
are facing a losing battle with rising costs
of living. Every time they get a wage
raise, it achieves little more than to catch
up on the cost of living increases they
have experienced in the last year or two.
Very little gain has taken place in income.
Now, sir, that assertion is completely in-
correct, as I will seek to prove, using statis-
tics concerning Ontario per capita personal
income, 1944 to 1965.
In 1944, the Ontario per capita personal
income in current dollars was $886. In 1956,
the estimated amount was $2,264. So that in
current dollars the per capita personal in-
come has nearly trebled. The Ontario per
capita personal income, in constant 1949
dollars, in 1944 was $1,188. In 1965, in
constant 1949 dollars, the per capita personal
income in this province was $1,632, an in-
crease of approximately 50 per cent.
Even more interesting, sir, is the tremen-
dous progress that we have made since the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) assumed
his heavy responsibilities. Since that new ad-
ministration took over its duties in 1961 On-
tario per capita personal income has increased
as follows: In 1962, an increase of 4.8 per
cent; in 1963, an increase of 4.6 per cent; in
1964, an increase of 5.2 per cent; and in 1966,
sir, I am glad to report an increase of 6.5 per
cent.
And so, sir, we find that we are mak-
ing tremendous progress in aggregate in this
province. And much more important than
that, we are increasing the real income of
all of our citizens in a very rapid fashion.
As a matter of fact, some months ago I
did a little research of my own and using a
growth factor of three and one-half per
cent, I computed that the average household
income, in real dollars, in 1965 dollars, in
the city of London would increase from its
present level of $5,700 to $20,000 by the
time my four-year-old daughter is my age.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that real or inflated
dollars?
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): The tax
is up, too.
Mr. White: And so in closing I would
like to say— yes, in real dollars, using current
costs.
And so, sir, in conclusion, I would like to
say this: We are going to be tremendously
rich in this jurisdiction if we are able to
withstand the blandishments of those
opposite who would kill the goose that laid
the golden egg. We are going to be tre-
mendously rich. By the time my daughter is
my age our household family income in
London, Ontario, will be $20,000 in today's
purchasing power.
Mr. MacDonald: We are richer with a
planned economic development.
416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. White: I suggest, sir, that this points
up several important matters for those of us
who are legislators. First of all, we have to
determine how we can best raise the level
of those people in the lower economic strata
and I feel confident that the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), the hon. Minister of
Labour ( Mr. Rowntree ) and those other hon.
Ministers of the Crown who are conferring
with their colleagues in Ottawa will keep
pressing them for an end to iniquities, such
as presently exist in the disabled persons'
allowance programme, so that we may en-
courage those who are less fortunate into a
higher level of performance and into a higher
level of personal attainment and satisfaction.
I think, sir, the other point that must be
made is that the free enterprise system to
which we Conservatives are dedicated can
produce all of the wealth that we can possi-
bly use. The great danger is that we will stifle
that initiative through the type of legislation
that dulls the initiative of our citizens, through
the expansion of government bureaucracy
which thwarts and frustrates the activities of
free people.
At any rate, in conclusion I would like to
say that the Budget yesterday which brings
forth imaginative and bold programmes of
spending for new communications to increase
the efficiency of our province, new educational
facilities to increase productivity; and of
course beyond that the cultural achievement
of our people and new medical health
measures which of course have not only an
economic effect but which are essential to the
satisfactory attainment of health and happi-
ness of all our our people. All of these points,
sir, ably financed by a bold and courageous
Budget which leaves some portion of total
expenditures for debt increase but which at
the same time does not saddle us with an
unbearable load of debt to the detriment of
future generations.
So I salute the government for its many
accomplishments and I express once again
the confidence that we can make continuous
progress under the leadership of the hon.
Prime Minister and his able Cabinet col-
leagues.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in the
debate on the Speech from the Throne, may
I extend to you my commendation for the
manner in which you are conducting the
affairs of this House and my appreciation for
the many courtesies you and your office have
extended to me during the past year.
My congratulations and best wishes also
go out to the hon. member for Eglinton
(Mr. Reilly) on his election to the office of
Deputy Speaker. The choice was excellent.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did
not express my thanks to the people of
Nipissing and Bracondale on their wise and
considerate choices at the polls in sending to
this honourable House two good Liberal
members. I wish both of them well and know
that both will make substantial contributions
to the affairs of this province. May they
long serve the good people of Ontario.
I would like to turn to the topic of hous-
ing. Not too many years ago the plight of the
unemployed was the most serious problem
confronting my home town of Windsor. From
an employment index of an all-time low of 70
and with over 10,000 unemployed, Windsor
has moved to a more favourable index of over
100. However, we still find substantial num-
bers seeking employment. In fact, as of
January 31, 1966, 5,048 people were receiv-
ing unemployment insurance benefits and
5,157 were unemployed seeking employment.
This, Mr. Speaker, is 8.2 per cent of On-
tario's 63,000 unemployed. With less than
four per cent of Ontario's population we have
eight per cent of its unemployment, much too
high a percentage.
Windsor is recovering but still has not
recovered fully. In spite of its present boom-
ing economy, in spite of the auto trade pact>
it still has 1,831 people on welfare. This,
however, is a substantial drop of 803 over one
year ago, December, 1964.
Probably the most serious problem is the
acute shortage of housing. Even though
Windsor has not been idle in its efforts to
combat this housing crisis the problem grows
more acute daily. The immediate outlook is
bleak indeed. Even with steps taken by gov-
ernments combined with private construction
now in progress, or planned for the city this
year, the current demand for housing will
only be partially satisfied. Educated guesses
indicate the need for approximately 3,000
housing units.
The Ontario housing corporation has, either
under construction or scheduled to begin
this year, only 379. Mr. Gordon Cole, the
manager of the Windsor housing authority,
says he has 762 applications on file from
families desiring public housing. This num-
ber could be increased considerably, but
many families do not apply because they
require immediate housing; and the policy of
the housing authority is to require those
making application to be residents of the
city for a period of six months.
It is nothing unusual today, Mr. Speaker,
to find that some people must take up resi-
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
417
dence 30 to 40 miles outside of the city be-
cause of this acute housing shortage affect-
ing the city of Windsor. One partial answer
to the^ problem could be making senior
citizens' housing available to senior citizens;
their homes and apartments could in turn
be made available to families.
Mr. Speaker, the shortage of serviced land
for housing and for industry may prevent
Windsor from benefiting fully from the pres-
ent opportunities for development. The met-
ropolitan area, the newly annexed area, has
substantial blocks of land available in differ-
ent sections of the community; water and
sewage facilities are lacking in most, particu-
larly in the newly annexed areas. Added to
the problem is the question of sewage treat-
ment plants. Controls by the Ontario water
resources commission aggravate this problem.
On top of all of this is the capital works
spending limit put on a municipality by the
Ontario municipal board. Mr. Speaker, I hope
the Ontario municipal board will look with
favour on raising the capital works spend-
ing limit of my community to enable it to
undertake many of the more needed projects,
some of which will ease the acute housing
shortage. Likewise I hope the Ontario water
resources commission will make some tem-
porary arrangements to enable the city to
cope with the water and sewage problems
brought on by annexation.
Mr. Speaker, on February 8, a resolution
was submitted to my council from the city
of Goderich that should command some at-
tention from this government. That resolution
requests that senior governments pay 50
per cent of the cost for operating and main-
taining sewage treatment plants. Were such
a policy in effect I know this could alleviate
some of the shortages that confront the
municipality from which I come.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, there is a
temporary answer for the housing shortage
that is plaguing many of the urban areas.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) that he consider
an emergency housing relief authority, a body
that would undertake the purchase of 10,000
mobile homes, or some number that could be
accurately arrived at, and provide to each
community the number needed to take care
of the housing requirements of that com-
munity. Windsor could make use of at least
2,000 right now. I understand Toronto could
well do with 6,000.
This method of housing relief would have
many advantages. It would enable munici-
palities to attract and hold industry and to
take advantage of the new industrial outlook.
It would enable municipalities to plan in more
leisurely and economic fashion instead of
being stampeded in housing developments.
It would assist in partially overcoming the
shortage of help, a serious problem for in-
dustry, by assuring housing to families wish-
ing to move into an area. It could be a par-
tial answer to the farm labour problem by
providing much needed mobile housing in
many rural parts of Ontario during the plant-
ing and harvesting seasons.
When the mobile homes have met the
purpose for which they were intended they
could be sold as summer cottages.
Mr. Speaker, there are many more advan-
tages, too numerous for me to mention at
this time, but I do hope that the hon. Prime
Minister, or the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Randall), seriously
considers this suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to turn to tax re-
lief for senior citizens. I am reading a quo-
tation from a letter:
As we read in our papers, hear on radio
and TV, strikes and rumours of more
strikes impending, one questions where
and when all of this will end. Only in one
way: taxes, higher prices for all com-
modities, higher hourly wages paid out to
workmen when a homeowner has any re-
pair work to be done. In all this there is
no voice lifted for the cause of the older
people who, in their days when able to
work, received very low wages, much less
than $1 an hour, struggled to buy their
homes and to raise their children. During
the bleak lean days of the depression many
walked the streets looking for work. Yes,
and many carried on, paid their taxes, sent
their children, patched but clean, to
school, never seeking or accepting relief.
Times have changed. Expensive schools
equipped with latest innovations, high
schools with swimming pools, gymnasiums,
cafeterias, all fitted with the most modern
equipment, coming out of the people's
taxes, including many of us older ones
with much less than $2,000 a year income
to keep up our homes, feed and clothe
ourselves and pay taxes.
God help the aged poor with only $75
to keep him, especially where the husband
is 70 years of age and eligible for the
paltry handout, and the wife is 60 and
ineligible. There are many such cases.
Mr. Speaker, I have just read a portion of
two letters printed in the letter box of my
home paper. Two are sufficient. I could
safely say that every hon. member in this
418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House has received many that pointed out
the plight of our senior citizens.
To add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, yes-
terday's 67 per cent rise in the sales tax
has decreased the average $75 a month
pension by five per cent. Since Windsor's
aging population is disproportionately large,
the plight of the aged is that much more
serious in my community. Forty years ago
large numbers of younger people flocked into
Windsor during the boom of the '20's; now
Windsor has well above the provincial aver-
age of 60-year-olds and over, according to
the 1961 census. The provincial average of
60-yCar-olds and over was 11.7 per cent of
the population; Essex county's was 12.8 per
cent; Windsor's was 15.9 per cent— this is
35 per cent higher than the average for the
whole of the province.
In the 65-year-old-and-over category, On-
tario's average, according to the 1961 census,
was 8.2 per cent of the population. Essex
county's was exactly the same, 8.2 per cent,
while Windsor's was 10.7 per cent or 30 per
cent higher than the provincial average.
Because of this disproportionately large
number of aged, Windsor's problems of
caring for the aged is more acute, more re-
quiring of attention than in most other
Ontario centres.
Provincial averages, say, for hospital beds
do not apply exactly, as the older the people
and the more of them there are then the
more they are likely to need hospitalization
and hospital and medical services. This
means institutions such as Riverview hos-
pital, a chronic patient institution, would
only naturally have its facilities strained to
its limits and unable to accommodate the
numbers needing its services. Huron Lodge,
a home for the aged, is likewise too small to
take in many who would like to seek admis-
sion to it. This above-the-provincial-average
for aged means that there is a proportion-
ately greater need for housing for senior
citizens.
This also means that in spite of the more
affluent economy of the day the problem of
employment for the older worker is more
apparent and more pronounced because of
practices of many industries that put an age
limit on the hiring of older workers.
Mr. Speaker, I started my remarks on the
plight of our senior citizens and then I
strayed to show how much more pronounced
this problem is in my community. Allow me
to return to the senior citizen in general.
Concerned with this problem of finding a
means of assisting the senior citizens on pen-
sion, the economics and political science club
of the University of Windsor in 1965 pro-
posed the following recommendation and it
was presented by its president, Robert G.
Sandor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read
this proposed recommendation. It is worthy
of attention and worthy of implementation
in some of its aspects. I am reading the
recommendation :
It is time that our senior citizens re-
ceived some attention from the different
levels of government.
Today in the city of Windsor, 25 per
cent of each municipal tax dollar is
channeled into education. The average
school tax levy is $95 per household unit,
but the pension is only $75 per month.
The payment of the school levy is an
extra burden upon those citizens who have
lived in a home, raised a family and
eventually paid their mortgage. Through
the years they have contributed toward the
school levy, thus when they reach the
qualifying years of 65 or 70 they must
still pay this levy. It is not fair for pen-
sioners to pay this school tax, for unlike
other municipal services, they receive no
benefit.
The argument in regards to future
generations is not applicable here. As
citizens they paid for their share when
their earning power and potential was
realized. The present $75 monthly pen-
sion represents a large cut in earning and
consequently purchasing power. Only
household units would be exempt from
this levy.
The burden of an average school levy
of $95 annually means that each pensioner,
even those living in apartments, is sub-
ject through high rents to this levy which
automatically dissolves 10 per cent of the
annual pension benefit. This main source
of income is too adversely affected. It is
this 10 per cent that could make the differ-
ence to the individual of either a com-
fortable retirement or a miserable waiting
period. Currently in the city there are
12,750 people in the 65-and-over age
group. If only 10,000 qualify for the
pension, the result is that approximately
$950,000 is annually paid by these indi-
viduals toward education.
At this stage of life the marginal pro-
pensity to consume is higher for pensioners
than for the rest of the nation. This means
that pensioners spend more. If this levy
was not to be paid by pensioners, their
annual potential purchasing power would
FEBRUARY 10. 1966
.419
be more than $800,000, which would be
spent within the city under the three per
cent sales tax and the provincial govern-
ment would almost immediately acquire
larger revenues.
With the multiplier effect the total in-
crease in income in the city could approach
$4 million. The increase in employment,
means increased revenues to the federal
government from income tax receipts.
Thus, we recommend that if both federal
and provincial governments would re-
imburse municipal governments the sum
which would have been paid out by the
pensioners, not only the school system
but also the pensioners would benefit.
Of course the pensioners should still pay
for other municipal services received by
the community as a whole. We realize that
tenants might not benefit if unscrupulous
landlords would not make necessary adjust-
ments in rates, but we believe that there
would be legislation to prevent unscrupu-
lous Acts. This recommendation has been
suggested with the full realization that
more information would be required, but
it is our contention that this proposal if
implemented immediately would have the
effect of raising the Canadian standard of
living.
This is from the economics and political
science club, Robert G. Sandor, president.
Mr. Speaker, the London Free Press in an
editorial on April 17, 1965, said the following
concerning this recommendation, and I am
quoting from the editorial:
A group of Windsor students is putting
forward a plan to relieve Canadian pension-
ers of the educational share of municipal
taxes. Such ideas should be considered.
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to provide muni-
cipal tax relief to pensioners, a Mr. Henry
Gordon of Windsor proposed relief from edu-
cational taxes well over 15 years ago. He
tried to get support for his idea. Through
perseverance and by patience he got the ears
of municipal councillor Oliver Stonehouse.
Alderman Stonehouse seven years ago asked
Windsor city council to endorse such a resolu-
tion but was unsuccessful. The 1965 council
passed such a resolution, and here are
portions of the resolution.
According to the resolution, the provincial
government would adopt a system whereby
on being shown a tax receipt the province
would, without a means test, pay a school
tax rebate to each taxpayer 65 and over.
This rebate would be to property owners
in an amount equal to the lesser of one-half
of the portion levied for school purposes
annually or $75. Mr. Speaker, this motion
was moved by my opponent in, the last elec-
tion. If the government does not consider it,
they are certainly rebuffing the candidate
that they put up against me.
In 1965, Alderman Cy Watson of the
Riverside municipal council likewise sub-
mitted two resolutions to the Canadian feder-
ation of mayors and municipalities asking for
special consideration re education taxes to
pensioners occupying their own homes. Mr.
Speaker, allow me to show how our neigh-
bours to the south of us have looked upon
the problem of elderly citizens' property tax
relief. ,
States which give older property owners
such a break include the following: New
Jersey gives couples past 65 a deduction ,oi
$80 from their property tax bill, provided
their annual income does not exceed $5,000.
Georgia grants those past 65 with incomes
under $3,000 an exemption of $4,000. Wis-
consin grants tax relief to those with incomes
under $3,000 via state income tax credits.
Massachusetts gives those past 70 a $2,000
exemption. Two counties in Rhode Island
grant those past 65 a $1,000 exemption, this
is on the assessment. Maine exempts elders
from property taxes on the first $3,500 in
property value. In Maryland 15 out of 24
counties grant elders exceptions ranging from
$1,500 to $5,000. Indiana gives elders with
incomes under $2,200 an exemption of $1,000.
Louisiana gives a $2,000 exemption tp those
past 65. Alaska and Oregon offer those with
incomes under $2,500 exemptions varying
with age, from 10 per cent for those between
65 and 68 to 100 per cent for those past 80
years of age.
Many other states are considering legisla-
tion to provide elders with property tax
exemptions. .
The Detroit Free Press of March 20, 1965,
carried the following editorial under the
title, "A race to help oldsters." I will only
read one short paragraph: >;v ■■■
Old-timers have long felt they were
ignored by lawmakers but not any more.
A race is on to see who can get them a
property exemption first. The race is for a
good cause. As school and other taxes have
increased, property owners have had to
dig deeper into their pockets. For the
elderly on fixed incomes or limited incomes
the pockets were often empty. Some relief
should be given.
This is the editorial. Both Republicans and
Democrats practically fell over one another
to provide this relief.
420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On January 16, 1966, the following was
carried:
Tax Relief for Elderly
After haggling over details the Michigan
State Legislature last year approved Michi-
gan's first tax relief plan for its elderly
citizens. As a result, approximately 160,000
homeowners who have passed their 65th
birthday can expect substantial reductions
in their 1966 property tax bills. State tax
experts estimate the cuts will average $93.
The cost to the state, which will reimburse
local governments for the lost revenue,
would amount to between $15 and $16
million a year.
Mr. Speaker, even though the American
jurisdiction designates their assistance specifi-
cally for the elderly, several Canadian prov-
inces do give tax relief to property owners.
I am reading from a Canadian Press release
from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan:
All homeowners in Saskatchewan will
receive an annual grant of $50 from the
provincial Treasury starting 1966, in a
scheme to reduce the tax burden on
property owners. It is hoped the initial
amount can be gradually increased as the
finances of the province permit. When
the mechanics of paying the grant have
been completed, the Premier said it will
be paid on only one home in the cases
of persons owning more than one; persons
renting homes won't be eligible.
British Columbia instituted a homeowners'
grant system in 1957. Grants are paid on one
house for each family unit in B.C. They
range up to a maximum of $100 a home-
owner according to the size of the home-
owner's municipal and school tax payments.
The Manitoba government rebates to
property owners, not just homeowners, 50
per cent of the municipal school taxes up to
a maximum rebate of $50 a year on each
tax bill. Thus, if a person owns more than
one piece of property in Manitoba, he could
receive up to $50 for each property.
Mr. Speaker, the united senior citizens of
Ontario in a convention at the University of
Guelph on August 31 and September 1, 1965,
passed the following resolution:
Whereas the burden of ever-increasing
costs of education on fixed incomes of
pensioners, Therefore be it resolved that
a request go to the municipal board and
the provincial government to amend the
school tax structure to eliminate the edu-
cation costs levied against homeowners by
removing the education tax from the muni-
cipal level.
The Senator Croll report on aging, among
its many recommendations, mentioned:
Greater financial assistance for older
homeowners.
Mr. Speaker, surely Ontario, the wealthiest
of the provinces, should live up to its slogan,
"province of opportunity," and provide that
opportunity to its senior citizens by granting
them at least education tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to a
topic of wage parity. I would like to bring
to the attention of this House, and especially
to the attention to the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development— and I am sorry
he is not here tonight, because this can have
a most serious effect on everyone— this article
written by Walter McCall in the Windsor
Star in January of this year.
The effects and the impact of this article
are extremely significant and should com-
mand the attention of the research staff of
The Department of Economics and Develop-
ment immediately, so that when the time
comes the department will be fully aware of
its impact. I am reading from an article in
January of this year, the headline is "Reuther
blasts wage disparity as injustice," by Walter
McCall, datelined Detroit:
There is no further justification for dis-
parity between the wages of the auto-
motive industry workers in Canada and
the United States, the president of the
united auto workers union said here this
morning. Walter P. Reuther told a Cobo
Hall press conference that parity in wages
between workers in the two countries
would be a major topic when auto indus-
try contracts come up for renewal in 1967.
Mr. Reuther was to speak at a labour out-
look luncheon at the economic club of
of Detroit at noon.
I am quoting here from the article:
There is no further justification for this
practice now that the Canada-U.S. auto
trade plan has been approved in both
countries, Mr. Reuther stated. There is
simply no reason why workers doing the
same job for the same company, building
the same cars for the same market, should
not get the same wages.
Mr. Reuther said the trade pact which
was a year old Sunday is just beginning to
operate. It is too early to tell how it will
affect the auto industry when the plan is
brought to full size because there are still
many problems to transition to overcome.
I can say, however, that all can gain from
it. The UAW has given this historic agree-
ment its fullest support from the start.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
421
In the same month, several days later, there
was another article in the Windsor paper:
Centenary Project Wage Parity
UAW Endorses Plan to Remove
U.S. Salary Edge
The united auto workers union will
seek wage parity for Canadians in the
North American auto industry as its
Centennial project in 1967, George Burt,
Canadian regional director of the UAW
announced Sunday. Such a move, Mr.
Burt said, would do away in a single
swoop with the traditional 40 cents to $1-
an-hour differential in wages between auto
workers in the two countries.
Canadian auto workers have earned less
than their U.S. counterparts. The UAW
considers the Canadian-U.S. automotive
trade agreement which marked its first
anniversary during the weekend as having
removed the last barrier to wage parity,
Mr. Burt stated. The council has approved
Mr. Burt's recommendation that the union
approach the auto companies to ask that
joint study committees be set up immedi-
ately to consider problems of wage parity.
Then yesterday's paper, February 9, 1966:
Union takes parity bid to U.S. The
united auto workers union has taken its
request for parity in wages between Can-
ada and U.S. auto workers to Washington.
The UAW has estimated that closing the
gap would mean an additional $89 million
for Canadian union members annually.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development will take seri-
ously the union's intentions, and study the
problems arising out of such a wage parity
request. Some of the contract negotiations,
now taking place in my own community,
have 1967 in mind and wage parity in mind;
and, as a result they are causing a bit of
concern.
I would like to turn my attention to a
mental hospital. On March 10, 1960, the
Windsor Star carried this item:
Mental Hospital Eventually
Windsor should get a mental hospital
eventually, Hon. M. B. Dymond, Ontario
Minister of Health, told a delegation from
the border city. Dr. Dymond said there
was no government backing down from
an earlier promise—
"earlier promise," it says:
—that a mental institution was on schedule
for Windsor.
What type of schedule, Mr. Speaker?
On June 26, 1963, the hon. Minister,
speaking at the nomination rally for my
opponent, Alderman Mrs. Cameron H. Mon-
trose, announced that Windsor, and he was
referring to the IODE, would get a psychi-
atric hospital. Since that nomination day, there
were all kinds of items and headlines that
would lead one to believe that everything was
settled, and that this facility would be a re-
ality. Mr. Speaker, this is 1966— over two-and-
a-half years since the hon. Minister's solemn
declaration of June 26, 1963 and six years
since his statement of March 10, 1960. Still
this government stalls.
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): He is
driving people crazy.
Mr. Newman: He is driving them crazy,
and there is no place to put them.
Building costs now are at least 15 per cent
higher than they were during the 1963 elec-
tion promise; and with building trades now
in the process of negotiating wage increases,
you may rest assured that costs will be
substantially higher. Original plans were for
a 300-bed hospital. This number was whittled
down to 175, then to 80; now it is two 26-bed
wards, or only 52 beds. If this type of arith-
metic retrogression continues, this govern-
ment's promise may end up with a tent and
a hammock, or a tent and a camp cot.
What is holding up the hon. Minister's de-
cision on accepting the bids that were sub-
mitted to him and the Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission by the IODE hospitals, as
required under the provisions of The Com-
munity Psychiatric Act? Let us get on with
this much needed, though substantially re-
duced, project.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the
shortage of skilled workers. "Lack of trades-
men cited by Rbbarts as export hindrance,"
reads this headline on a newspaper article
recently:
A shortage of skilled workers is the chief
hindrance to an increase in manufacturing
exports from Ontario, Premier John Robarts
said yesterday in London, England, speak-
ing to a group of British and Canadian
businessmen at a luncheon
Mr. Speaker, this same story of shortage of
skilled workers is heard over and over again
today.
Yesterday we were able to invade the
skilled mills of many European countries.
There was a brain drain to Canada and On-
tario of the medical and para-medical profes-
sions, not too long ago. This brain rain may
have been a blessing at that time, but it only
422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
lulled us into a false sense of security so
that we did not make provisions for the day
when we no longer could depend upon im-
migration to meet the health needs of our
people.
The government states there is a shortage
of doctors to fully implement the federal
medical scheme. Mr. Speaker, if this shortage
dots exist, whose fault is it? Just as they
were able to drain, from Europe and from
European countries, the educated minds,
so our American friends are doing to us—
just what we did to other nations. Our brain
rain soon became a quite pronounced brain
drain.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister and
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment are now engaged in a trade raid, a raid
on European countries to entice, to steal,
their skilled tradesmen. They may be success-
ful for a while, but this trade raid works both
ways.
There is, sir, the large industrial giant to
the south of us who is always willing and,
may I say, very successful in enticing or
stealing our skilled people. Living in a
border town, I have seen evidences of this
(very day for years. This trade raid is not
an answer to the shortage of skilled workers.
Part of the answer is the training and the
developing of our own, and the hope that
these numbers may be supplemented by im-
migration.
As Europe becomes more prosperous, more
skilled, more industrialized, the numbers of
skilled wishing to migrate to Canada become
fewer. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one industrialist
in Windsor told me just recently that his
offer of a guarantee of an annual income of
over five figures to seleeted skilled tradesmen
did not get a single response from skilled
tradesmen in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, this is how selective many
people possessing certain skills can be, and
are, today. An industrialized economy func-
tions inefficiently when supplying a small
population. What we need in Ontario, and in
Canada, is more people and still more people.
We need millions more people. We have the
raw materials of an industrial society. We
have the facilities to process them. We have
the desire to produce, and we do produce
surpluses in everything from wheat, butter
and eggs, to nickel, iron, aluminum, copper,
paper and wood. What wo lack is people-
people to help us continue our rate of
economic growth, people to consume our
production; and the best place to have our
customers, and hence our markets, is right
here in Canada.
We need an open-door immigration policy
which would attract all the immigrants that
we can draw to Canada, all the time. We
should not turn immigration on and off like
a tap. We should seek out, invite, encourage,
and assist immigrants to come to Canada. In
the long run, Canada will prosper more and
our country flourish better if we bring to this
country enough people to consume much of
our production.
Foreign trade is but the frosting on the
cake. It simply means that we are feeding,
clothing or housing someone in a foreign
country with certain products of our labours.
Quite often foreign trade is confined to
special products the foreign consumer wants
at a given time and at a given price.
Domestic trade is unconfined. It supplies
fellow citizens not only with one or two
special items, but with everything from birth
to death, including cradles and caskets. It
does this year around, each year, every year,
without the complication of currency prob-
lems, foreign government interference, or
low wage rate competition, or anything else.
Since 1945 Canada has accepted over two
million immigrants. The annual expenditures
on servicing these people in Canada far
surpasses the value of all of Canada's foreign
trade.
Canadian secondary industry today is pro-
ducing, exclusive of our paper products, not
much over 15 per cent of the value of our
exports. Outside of the auto trade agreement,
the mass market for Canada's secondary
manufacturing was the domestic market, not
foreign markets, and the long-term solution
to most of our industries' problems is a larger
Canadian population.
The province of Ontario has been sub-
sidized to the amount of $155 million through
the immigration of skilled people during the
year 1965 alone. Authorities estimate it would
have cost Ontario at least that amount, plus
of course a waiting period, to train as many
skilled people as we have enticed to enter
our province. It was all right to have been
selective in our immigration approach, but
now that the European and foreign skill mill
has ground almost to a halt, and the trade
raid is over, we must be prepared to take
semi-skilled, unskilled, and to train them.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to illustrate the
seriousness of the problem as far as Canada's
plastics industry is concerned. A shortage of
toolmakers forces cancellation of expansion
plans. This hurts our exports. Mr. Peter
Hedgewiek, the president of International
Tools Limited, the largest plastic mould
manufacturer in North America, is quoted in
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
423
an issue of Canadian Plastics magazine, and
I quote:
The rate at which we grow is limited by
the number of skilled people we can hire
or train.
Mr. Hedgewick's International Tools Limited
plant, by the way, provides a comprehensive
training programme for apprentices. Inter-
national Tools Limited has spent considerable
sums of money in an attempt to recruit tool-
makers in Britain and continental Europe
with only very moderate success. In fact,
International Tools Limited has found that
Germany is also facing such a severe shortage
of tool and die makers that it is attempting
to recruit help from Italy. Germany has
placed a ban on advertisements in German
papers by foreign employers.
Mr. Louis Calsavara, president of Center
Tool and Mold, has suggested tapping the
skilled help of the Orient and now employs
two Chinese craftsmen from Hong Kong. He
says:
We have enough equipment to keep a
staff of 80 people busy, yet we have been
only able to get 55 to 60.
Any comprehensive survey of the present
position relating to mould-making shows that
there is no quick and easy solution to the
problem of finding or training skilled help.
However, certain points are emphasized
by everybody concerned. One is that the
prospect of filling vacancies with immigrants
from Europe no longer offers a ready-made
solution. Another is that much greater efforts
must be made to attract and train young
Canadians in the arts and crafts of tool-
making, and some means must be found to
keep them until the training is complete.
In addition to the skills shortage, Mr.
Speaker, there is the problem of the Ameri-
can trade raid. The Ontario Department of
Labour puts a limit on the number of hours
the tool and die maker may work. The
Ontario Department of Economics and De-
velopment goes far and wide in an attempt
to drum up manufacturing opportunities for
Ontario industry. The Ontario manufacturer
who caters to the American market very
often finds himself in the awkward and un-
enviable position of having to refuse busi-
ness, or of not being able to meet U.S. dead-
lines on work orders, as a result of the short-
age of skilled help, and of not being able to
work his employee the number of hours
overtime required to complete the job.
This procedure has two distinct draw-
backs. First, the manufacturer loses out on
the U.S. contracts because he cannot pro-
duce; and, second, the tool and die skilled
craftsman, who would like to work many
more overtime hours, becomes dissatisfied
and, being in great demand, is enticed to
work in the United States where he is
guaranteed a fifty-hour work week and $1
to $1.25 hourly pay differential, plus the
seven per cent bonus on his American money.
Mr. Speaker, while there is such a short-
age of skilled help, and while most of the
plastics industry is working on U.S. orders, I
would suggest to the hon. Minister of Labour
that he permit the skilled help to work more
overtime hours. Such procedure might tend
to keep this class of worker in Canada rather
than have him go into the U.S. Mr. Speaker,
I make this suggestion at this time because
there are too many jobs available for the too
few skilled. As soon as skilled help is more
readily available, the work week should be
reduced. Failure to keep our skilled help
satisfied, especially in U.S. border areas, may
result in Canadian plants, which gear a very
large percentage of their production for the
U.S. market, pulling out of Canada and
basing themselves in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have used the plastics in-
dustry just as an example of one industry
that is at a serious disadvantage because of
the shortage of skilled workers. I would
like to turn to another topic and that is
post-secondary education. The following reso-
lution was adopted by the Windsor city
council in November of 1965:
That the proposal of the Windsor board
of education for the establishment, on the
60-acre site acquired by the province in
1964 on Highway No. 3, of a college of
applied arts and technology, which would
embrace the present functions of Western
Ontario institute of technology and other
courses and trades training and applied
arts, be strongly endorsed and that the
Minister of Education be informed accord-
ingly.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was not only
approved by the Windsor city council but
has the endorsation of the following bodies:
the administrative management society, the
the American society of metals, the American
society of tool and mechanical engineers, the
association of professional engineers, the
board of education of the city of Windsor,
the board of education of the town of River-
side, the chamber of commerce, the chemical
institute of Canada, the city of Windsor, the
Essex-Kent purchasing association, the
federal government, the Greater Windsor
foundation, the industrial commission, the
424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
materials handling society, the Ontario asso-
ciation of certified engineering technicians
and technologists, Ontario industrial educa-
tional council, the society of automotive
engineers, the Windsor Daily Star, the tool
manufacturing association, the University of
Windsor, Windsor construction association,
Windsor and district labour council, and the
Western Ontario institute of technology. All
of these eminent bodies, Mr. Speaker, have
asked this government to provide the facilities
that I have mentioned.
Mr. Reaume: What is the government for?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Look in
Hansard.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): What does the hon. member for
Muskoka say about this?
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): You do not
give me a chance to speak.
Mr. Thompson: You will have a chance.
Mr. Newman: I think the hon. Minister
there should take care of the pollution in
Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron, from the gas
drilling.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, allow me to
continue.
A widely representative meeting of leaders
in the Windsor community— I have mentioned
the numerous groups— was convened on No-
vember 17, 1965, at which time the functions
and operations of the new type of college
were explained. The enthusiasm and support
of those present, together with repeated
statements of need for the graduates of such
institutions, prompts the request that immedi-
ate sleps be taken to establish a college of
applied arts and technology in Windsor.
We suspect the fact that the province has
acquired a site of some 60 acres in Windsor
suggests that the probability of such an insti-
tution coming into being was in the thinking
of your department. We have welcomed the
statement of intention to construct on this site
facilities for housing the Western Ontario
institute of technology. We believe that now
is the appropriate time to take the further
step which would permit a broader service
to the young people in this part of the prov-
ince.
Although we were firmly convinced in our
own minds that the need for a college of
applied arts and technology was real and
valid, we invited expressions of opinion from
civic bodies, business and industrial firms,
and responsible organizations. This was done
by written communication, and by a conven-
ing of the general meeting referred to
above. All of the responses supported the
opinion we have formed. Since you have kept
in close touch with the operation of the
Western Ontario institute of technology—
and you should see the present institute-
were you to drive through the city of Wind-
sor and take one look at it you would leave
your party immediately and join our ranks.
You would really be ashamed, I believe.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: The present enrolment of
over 400 in the institute of technology in the
technology courses, and over 150 in the first
and second years of the business courses,
speaks well for the contribution it is making
in the course of post-secondary education, the
reports said. The enrolments in both the
technology and the business courses would be
even higher, they believe, were it not for the
present problem of accommodation:
We would like to say something about
the need for post-secondary courses in the
other two fields: trades training and applied
arts.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you would pay real close
attention to this, because it is spelled out
excellently to me.
Southwestern Ontario is, as you are
aware, one of the foremost industrial areas
in Canada. The prominent place which it
has held in the field of automotive produc-
tion sometimes tends to conceal the fact that
its tool and die plants, as well as other non-
automotive manufacturing plants, serve in-
dustry and business throughout Canada and
to an increasing degree in other parts of the
world particularly the United States. Such
as industrial complex needs a considerable
proportion of its personnel educated in the
trades.
(Applause)
I am glad I got the support of the govern-
ment in that fashion; I only wish that we
could stir them to some other type of action
now.
It has been stated that disaster in many
trades areas in Canada has been averted
only because of the importation of skilled
tradesmen from other countries. We are
told this source of supply is rapidly drying
up. It would seem therefore that if Ontario's
and Canada's industrial operation is to
achieve all it should, we must intensify
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
425
the programme of trades training and we
submit that the very nature of the economy
here suggests emphatically that a pro-
gramme of trades training be established
in Windsor at the earliest possible date.
The second point here, Mr. Speaker:
The need for graduates in the various
fields of the applied arts is one which we
believe will increase greatly over the next
few years. The great demand for services
of graduates in courses of applied arts
from the Ryerson polytechnical institute
is indicative of the present need.
The limitation in the numbers that this
institution can train, and the fact that it
is so distantly situated in relation to a
large number of people of the province
who would like to enter courses of this
type, suggests the need for additional
schools of applied arts in convenient loca-
tions elsewhere. The heavily populated
and highly industrialized area within com-
muting distance of an applied arts school
located in Windsor would provide without
question both the enrolment and the em-
ployment opportunities for its graduates.
I see the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development is back. I hope he paid par-
ticular attention to my earlier remarks, Mr.
Speaker.
An hon. member: He is gone again. Here
■again, gone again, Finnegan.
Mr. Newman: The third point, Mr.
■Speaker:
We should like to report further that
we have at the request of The Depart-
ment of Education and because we our-
selves believe in it, endeavoured to
promote the four-year programme in arts
and sciences. We have met with gratify-
ing success in our Windsor secondary
schools, indicating that such a programme
meets a vital education need for many of
our young people.
It is attended by one handicap, how-
ever, in that up to now there appear to
be too few avenues of post-secondary edu-
cation opening up to the graduate of this
programme.
That is referring to the four-year programme.
The first graduating students will be
leaving our secondary schools in June,
1965. We will certainly endeavour to
guide them into appropriate post-secon-
dary courses but it is doubtful if many of
them will be in a position to take advan-
tage of courses unless they are offered
within commuting distances of their homes.
One typical request came to the board
only this past week. We can see a real
need for an institution which will provide
trades training and courses in the applied
arts for young people in this area, and
we would respectfully request your early
consideration and appropriate action.
Mr. Speaker, particularly appropriate action.
I would like to turn to another topic, and
I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) is not here because
this directly concerns him. This is the grade
13 fiasco of 1965.
I am reading from an editorial, dated De-
cember 30, 1965:
Large Margin of Error in Marking
Exams
The Ontario Department of Education
can have taken no pleasure in announcing
the results of appeals on grade 13 exam-
inations. Some 50 per cent of the appeals
succeeded. Put it another way, this means
the original examiners were wrong in
about 50 per cent of the papers which
came up for review. Were they 50 per
cent wrong in all other papers where stu-
dents either passed or failed?
Indeed, the margin of error was much
more than 50 per cent in certain subjects,
especially English and French. Of the
5,253 appeals on English, 3,317 succeeded;
whereas in French, where there were fewer
papers and fewer appeals, 1,844 succeeded.
The high percentage of successful appeals
in English appears to bear out complaints
that there was something wrong with the
English paper. Either it was inordinately
tough or the marking of it was unduly
tough. These appeals, of course, were by
students who had failed certain papers by
a few marks, but not all those bothered
to appeal so some must suffer from the
possibility they were undermarked.
Dr. T. C. White, director of education,
points to another hardship. Many students
going after scholarships just failed to attain
them perhaps only in one subject such as
English. Were the 50 per cent margin of
error applied to their papers, many might
have qualified for scholarships. Thus they
or their parents are out of money. They,
of course, had no right of appeal.
There is a third factor difficult to assess.
The errors in marking may have interfered
with students getting into the universities
or into the courses of their choice. There
is not an issue of academic interest only.
426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Grade 13 students are at an important
juncture in their careers; their careers can
be interfered with or even changed for life
by success or failure at an examination.
The Department of Education, if it in-
dulges in any soul-searching, must be con-
cerned about what the remarking of those
grade 13 papers has shown; at least it
should be. The marking of examination
papers, except perhaps in mathematics, can
never be an exact science, as different
markers have different attitudes. But a 50
per cent margin of error can neither be
explained nor excused.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to read from the
London Free Press of January 24; I am
reading from the press report by Dell Bell:
One principal says he had a student ap-
peal five papers and got all five. Another
school authority says he heard of one
youngster who appealed three papers, all
under 40, and got them. Veteran London
teacher Margaret Falona said 17 students
in her school, the G. A. Wheable school,
flunked French with marks in the 35 per
cent range and all were granted appeal
passes.
Mr. W. L. Clark, in the "As We See It" col-
umn in the Windsor Star on December 30,
has a short article that is very fitting, very
apropos. It is headed:
Victims of Incompetence
Something went dreadfully askew in the
marking of Ontario grade 13 examination
results this summer. Many young men and
women appealed their poor marks. More
than half of the applicants were successful
in having their grades bettered.
If half of those who appealed had been
wrongfully marked, about the same aver-
age would probably have held for those
who did not appeal. These just accepted
the markings and let it go at that.
If this is typical of the marking efficiency
in Ontario departmental examinations, then
something should be done to rule out the
incompetence. Many a student's future
could be ruined by such incompetence of
a marker. From an educational point of
view, it is a disgraceful show of ineffici-
ency; worst of all, many a young man or
woman is the innocent victim of this
affair.
Mr. Speaker, are we going to have a repeat
performance of this this year? This is a real
shame.
I can only ask the hon. Minister to
straighten up this grade 13 situation; and he
. can very easily straighten it up by simply
eliminating grade 13 and absorbing it in the
other twelve years. Let us bring Ontario's
educational system in tune with the rest of
Canada and have only 12 grades.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh your
memory about a most unusual story on
Wednesday, September 15:
O j ib way Went Wet Today
The town's total voting population, all
two of them, voted unanimously to have
liquor, beer and wine sold on licensed
premises in the community.
Mr. Reaume: And both got a job after it
it was all over.
An hon. member: They are the vendors,
are they?
Mr. Reaume: Oh, the goings-on are some-
thing terrible.
Mr. Newman: To continue:
The vote was forced after the Windsor
Raceway Holdings Limited applied for a
licence in time for the opening of the
multi-million-dollar racetrack in the 2,200-
acre town. Ojibway has been dry since
incorporation.
Mr. Speaker, another article appearing on
October 22, 1965, is quite interesting:
Raceway Gets Liquor in a Hurry
Toronto— The Ontario liquor licence
board issued licences for the new Windsor
raceway on Thursday afternoon with un-
customary haste.
Get that word, Mr. Speaker, "uncustomary."
The board approved and issued the
necessary licence at an afternoon meeting
in time for the track to be able to sell
liquor at its opening Thursday night.
The board acted much more speedily on
this than it usually does. The raceway
application was only heard in Windsor a
few weeks ago. The usual practice is for
the board to get around to considering
licence applications some time after they
are made and then to issue an approval.
This approval is conditional on the
premises being satisfactory after inspection.
Then a licence is issued.
The spokesman for the board said that,
in the case of the track, it being com-
pletely new, from their reports the
premises were satisfactory and no waiting
period was needed.
Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if all applicants
to the liquor licence board get such quick
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
427
service and similar treatment. How come
the Maple Leaf house in the city of Windsor
has been waiting for over a year for its
licence?
Mr. Reaume: They are good Liberals, that
is why.
An hon. member: Tell them where they
got the charter.
Mr. Newman: We will not go into the
charter problem.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion recently announced a wider use of tele-
vision in education. This is all well and
good, but if Canada is to maintain its bi-
lingual nature, and if French is to remain
as one of the official languages of the
country, and if French is to be continued to
be taught in some of our primary and most
of our secondary schools, then, Mr. Speaker,
our youth must be given more than just
classroom exposure to the language.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
Tie not only set up an educational TV net-
work, but that he also recommend that
French radio outlets be made available to
various areas of the province, especially
where the population numbers of the French
are substantially large.
The French were the original settlers of
the land bordering the Detroit river. In fact,
the first French settlement in Ontario was
in the Windsor-Essex county area. And,
according to the 1961 census, there are
40,892 people of French extraction— out of a
total population of 193,000— in Metropolitan
Windsor; 21.5 per cent of the people are of
French descent.
In all Canada— excluding Quebec, where
81 per cent of the population is French, and
New Brunswick where 39 per cent is
French— only 10 per cent of the population
in the other provinces is French. My area
has a French population of approximately
21.5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the
hon. Minister of Education and others look
upon the teaching of French from a slightly
different angle so that we could have our
youngsters learn or be exposed to French by
means of French radio stations. I think they
should be interspersed throughout various
parts of Ontario— not necessarily high-
powered stations but ones that could be
heard in a limited area.
I would like to bring up just one more
topic, and that is a topic that is quite dear to
me because of my family background. Mr.
Speaker, the year 1966 is a most memorable
one for the Polish people in Ontario, in Can-
ada, and throughout the world. While Canada
will be in the last year of its preparation for
the celebration of 100 years of existence as
a nation, Poland will be commemorating the
greatest and most sacred anniversary which
Poles in the 20th century can celebrate-
namely, 1,000 years of Christianity under the
patronage of Our Lady of Czestochowa, the
heavenly queen of Poland.
When Poland, under Prince Mieszko, first
embraced Christianity in the year 966, the
souls of the Polish people were imbued with
a sacred characteristic, a new religious and
supernatural element which became part and
parcel of Polish life and culture. The love of
God and the love of neighbour are the very
essence of Christianity; and, upon this foun-
dation, Poland's ideology, Poland's philosophy
of life, and Poland's raison d'etre as a nation
were built and developed. Accepting Chris-
tianity, Poland thus pledged to remain loyal
to God, to walk under the standard of Christ.
During the thousand years of its life as a
Christian nation, in time of fame and glory, of
misfortune and martyrdom, of heroic struggle
for existence and freedom, Poland merited
the title, "Polania semper fidelis"— "Poland
ever faithful." In the annals of every Eur-
opean nation, beginning with pagan Rome and
Greece, Christianity was indeed the turning
point of that nation, but not its whole history.
With Poland it was different. Poland's history
begins with its acceptance of Christianity.
Thus the history of Poland is the history of a
Christian nation. Poland and Christianity are
one. ,
Celebrations commemorating this holy jub-
ilee year, the thousandth anniversary of
Christianity in Poland, in union with all other
Polish people throughout the world, has al-
ready started; it started on January 1 with a
Mass of thanksgiving.
I am sure that each and every hon. member
of this House looks forward to the day, in the
not-too-distant future, when Poland, that
bulwark against the forces of communism,
will once again regain its freedom and walk
proudly on the side of the free world.
Mr. Speaker, my speeches on the Throne
debate are always lengthy, because of the
problems of my community. They are many.
I do not agree with the hon. member for
Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Thrasher) who says,
on page 270 in Hansard, that we have no
problems. We have numerous problems.
Mr. Reaume: Who said that?
Mr. Newman: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Sandwich says on page 270 that we have
no problems.
428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Reaume: Oh well, he does not know
what it is all about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, when the
estimates of the various departments are con-
sidered, I shall ask the following to be given
proper consideration: A provincial public
building in the area; an immediate start to
the construction of the proposed E.C. road-
third concession ring road; a provincial park
along the south shore of Lake St. Clair in
Essex county; the establishment of a seigneury
along the banks of the Detroit River on the
same basis as Upper Canada Village was
established, to promote historical culture and
to attract tourists; an accelerated programme
for the elimination of level crossings along
401, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway; the re-
surfacing of all of Highway 401 in Essex
county; the elimination of discrimination be-
cause of age.
And likewise, Mr. Speaker, at this time I
think I should bring up to the attention of
this House the fact that commuter services
have been denied to the city of Hamilton.
There are 12,000 known commuters from
Hamilton to the city of Toronto. Surely were
these 12,000 people to use the train, rather
than the highway, it would be a tremendous
safety factor to our highways. As it today,
the commuter services will go only to Bur-
lington. I wonder what justification the gov-
ernment has for not extending services to
Hamilton? After all, Hamilton is the second
largest city in Ontario. Surely you should
have extended commuter services between
the two biggest cities, Toronto and Hamilton?
To the hon. Minister of Labour— he is not
here but I would certainly ask him to look
into the possibility of settling the transport
strike in the province. It is having a serious
effect throughout the province. Likewise, to
that hon. Minister, there is a building strike
that is hurting my own community as far as
housing is concerned. If he could do anything
to remedy or to overcome or to settle that
strike, it certainly would be appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I
would like to thank the hon. members who
have stayed so patiently in the House, and it
was a pleasure to deliver them.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to take part in the Throne debate, I
would first like to extend my very best wishes
for your success in your high office, during
this term of the Legislature. I would also like
to extend congratulations to your deputy, the.
hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly).
I would also like to extend a welcome to>
the two new members of the House, namely,
the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith),
who is a fellow pharmacist and no doubt
will back me in defending the reputation of
pharmacy as a profession that serves the
people of this province; also the hon. mem-
ber for Bracondale (Mr. Ben).
I would also like to extend congratulations
to the mover (Mr. Knox) and seconder (Mr.
Carton) of the Throne speech, which was
presented by hon. W. Earl Rowe, the Lieu-
tenant-Governor of this province.
The result of continuing government lead-
ership and support is visible all over this
province in the form of increasing industry,
more public parks, more public works and
services, expanding services, and the bring-
ing of equal privileges and opportunities to-
all parts of this province.
This is also true in my riding of Perth,
which I have the honour to represent. Perth
county is possibly the most central county in
western Ontario, and a very prosperous
county. It has the city of Stratford in it&
midst, a city of some 22,000 persons, and it
is a centre of culture, as many of you know.
No doubt many of you have attended the
Shakespearean festival, and if you have not,
I would certainly suggest that you should at
an early date. This year they have an enlarged
programme and I am sure you would enjoy
it.
Just a few weeks ago, in fact on January
19, in my own area, the hon. Prime Minister,
of this province (Mr. Robarts) accompanied
by the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond),
and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Connell), officially opened the new regional
children's centre, on Highway 23 near Palmer-
ston— for which we are very grateful. I am
sure the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr.
Trotter) will be happy this institution has
been completed, because it has been a source
of worry to him for several years.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The federal
government started that.
Mr. Edwards: If he would come and see
it some day, he would say it was well worth
the time and the effort. I might say, at the
present time, that there are some children
already in it and more coming. It also serves
as a school for the retarded children of the
town of Listowel.
At this opening, which was in the after-
noon, there were some 800 present, including
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
429
the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr.
Gaunt) and the hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin (Mr. Root). To show the interest of
the people, at the afternoon ceremony there
were 800 present, yet at the open house, in
the evening, there were over 2,000 people
who took the tour of that institution. And it
is, I am sure, one of the finest. This project
is the result of the present government's
planning in building this type of institution
around the province in various centres to
serve retarded children.
Also in my county, plans are going forward
through public works for a new teachers
college replacing the ancient building, which
has been there since the early 1900s. This
has been authorized and approved by the
Treasury board, I understand.
In view of the need for extra funds in
the hon. Provincial Treasurer's (Mr. Allan's)
Budget last night, we are very happy to see
some of this money come back to the source
where a large part of it is collected. After
all, if we see something tangible it does not
hurt so much to pay some of these taxes.
We should also urge that the regents
appointed to examine sites for the new junior
colleges take a good look at the number of
students who would be available, through the
established institutions that are in our county
at the present time, to make a basis for
sufficient students to support one of these
institutions.
I would like, at this time also, to express
and commend the work of the various boards
who guide the education made available in
the county of Perth. I, personally, have
received a number of letters which indicate
the type of job that is being done in im-
proving the knowledge and increasing the
earning power, as a result of the training
programme 5 which takes place at North-
western school in Stratford.
I have a letter, a portion of which I should
like to read to you— this is not out of a news-
paper, this is a real honest-to-goodness letter.
I would like to show this— it is from a lad
who took advantage of this training pro-
gramme 5— it is a P.S. after another letter:
I would like to show you the benefit of
programme 5 from my own situation. I
had my grade 12 in high school and
worked with my dad on the farm. For five
years I rented the apple orchard from him
but returns were uncertain. For four years
I worked at a variety of jobs $30 to $60
per week. I took the first drafting course
offered and graduated after 10 months in
February 1964.
I started working at Stratford Machine
and Tool Company at $63 a week and,
after a year-and-a-half, I was making
$72.90 for a 45-hour week. When I left
they hired another programme 5 graduate.
I left there in August to take a position
as the only draftsman for the Dominion
Chain Company, a new factory in Stratford
which employs over 300 people. I have
had a raise since Christmas and now make
$90 a week, plus a lot of fringe benefits,
for 37 V2 hours per week.
Without the opportunity to take this
course I certainly would not make this
kind of money. I feel there is still oppor-
tunity for advancement in my position. I
wish more people would take this train-
ing. The extra money being paid now
would be quite a help. When I took the
course I received $30 a week; had a wife,
three boys, and supplied free board to a
16-year-old sister-in-law. I can recommend
the training to anyone with ability and the
will to work.
This goes to prove the wisdom and the
results of the education policy which has
been carried on by this government.
Mr. Trotter: The federal government started
that.
Mr. Edwards: Yes, I am quite aware, but
after all we have direct contact with the
people in this province. The federal govern-
ment do a lot of things which they are not
too happy to take credit for— the hon. mem-
ber does not mention them.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is a
good idea.
Mr. Edwards: I would like to bring to the
attention of this House that there are, in our
riding, a number of farmers who suffered
greatly as a result of the weather conditions
at the time of harvest last fall. But, on
account of there not being a great group of
them in any one location, they would not
qualify for assistance that some of the
farmers in eastern Ontario were eligible for
when that section was declared a disaster
area. I would hope that some system of crop
insurance may be resolved to cover such
circumstances at a very early date.
The hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) and his department have done a
very fine job in my area, and I would like to
congratulate the efficient staff of the High-
ways department in that area. However, we
are hoping for some future developments
which would correct a few of the bad
sections of highways, which I guess every
430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. member has. A contract has already
been called for a certain mileage on High-
way 23 from Monkton north. A similar call
is greatly needed to correct a very bad
stretch, south on 23, towards Mitchell.
The city of Stratford and the area need a
more direct and marked route to Highway
401. This, I think, is a must, in view of the
now congested character of Highway 7,
with which I am sure you are all familiar. I
am sure every hon. member of the House is
fully aware of the great number of tourists
and visitors who go to the Shakespearean
festival and I would hope, at an early date
and I expect before too long, it will be avail-
able. A presentation will be made to the
hon. Minister on behalf of this project.
As hon. members know, there has been a
plan set for traffic in road-building in the
London area; there is a study now, I believe,
being made of traffic in the Stratford area
and the two are being meshed together. I
think they will come up with not only a
direct route to London, but also a direct
route to tie in with 401.
In connection with industry in our county,
I might say that the department has been
very helpful to agencies involved in promot-
ing industry. They have secured some very
fine industries in Stratford recently. I might
say they have a very active board of trade
and industrial committees there. Any of
the hon. members who have been out to the
boat show will have noticed the Chris Craft
firm has set its Canadian plant in Stratford.
I believe it has four or five boats on exhibit.
It is also one of the largest firms in the States.
There are several others, such as Dominion
Chain; and over the past ten or twelve years
some 60 or 70 industries have come in that
area.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Any new trust
companies?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, there is a new trust
company that came in from London, and it
is happy to invest the savings of the people
of that area. There has been one unfortunate
thing happen, which could happen to any-
one, yet the people will get over that— and
will, I hope, regain confidence in well-
managed concerns of that kind.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): No
thanks to the Liberals.
Mr. Edwards: One thing that would be
of great help to our county, and the riding I
represent, would be a little more assistance
from both the federal and provincial govern-
ments in trying to arrive at a decentraliza-
tion of industry. We have much to offer in
advantages, and way of living: We have
good schools; we have good hospitals; good
churches; we have a teachers college. We
have everything that I think could be offered
to bring up a family in a good environment.
We would only hope that, in the future,
more industry would settle in our part of
the province and other similar parts, and get
away from this lining up for an hour-and-a-
half to catch a bus or street car, lining up to
do pretty near everything you do in the city.
Mr. Trotter: The hon. member needs a
Liberal member there.
Mr. Edwards: The boards of trade and in-
dustrial committees should be congratulated
and encouraged.
An interesting meeting was held just
yesterday in Mount Forest, at which my hon.
colleague from Wellington-Dufferin was
present. A protest has been launched and
forwarded to the federal government to pro-
test the way these low tax exempt areas are
set up. Apparently some of the municipali-
ties have lost industries to others as a result
of this tax exemption available to industries.
We think this is very unfair, and we think
that if they are going to set up regions of
that kind they should include other places
where there is slow growth, as well as Owen
Sound, which our hon. friend (Mr. Sargent)
represents.
While we were informed today in a ques-
tion that the government was planning no
protest regarding the discontinuing of the
CPR Dominion train, I am inclined to kind of
agree with the federal Minister of Agricul-
ture that it is about time the railroads
assumed some of the responsibility for the
privileges they have received in the past.
Regarding rail transportation in our area,
it means a lot in the development of further
industry and good services in connection with
the cities of Toronto and London, and others.
For about a period of six years, Canadian
National Railways in our area have been
downgrading services completely. In fact, I
have in my mind a copy of the presentation
which has been made to all the municipali-
ties in the affected area. This has to do with
an application they have made to the board
of transport commissioners to cut off passen-
ger train service between Harriston and
Owen Sound, Stratford and Listowel, and
Stratford and Goderich. I think, to get an
understanding of this, we should go back a
period of years.
:n FEBRUARY 10 -1966
431
Some 95 years ago, and we have proof of
this, these railroads were built by tax money
in all these areas. I made a speech in the
House some years ago; and I pointed out
even at that time, and I have a clipping here
from a Huron county paper which bears this
out, that, going back 95 years ago, grants
were paid by the municipalities to build these
railroads in there.
The same thing happened, in the town of
Listowel; it paid $30,000. The townships of
Minto, of Maryborough and Wallace, and the
town of Palmerston, paid $15,000 over 90-
some years ago to build these railroads. They
were built there with a team and a man at
$1 a day, but they were built. And these
railroads over the years have served the
people well up there, till somebody gets an
idea and a new set of bookkeeping, and de-
cides to take the express by truck instead of
taking it on the rails.
As a result, they lost the mail, back six or
seven years ago; the postal department de-
cided to truck the mail. Yet I still see mail
going on some of the trains out of Toronto.
The trains are still running, by the way, up
our way, but they do not carry mail any more.
And they are running— at least half running,
because six years ago, after they introduced
these new Budd cars up there, they were
going to give a greatly improved service; but
they did not tell the people that they were
going to cut half of it off shortly. Now there
is one a day down in the morning, and one
back at night.
In the case of the Goderich line there is
one up at noon, and one back two hours after.
If a man from Goderich is up on the Huron
county line he has to spend two nights in
Toronto to do a day's business. That is the
service they are giving up in that area. It is
not geared to carry the traffic.
In fact, I have had occasion to use the
train quite often lately. A week ago Sunday
night I came down. There was one diesel
coach on the train; it had accommodation for
60 and there were 129 on it. There were 40
in the baggage ear. The same evening they
did not have a Budd car to come down the
Southampton line, they had an old coach;
there were no lights in it even. And it
arrived down late; they arrived at Palmerston
and had to stand up the rest of the way to
Toronto. That is the service they are giving.
How often does the public have to take
that kind of service? I mention this because
I maintain, if they give service and the proper
equipment,- they would get the business; be*
cause nobody wants to drive down to Toronto
this time . of the vjwatj and have to park - bis
car. It costs you more to park your car than
the fare is from Palmerston to Toronto on
some days. And somebody mentioned rates,
in the House just the other day, so another
thing I think we should make is a presenta-
tion with regard to rates.
Back not a year ago, the minimum express
rate was $1.75; today it is $2.75. The cheap
passenger fare— and you could bring yourself
and you could weigh more than 100 pounds
—is $2.50; yet the express rate is $2.75 per
100. It would nearly pay you to come down
and get it.
I mention these things because it does
have a direct effect on the economy of the
area. We all know that both the Canadian
Pacific and CNR are subsidized federally, to
a great extent, to keep the rates down on cer-
tain items. Yet I do think that if they succeed
in getting their application through as they
have presented it, it means that everybody
north of the main line— that is, Guelph, Kitch-
ener, Stratford, London— will all be treated as
second-rate Canadians, second-rate citizens,
and I do not think it is right.
I would appeal to all the areas which are
affected. I have clippings here from all the
papers. I do not believe in reading all the
clippings I get but here is Trenton, Goderich;
in both these lines, there are protests going
in. I would hope that all the municipal
officials and our federal members would make
a strong presentation in order to keep this
service going. We are in a period of expan-
sion all through Ontario and to have trains
cut off is not a good indication of the confi-
dence they have in this part of the country.
All you have to do is take a drive through
any of our smaller communities and our
small cities and you can see progress and
expansion right now. I think they should be
trying to induce more industry to come into
some of these areas and build up the different
parts of the province. Nothing makes an
area so good as to have employment facilities
there. I think it is the duty of government
and industry to try to plan productive jobs
for people so that they can earn a living in
that way.
As I said before, the local taxes have built
up these roads. It has been said it is because
of the way they show the bookkeeping that
the passenger service does hot pay; they do
not tell you how much freight they carry.
For instance, I guess in one small village I
know of, it is over $300,000 a year. I suppose
in the city of Owen Sound it is over $1 mil-
lion on one railroad alone.
Interjections by ham members.
432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Edwards: There is no other business
in the world that gets all the cream. There
is an obligation to the people there to give
the service. Nobody asked for the express to
be taken off these trains. If we still had the
express on the trains, then it would be possi-
ble to run them. But if they just go for the
passenger business under the conditions and
the way they have discouraged passengers, I
do not know why some of them would run
that way.
Speaking of expansion, we can take Dur-
ham—a $1 million addition to its factories-
yet there is no service provided up there at
all unless they have a carload lot going up.
I mentioned the rates, and I think that in
order to protect ourselves from being second-
class citizens north of Guelph, we should do
something about it.
It was very interesting hearing what was
said tonight in regard to housing for senior
citizens, and general housing. I am very
pleased to say that we have some housing
for senior citizens in our area and there are
more planned and applied for. It has done
a wonderful job and there is a great need
for it.
I am also very happy that the government
has seen fit to say that they are going to
license our nursing homes, and control nurs-
ing homes. It is one of the greatest problems
we have. And there are more people coming
to you regarding problems of the aged than
anything else, and I speak from experience.
I have been a member for some time,
and I have always felt it my duty to try to
help that class of person who, through no
fault of their own, are in very difficult posi-
tions. I would also recommend that I think
the hospital services commission should take
a little different view on the number of nurs-
ing homes that they do accredit, because
there are people in great need of that care.
Employment has been very good, and
there have been no great labour troubles in
my area, yet I suppose sometimes— and I say
this is quite right when I see the enormous
profits made by the car industries and differ-
ent other industries— that maybe we should
have more money. One of the things that I
think is that, when they show that kind of
profit, they are making maybe more money
than they should. Maybe the cost should
be reduced a bit to the consumer.
One of the most important things that we
have is what the consumer has left when he
gets through paying his bills, and the cost
has risen to such a degree in so many things
that he has not too much left. For this
reason, I think capital and labour and all
merchandising should take a look at whether
we are taking more than a fair profit. If
there was such a thing as a fair profit, it has
been said, we would not have half the
troubles we do have in the world. There has
been quite a bit of publicity over the years
about the conduct of the legal profession and
the medical profession, and it was not too
long ago that somebody was raking the
druggists over for the money they made—
in this House.
Mr. Bryden: Not the druggist, the pharma-
ceutical companies.
Mr. Edwards: Thanks for the correction.
I hope you mean that.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The
druggists just caught on.
Mr. Edwards: I have been a practising
druggist myself for 41 years, and not too
many of my friends got rich; but I do want
to tell you that they gave good service for a
great number of years, particularly in the
small municipalities in Ontario. I also say
that we have of lot of good doctors who do
the same thing. We have a lot of doctors
who are very busy men, but by the same
token we have a lot of doctors who are
allowing dispensing in their offices by un-
trained, unqualified help— and I do not mean
maybe. It is about time that the pharmacists
came into their proper role in their pro-
fession and did the dispensing, and let the
doctors do the prescribing.
We hear a lot, and we have seen a lot in
the past, in connection with the legal pro-
fession and their fees. In fact, I think the
hon. member was saying something about
their fees being all challengeable— the hon.
member for Downsview, I think it was.
Whether they are challengeable or not, they
are pretty high; possibly it is because they
have to make so much payment to make up
some of the discrepancies in the clients'
accounts. This happened, but we hope the
public does not have to pay that. We hope
that they assume their responsibility and
measure up in paying some of the amounts
that are still owing in Perth county.
I was very happy to hear the hon. member
for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. Newman) men-
tion about having taxes reduced on property
to senior citizens. I would hope our govern-
ment would work to the eventual aim of
taking all taxes for education off property.
All you have to do is look at your own tax
bill at home, and you see where the taxes
are and the amounts of them— and you will
see the point of that in my request.
FEBRUARY 10, 1966
433
When we get into the Budget debate,
there are some other things I would like to
cover; but I have rambled enough tonight
to bring to the attention of the House a few
of the things for which I do think, while
they are not directly under the provincial
jurisdiction, presentations should be made to
the parties in Ottawa, so that we will get a
fair deal and discontinue being second-rate
citizens north of the main line.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
may I first of all, as custom seems to demand,
congratulate you upon your continued good
sense as you occupy your position, and also
congratulate the hon. member for Eglin-
ton (Mr. Reilly), for his elevation to the
second post. I am sure that his Irish wit
and his genial smile will add much to the
annals of this chamber.
I also want to congratulate the two hon.
members who have just come into this House
via the by-election route. I would have pre-
ferred that other faces had been here, of
course, but since they are, I wish them well
and hope they make a real contribution to
the Legislature in Ontario.
I was very interested to hear the hon. mem-
ber for Perth (Mr. Edwards) plead with his
own government to do those things neces-
sary, so that his constituents would not con-
tinue to be second-class citizens. It is always
refreshing to hear a government member
talk that frankly to a government. I might
say to him that the ranks are always open
over here if he changes his mind, and
decides that he wants to talk that way from
another side of the House and have some
effect-
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Well,
you fellows are all in jail. You have no
freedom.
Mr. Young: —because no matter how long
you talk this way to your friends over there,
they take it with a grain of salt, I fear. Of
course, they also may take some of the other
hon. members with a grain of salt, too. That
has happened in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I come from the great riding
of Yorkview and, following up what has just
been said, I can only add that in Yorkview
the Conservative government over the past
year has spent more money on highways than
in any other single riding, I think, in the
province.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): I would
not say that. The highway comes into my
riding, too.
Mr. Young: And Downsview, of course.
The hon. member for Downsview points out
that he has shared in this munificence of the
government. And tonight I wanted at some
length to discuss this matter of highways and
highway safety, and I am afraid I have not
time to do it effectively here. I am not go-
ing to presume upon the time of the House
to go beyond the adjourning time that has
been set. But I do want, when next my
opportunity comes, to place before the
House certain facts and figures, and certain
suggested solutions, which I think we ought
to face up to in a non-partisan way, and
that very soon.
It was my privilege just yesterday to meet,
in the city of Albany in New York, with the
committee which is dealing with safety in
that state. I have been interested in their
work for some time and have been in touch
with them as has Heward Grafftey, the Con-
servative member of Parliament from
Quebec. The two of us were invited to meet
with the committee and listen to its hearings
yesterday, and to meet with that committee
informally and with its staff, prior to the
hearing in the afternoon.
This proved to be an exciting and ex-
tremely rewarding experience. I have sent
over tonight to the hon. Minister of Transport
(Mr. Haskett) something of the work of
that committee. It has undertaken as indi-
cated in the House the other day, a study of
a safety car, and has undertaken to build a
prototype of such a safety car. Already the
first part of that study has been completed,
and is now in the hands of the hon. Minister.
The other day, you remember, I asked him
whether or not he might consider seriously
the matter of working with this committee
in the state of New York, if they so desired
it, in order that Ontario might make its con-
tribution to this project; because after all,
with the international automobile agreement,
we are desperately interested, and I think
we are unified, in our interest in the whole
automobile industry and in the problems
attendant to it.
So I asked the hon. Minister whether or
not he would welcome overtures from the
state of New York in regard to operation on
this project and he said:
This is rather hypothetical. I would
hardly know how to answer it. I would
say that The Department of Transport has
had a continuing concern with the many
aspects of highway safety as regards also
vehicle design and maintenance. If, as a
result of this project, some useful findings
434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
come of it, I can assure the House that our
department will give them very careful and
detailed consideration.
Mr. Singer: And lengthy.
Mr. Young: I have some faith in the hon.
Minister of Transport, and that it will not be
too lengthy. I think the consideration can
be done very quickly, and that his mind "cari
be made up, and that he can make certain
recommendations to the House within a
reasonable length of time.
An hon. member: Do not count on it.
Mr. Young: I have so much faith that,
when the committee met with us informally,
and one of their first questions was: "What
is Ontario going to do to help us in this
project?" I said, and Mr. Grafftey said, "We
cannot speak for our respective governments.
We have no power to do that. We are simply
here as representatives in our own right.
And, while we are members of Parliament and
the Legislature, we cannot speak for gov-
ernment." And they quite understood that.
They asked us to convey to our respective
Houses their desire that Ontario and New
York, as well as Iowa and Illinois, repre-
sented there, should co-operate in a real
project in connection with safety of motor
cars. I told them I would convey this to the
hon. Minister and that I would bring him
the report, which I have done. So I convey
to the hon. Minister this wish of theirs, and
the secretary of the committee will be writing
the hon. Minister officially within the next
day or two to place this whole project before
him and to explain it to him.
I will have something more to say about
the details of the project as I saw it, and as
Mr. Grafftey saw it, and I hope Mr. Grafftey
will be in touch with his friends on the gov-
ernment side of the House, in this case in
Ontario, to also urge them that they should
take action in this regard, and to show them
the vital significance of this project which is
being undertaken in the state of New York.
This has the blessing of Governor Rocke-
feller, and more and more of the legislators
in that state are coming to see the importance
of car safety as well as highway safety and
driver education, and they are driving for-
ward on this project. But they say to us that
it i is hardly sensible that Ontario should go
through all the programme of research and
the inquiry which they have already done,
and which has been done in various places
in the United States. I assured them that
we were making some experiments of our
own— the salt corrosion problem is being
investigated here, and Ontario is at least
moving forward in some safety field. They
felt that together we might do a real job
and undertake a very significant project for
the future.
So, Mr. Speaker, with these few remarks,
perhaps I should call this debate to a halt
tonight but I do want to place this whole
problem and this whole project in detail be-
fore this House at the earliest possible mo-
ment, because I believe that the hon. Minister
and all the hon. members of this House will
be not only interested but fascinated in the
things that are going on.
I have here some pictures of the safety
car which is being built. These will be
available. I have a couple of spare reports,
and I would be glad to loan them to any hon,
members of the House who might be inter-
ested in looking into this kind of project.
Mr. Young moves adjournment of the
debate.
' Motion agreed to. ' :
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment of
the House, I understand that the debate on
the Medicare bill will proceed in the
morning.
Hon. Mr. Allan moves adjournment of the
House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:30 o'clock p.m.
No. 16
®a
ONTARIO
Hegtslature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, February 11, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 11, 1966
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 438
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Young 458
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Young, agreed to 458
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 458
437
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, February 11, 1966
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome as
visitors to the Legislature today, in the west
gallery, students from John G. Althouse public
school, Islington.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members
of the House will share my satisfaction over
the settlement of the dispute between the
Oshawa Times and the Toronto newspaper
guild.
With differences cleared out of the way
through responsible negotiations, it will now
be possible for the newspaper and its staff
to resume the public service which they have
provided so ably in the Oshawa area.
Now this has been a difficult situation for
all concerned. It must be noted, however, that
without the responsible and co-operative ap-
proach that was taken by the parties during
this past week, no settlement would have
been possible. Both parties responded with
complete good-will to my invitation last
Monday to resume talks on Tuesday. There
was no doubt in my mind that both wished
to do all they could to bring about a settle-
ment through collective bargaining.
In order that the climate for discussion
would be favourable, the company took steps
entirely on its own initiative to postpone the
court proceedings that were pending for Tues-
day morning, and did so again on Thursday
morning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under our system of
free collective bargaining, a system that
obviously works in spite of difficulties, the
parties are not obliged to agree with one
another. Nor does the government possess any
instruments that would force them to agree
with one another. Neverthless, in this situa-
tion the process of give-and-take has brought
them to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
I compliment the Thompson Company on its
responsible and co-operative approach, and
this applies as well to the Toronto newspaper
guild.
Other issues came to prominence, Mr.
Speaker, during the dispute, and these must,
and will be dealt with, in an atmosphere
of reason away from the immediate differences
engendered by a particular dispute.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day: I am sorry the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben) is not in his seat. The
other day when he asked the question about
some fires at Millbrook he asked a supple-
mentary question and I promised to get the
information for him.
The supplementary question was: Was
there any damage subsequent to these par-
ticular fires?
The answer to that is: Inmates in some cells
attempted to create a disturbance by banging
on the furnishings and knocking dishes against
the walls and doors. A few dishes were
broken but actual property damage was
negligible.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Labour,' a copy of which has been
submitted to him.
In view of the violence reported in the
Toronto Globe and Mail over the truckers'
strike, what efforts are being made by the
hon. Minister of Labour to bring these parties
together?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I and
the officials of my department have been in
constant touch with both the truckers and the
union since their meetings last weekend. De-
pending on developments over this weekend
I plan to call the parties together early next
week in an effort to promote the resumption
of negotiations.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I
have another question of the hon. Minister
of Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Simonett), a copy of which has been sub-
mitted to him. Would the hon. Minister
inform this House whether or not his de-
partment has investigated complaints of
spillage from oil drillers into the natural
water system in the Wallaceburg area?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
we have received complaints of spillage in
the Wallaceburg area and I might say that
personnel of the Energy department and the
OWRC are investigating them at the present
time.
Mr. Newman: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. Minister?
Is the department considering the dropping
of the ban on offshore drilling in the Lake
St. Clair-Lake Huron regions?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Pardon, I did not get
that.
Mr. Newman: Is the department consider-
ing dropping the ban on offshore oil drilling
in the Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair areas?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I think
the hon. member knows the policy as stated
by the government and announced by the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) two years
ago and I might say there has been no
change in that policy up to the present time.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders, I wish to announce the appoint-
monl of Professor Harold Robert Stuart Ryan,
QC, to membership on the Minister's ad-
visory council on the treatment of the
offender and Mr. H. David Archibald to
membership on the regional detention centre
planning committee.
Professor Ryan and Mr. Archibald are
associated with the alcoholism and drug ad-
diction research foundation. Professor Ryan
is a member of its professional advisory
board and Mr. Archibald is executive director
of the foundation.
Mi. Archibald, a master of social work
from the University of Toronto, has been
responsible for the development of the
foundation since its inception. As the hon.
members well know the Ontario foundation,
which operates an increasing number of clinic
and hospital services throughout the province,
was the first government-sponsored pro-
gramme in this field in Canada. It has been
designated by the world health organization
as a model for work in this field.
The alcoholic is a tremendous problem in
the local jail situation, and as the regional
detention centre planning committee is enter-
ing into discussions on programming for the
new centres Mr. Archibald, with his detailed
knowledge of this problem, will make a great
contribution to the formulation of effective
programmes for the alcoholic.
Professor Stuart Ryan, faculty of law,
Queen's University, taught criminology for
five years and criminal law from 1957 until
the present time.
He was the organizer and assistant director
of a seminar on sentencing in 1962 and a
seminar on the persistent offender in 1963.
He led four seminars at the centre of crim-
inology 1964-65 on theory of punishment and
sentencing.
He is the author of many papers and
articles which deal with the work of correc-
tions. A former president of the John How-
ard society of Kingston, he is presently
serving as vice-president of the John Howard
society of Ontario.
Professor Ryan, with his expertise in crim-
inal law and penology generally, will be of
inestimable value to my advisory council.
We are very pleased to announce the
appointment of these two gentlemen.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Resuming the ad-
journed debate on the amendment to the
motion for second reading of Rill No. 6, An
Act to amend The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
(continued)
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, at the time the debate was adjourned
yesterday I was just beginning to outline to
you, sir, some of the history in this province
of so-called Medicare. I was likening the
performance of the government to a serial
story— each year we get a new version. We
have had Medicare '63 and Medicare '65 and
now we have Medicare '66. The similarity
between any one of the chapters of this
serial, I think, is strictly coincidental.
I think it is important, sir, that we do
refresh our memories and see the wild state-
ments that the government has surrounded
these various approaches with. The hon.
Prime Minister got a little excited yesterday
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
439
afternoon when I was quoting some of the
advertising—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Never
excited, never excited.
Mr. Singer: —that was used by his party in
the election of 1963. I was recalling to his
mind— although I did not have the exact text
before me then, I do have it now— just what
was put in these advertisements. The adver-
tisement read: "Medicare for everyone, not
thought, but action" and then in a little
square box the word "done."
When you get a little farther down into
the text you also find a big plan ably devel-
oped by the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond).
Well, Mr. Speaker, that fraud was devel-
oped—I deliberately call it a fraud— on the
basis of a bill having been introduced into
this House and having been given only one
reading. On the basis of that—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It actually had second
reading. It was debated on principle.
Mr. Singer: All right! I accept the cor-
rection. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. On
the basis of that, our good Conservative
friends went out on to the hustings and they
told everybody that they had done this won-
derful thing— Medicare for everyone, not talk,
but action.
Well, I say the only way to describe that
is a fraud. It did not exist then, it does not
exist now, but they did manage to pull the
wool over the eyes of the people of Ontario
in this first chapter of this wonderful, excit-
ing, shocking Medicare serial story.
In 1965, Mr. Speaker, chapter two was this
great new bill, two years later. Two years
after the election a big plan, ably developed
by the hon. Minister of Health, came in and
there we were in 1965. We had this new
bill and probably the most strenuous debate
that has taken place in this House, certainly
within recent years, probably in the history
of the House.
But in any event, after all of this debate
and the government saying "This is it, this
is what we believe is right," and the govern-
ment using its majority, as is its right, to
push the bill through, we had chapter two,
Medicare '65.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister
of Health is undoubtedly going to mention
it, he has mentioned it before; he said he
has never said the 1963 bill was the answer,
nor that the 1965 bill was the answer, nor
even that the 1966 bill, the one we have
before us today, is the answer.
But some of his more exuberant colleagues
have taken some of this out of context, per-
haps, and have said: "In 1963 we had the
answer; in 1965 we certainly had the answer
and now in 1966, this is the be-all and the
end-all."
Mr. Speaker, my appeal today to the
government is this. Let us be frank and let
us be honest with the people of Ontario.
Let us tell the people of Ontario what the
issues are.
Now, there are substantial issues. Sub-
stantial differences, Mr. Speaker, between
the government and ourselves and the social-
ists as well, between the views expressed in
this House as to what should be done.
Maybe, and I underline this word maybe,
maybe the government has a case to present.
But we cannot get at the case. They will
not tell us what their case is. This is the
real issue.
My colleagues, particularly my hon. leader
(Mr. Thompson), have outlined at some
length our grave reservations about the plan
as it is presently being presented, so I am not
going to review that.
But what I say, Mr. Speaker, is we must
know what the issues are now between the
federal government and the provincial gov-
ernment. And we cannot get that from the
hon. Minister of Health. We have not got it
yet from the hon. Prime Minister. I do not
know whether we are going to get it later
in this debate or not. But we cannot get
those answers.
I was very fascinated to read a news
story the other day when Mr. MacEachen,
the federal Minister of Health, was inter-
viewed by the press and this is what the
press reports he said:
Hon. Minister Allan MacEachen reiter-
ated yesterday that Ottawa will not com-
promise on Medicare to accommodate
Ontario and other reluctant provinces. In
an interview the federal Health Minister
said the government will stand by its four
principles as a reasonable and sound basis
for a national programme despite holdouts
by six provinces.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying,
one of the holdouts is this great province of
Ontario. My point again, and I am going to
repeat it, my point again is if Ontario is
holding out, why is it holding out? What are
the differences?
We want those answers, we are entitled
to those answers. The people of Ontario are
440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
entitled to those answers and we have not
got them during this debate.
These principles are universal coverage,
comprehensive services, portability be-
tween provinces and government or non-
profit agency operation. Mr. MacEachen
said the government also aims to meet its
July 1967 deadline for the introduction of
the federal plan to provide approximately
half the costs of the participating prov-
inces.
Mr. Speaker, if the words of Mr. MacEachen
mean anything, and I think they do, this
seems to me to be an offer to the province
of Ontario, somewhere in the vicinity of $100
million. The figure $115 million has been
used, perhaps that is a more correct figure.
But I think the people of Ontario, having
faced the awesome statement by the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), the other
day, where he is raising taxes by some $200
million, I think the people of Ontario are
entitled to know why the government of
Ontario apparently is discarding out of hand
more than $100 million of federal money.
Is anyone in this House pleased that taxes
had to be raised? Can anyone say that, any-
one on the government benches?
Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North): They have
said it.
Mr. Singer: Is anyone in this House
pleased to see what the hon. Provincial
Treasurer had to tell us the other day?
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
You are pleased, and everyone else is regret-
ful on this side of the House that any taxes
had to be raised.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister of Mines
perhaps is pleased. I am not and I do not
think most of his colleagues are.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Everybody over there
on your side of the House is pleased that
taxes had to be raised.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this tale of gloom
and doom told by the hon. Provincial
Treasurer could have been only half as doom-
filled and only half as gloomy if the hon.
Minister of Health had indicated how the
province of Ontario could have accepted
$100 million or $115 million of federal
money.
Mr. E. A. Dunlop (Forest Hill): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a
question?
Mr. Singer: Certainly.
Mr. Dunlop: How much more does the
hon. member estimate it would cost the
province if they accepted the $115 million?
How much more would the province have to
put into the medical services plan to fit
the federal requirements?
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that is a question. That is a bit of an
argument, but let me try to cope with it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker,
that the so-called answer to the so-called
question is this. If the hon. Minister of
Health had come into this House openly and
frankly and said, "Here is the picture," if he
had laid his cards on the table, if he had
told us what the issues were, we would be
able to intelligently discuss the point raised by
the hon. member for Forest Hill.
Mr. Speaker, working in a vacuum-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, working in this
vacuum as we are, being told yesterday
afternoon by the hon. Minister of Health that
he cannot tell us about these private discus-
sions that go on with his friends, we have not
got these answers. This is the point of my
remarks today.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Singer: If the government was pre-
pared to take this House into its confidence,
to take the people of Ontario into its con-
fidence, we could then determine whether
or not the government of Ontario has a
case.
In view of the fact that they will not
take us into their confidence, in view of the
fact that the cards are not laid on the table,
in view of the fact that all the aces apparently
are up the sleeve of the hon. Minister of
Health, we do not know what is going on and
we cannot tell.
Mr. Speaker, the government is condemned
by reason of the lack of information that it
has made available to the people of On-
tario. Mr. MacEachen goes on—
An hon. member: And on, and on.
Mr. Singer: Well, I think it is the respon-
sibility of the Minister of Health to go on
federally and provincially and present things
that are good for the people of Ontario
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
441
and Canada. My objection to the hon. Min-
ister of Health here in Ontario, is that he
does not go on in public. He does not go
on and tell the people of Ontario what the
issues are.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It has
been going on and on for 47 years in
Ottawa.
Mr. Singer: He says nothing. Now Mr. Mac-
Eachen goes on:
Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Sas-
katchewan have made commitments while
Quebec is quite favourable to the federal
scheme.
Now, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. Minister of
Health is not saying that the governments of
Newfoundland and New Brunswick and Sas-
katchewan and Quebec— and we have heard
mention perhaps that British Columbia is
getting very close to this position as well-
that all of these governments are stupid,
all of these governments do not know what
they are doing, all of these governments
have sold out their birthright, all of these
governments are accepting an obnoxious
grant, and only he has superior wisdom and
is holding out.
If all of these governments have carefully
examined it— and I am sure the hon. Min-
ister's colleagues, the gentlemen who hold
similar portfolios in these other governments,
are equally as conscientious as this hon.
Minister, they studied it, they worried about
it, they have consulted with their Provincial
Treasurers and so on— surely if they found
merit in the federal plan, then there must be
something in it.
Surely then, if the hon. Minister of Health
for the province of Ontario disagrees with
them, and he disagrees with the federal
Minister in Ottawa, can anything be more
obvious than that he should get up in this
House and say why?
What are the circumstances that keep him
backing away? What is he trying to do?
Why will he not take the people of Ontario
into his confidence?
This article goes on. It now quotes Queen's
Park— I do not know who it is at Queen's Park:
Queen's Park said no talks are planned
between Mr. MacEachen and Ontario
Health Minister Matthew Dymond although
both will appear tonight on a University of
Toronto panel discussion.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I think I have to point out to
the House this is complete and total misreport-
ing because talks are going on between Mr.
MacEachen and myself.
Mr. Singer: I accept the hon. Minister's
statement on that, and I am glad to hear the
hon. Minister correct that statement. What
I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if these
talks are going on, what the points are that
are still at issue. As I listened very carefully
to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Health
yesterday, I could not catch at all what the
differences might be.
I was very interested in reading in this
morning's paper the report on his speech,
and the report of what he told the press out-
side the House. He told the press outside the
House far more than he told the House. I
just fail to understand why he was prepared
to take the reporters into his confidence to a
greater extent than he took the House into
his confidence. The only conclusion I can
come to, Mr. Speaker, is that he is afraid to
state his case.
But the hon. Minister of Health, if this
report— and could I ask the hon. Minister if
he read the report in the morning paper? Is
it substantially correct?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is not.
Mr. Singer: It is not substantially correct?
Well, the poor old Minister of Health is
always being misquoted, that is too bad. If
the hon. Minister of Health is being perse-
cuted by the press in that he is always being
misquoted—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I have never suggested that I am
being persecuted. The only people who ex-
hibit tendencies or feelings of persecution are
all on that side of the House. The press has
never persecuted me and I do not think it is
going to. The press have only a certain
amount of space, sir, and I did not take the
press any more into my confidence than I did
this House.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the word
"persecuted" was just a bit too strong, but in
two articles in two days in two different news-
papers the hon. Minister of Health has said
these statements were incorrect. Perhaps he
is not being persecuted, perhaps he is just
being constantly misquoted. But I wish, Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. Minister has statements
to make that are authentic and are meaning-
ful, that he would make them in the House
so that we can hear them. Then we will have
them in Hansard, we can have the record
there, and we can see exactly what he did
say.
442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dymond: What I said in the
House is in Hansard.
Mr. Singer: Yes, but what you said to the
reporters, and what the reporters said you
said to them, is not in Hansard, and it goes
much further apparently than what you said
to the House yesterday afternoon.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member does
not like statements before the orders of the
day.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.
I am awfully sorry that the government can-
not really recognize their responsibility in this
most serious debate. Mr. Speaker, to reduce
this matter to its simplest terms, we have
before us a so-called Medicare bill. The hon.
Minister is anxious to bring something into
effect this year.
Someone quoted, yesterday, from Mr.
Justice Hall's report, and talked about our
duty as a nation. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Where
does Ontario stand as a part of the Canadian
nation in Medicare? I think we are entitled to
that answer; we have not had it from the
hon. Minister of Health. We have had no
explanation as to why Ontario apparently is
turning down $100 million or $115 million;
we have had no answers as to what the
differences are.
I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, if the govern-
ment felt in its heart, if it really believed
that it had a case to make, it would not hesi-
tate to bring the facts before this Legislature.
My only explanation for this is that it knows
it has a weak case. It is afraid to talk about
it in public, and it is avoiding its duty, its
real responsibility of bringing the people of
Ontario into the picture in this most import-
ant point.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any
point in belabouring these obvious facts any
longer. I would urge the hon. members of
the House, and I would urge my good friends
over here, the socialists on my left, to vote
—well, they reallv have no choice, there is
only one vote. The authority on the rules,
the hon. member for Woodbine, knows this.
Mr. K. Brydcn (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker is
the authority en the rules. Ask him.
Mr. Singer: Well, the hon. member has
apparently replaced him.
I would hope that they would vote with
good heart and with good conscience, the
way they spoke last year and the way they
voted last year; because it is only in a united
way that we are going to get these things
properly before the people of Ontario, and it
is only in a united way that we are going to
provide the best plan. I would think the
government could and should take as its
watchword the slogan that they coined for the
'63 election— that we will have Medicare for
everyone in Ontario, not talk, but action. We
have not got it yet.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): I thought the
hon. member had something to say.
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon.
member for Downsview expounding his
theory, and the theory of his party, with re-
gard to the Medicare bill. Many of the
points which he raised I think we are in full
agreement with. The one thing the people
in our group are concerned about, however,
is that it took the party on our right so long
to come over to our line of thinking.
Mr. Speaker, I have been reading with
great interest last year's statement by the
hon. Minister of Health when he introduced
his short-lived version of what he considered
at that time a Medicare scheme. The hon.
Minister said, of Bill No. 136 on May 11,
1965:
It will be voluntary. Although many cry
for compulsion, an equal or even greater
number cry out against it. The records in
Ontario show that, given the opportunity,
our people do not want, do not like and
would rather not have compulsion.
On the one hand, the hon. Minister estab-
lishes the fact that many Ontario people want
a compulsory Medicare scheme. On the
other hand, he establishes the fact that many,
or perhaps even more people, are against a
compulsory scheme.
The hon. Minister's basis for this alleged
fact is, in his own words, the records in
Ontario. But, Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
Minister goes to such pains as to assure us
indirectly that, if the majority of Ontario
people were for compulsory Medicare, this
government would introduce a compulsory
scheme, where are the figures on which he
makes his case? The hon. Minister's trouble,
and that of all the government front- or back-
benchers who rise to denounce the so-called
compulsory scheme, is that there are no
statistical figures at all.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The Gallup poll-
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Minister has a lot
of faith in Gallup polls.
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
443
Mr. Bryden: A poll like that means noth-
ing. The remarkable thing is that so many
people said compulsory in relation to a ques-
tion like that.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Tell me what has
happened to the government of Saskatche-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member for Fort
William has the floor.
Mr. Bryden: What has happened to the
plan in Saskatchewan? The plan in Sas-
katchewan is in full force; has the hon.
Minister not heard?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Freeman: But the hon. Minister of
Health knew very well why he glossed over
the so-called records in Ontario. The fact
is there are no records.
At any rate, let me stray into the seman-
tics of that much used word "compulsion"
and this I think is worthy of some thought.
And I quote from the Concise Oxford Dic-
tionary of Current English, as adapted by
Fowler and Fowler, 3rd edition, 1942; and I
may say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe
that in the 24 years since that edition "com-
pulsion" would have undergone a radical
change in meaning.
Compulsion, according to this dictionary,
means, "Constraint, obligation." Now I think
all would agree that of the two words we
should use "obligation" to do something
rather than "constraint" from doing some-
thing. Who is under obligation when we
think of Medicare? We firmly believe that
this government is under the obligation of
providing to each and every citizen the
necessary health care at the lowest possible
cost to the citizens. That, we all agree, is
only possible when the Medicare scheme is
administered on a non-profit basis by the
government— in other words, by the people
of this province. All too often hon. members
of this government speak against themselves
when they argue that government should not
become an all-engulfing Moloch that dictates
to the people.
Let me return briefly to the words "com-
pulsion" or "obligation." This government
has been whining away for years that the
people of this province should not be obliged
to accept the Medicare scheme, but that is
not what compulsory Medicare means. This
government keeps repeating that each person
must have a choice of his own health care
insurance. What kind of choice does the
average citizen have? He can choose be-
tween a private scheme, by which he helps
the carriers get fatter and fatter financial
paunches; he can pick a group insurance
scheme that is on-again, off-again when he
changes his job; he can also choose not to be
insured, particularly when he does not have
the $150 a year necessary under the pro-
visions of the new bill. That is Bill No. 6.
If we could be sure that every citizen, no
matter how well or how badly educated,
would do the right thing and say on every
pay day: "Well, I must make sure to put
away the money for my family's health
care before I pay rent, buy food, clothes,
pay other bills that are overdue." Mr.
Speaker, the human mind just does not work
that way. To assume such large budgeting
would presuppose that every citizen is a
financial wizard who tries to make his, let us
say, $75-a-week wages fit an expenditure
commitment of $85 or more— $100 if you
like.
But I am not speaking of the poor; I am
thinking of the low- and middle-income
groups that do not qualify for free coverage
under this Medicare scheme in Bill No. 6.
No, Mr. Speaker, the word compulsion or
compulsory alludes to this government. It
has an obligation to the people to provide
them with a Medicare scheme financed out
of premiums, out of taxes or out of money
already in the Treasury.
Mr. R. M. Which er (Bruce): We cannot
pay any more taxes now, after the Budget.
Mr. Freeman: Eventually, of course, every-
one covered by the compulsory Medicare
scheme will pay for the health services he
receives, but a compulsory scheme means
also that the distribution of the burden is
equable. Under Bill No. 6 it is inequitable.
It is a statistical fact, Mr. Speaker, that
the rich have more imaginary ailments than
the poor. Most doctors will confirm that, and
figures compiled by various medical associa-
tions prove that.
When I mention more equitable distribu-
tion of the burden, I mean, of course, that
those persons and institutions who are
wealthy should be hit harder with the kind
of taxation that would provide the money
to finance a compulsory Medicare scheme.
I am all in favour of having the mink-
coated dowager, with a twitch in her eyelid,
who must be nursed, coddled and operated
on and alpha, beta or gamma-rayed expen-
sively, pay a little more than the man with
eight children who cannot be looked after
444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
medically because he dreads the extra ex-
pense not covered by Bill No. 6.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what compulsory
Medicare means to me and to everyone with
a grain of common sense. But, of course,
we cannot expect the hon. Minister of Health
to display any common sense in this case
because he is a doctor who cannot bring him-
self to believe that some people have trouble
getting along on their pay. We cannot expect
the hon. Minister of Health to abandon his
precious 18th-century conception of free
enterprise which, to him, means socialism for
the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
Mr. Speaker, let me end my remarks on
this note. We need in the field of health
care neither of these two fashion symbols,
socialism or free enterprise. All we need, and
I mean all of us, is a medical care insurance
plan that guarantees our right to the best
health care available without discrimination.
The provisions of Bill No. 6, unfortunately,
do not meet this requirement.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I have sat here patiently listening
to this debate, not only this year but in
former years, and I have not taken a part
simply because I thought all of the ground
was covered. I felt that with the debate
from both sides of the House and the many
points that were made, the problem was
settled and by this day we would have had
something that was badly needed.
I decided to get into this debate a short
period before that outburst a day or two
ago when they were deciding who was going
to take what part and how they were going
to approach this serious problem. I think, hon.
gentlemen in this House, regardless of your
political stripes, we have a serious problem.
We have something to do for our people,
regardless of how we believe it. I thought
the best approach of the lot was made about
a week ago when the Prime Minister was at
the Royal York hotel with a group of his
followers and many other friends. He out-
lined the proposition to the people at that
time. I liked the comments I read in the
paper and I think they are worth repeating.
He made this statement: "Seven months
after the federal government offered to pay
half of the shot"— as they put in here in the
paper— "for a national Medicare programme"
-and lie goes on-"the result is that the
federal Cabinet is squeezed between its back
benches." You see, Mr. Speaker, they have
the same problem there that you have here.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not say that,
did I?
Mr. Bukator: No, I am talking about the
Prime Minister of Canada. We had better
put the record straight. I was speaking about
the Prime Minister of the Dominion of
Canada, Rt. hon. Mr. Pearson.
We have made an excellent point, Mr.
Speaker. The Prime Minister of this province
has said he is a fine gentleman. I think that
this particular debate will have to come down
to the Prime Ministers of the provinces and
the Prime Minister of the Dominion of
Canada rather than the hon. Minister who has
had three meetings on this issue and has
not as yet come to any particular conclusion.
Now then, I read on:
We cannot impose policies and pro-
grammes on provinces in respect to matters
within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Dunlop: He tried.
Mr. Bukator: Pardon?
Mr. Dunlop: He just tried.
Mr. Bukator: I would think that I would
take the word of the Prime Minister of the
Dominion of Canada in this respect. He was
speaking to a lot of people and I do not think
he was trying to deceive anyone.
Mr. Dunlop: Never does.
Mr. Bukator: If some of the people who
are representing the public in this province
and in the Dominion of Canada would apply
the tactics of the Prime Minister of Canada,
I think we would get somewhere.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: You are reaching.
Mr. Bukator: I am not reaching; I am read-
ing an account of another individual and I
would like to make some comments on it.
We were making some comments about the
lion. Minister while we are on this particular
subject. The hon. Minister of Health himself,
a little while ago got up like a banty rooster,
and was waving his arms and flailing the air.
Someone said that he was a fine gentleman.
Yes, he is one of the finest when you talk
with him, but here he puts on a new hat and
he becomes a politician. I might say, as an
individual who has sat here and watched him
for six years, that it is not becoming to the
doctor.
I think we have to get down to the facts
of this particular problem, and the problem
that is outlined briefly in this particular
account.
We cannot impose policies and pro-
grammes on provinces in respect to
matters within their jurisdiction, and we
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
445
will have to be increasingly careful in
participating in joint federal-provincial
programmes in which all provinces do not
participate.
Now, I think he is being fair.
On the other hand, we will not forego
our right to make grants to provinces to
help them in programmes such as Medi-
care which are provincially administered,
and our right to relating grants to the
acceptance of certain principles which, in
our view, justify the expenditures of
federal funds for provincially administered
schemes. It is then for the province to
decide whether they wish to co-operate
on this basis.
It is very brief. It is then for the province
to decide whether they wish to co-operate on
this basis. You know, I might define a Min-
ister to you. Quite some time ago, a friend
of mine was asked to run for government. If
he was elected, they would give him a fine
position; he said he wanted to be a Minister
in the government and he was very quickly
told by his supporters that he did not have
the capacity to be a Minister. He then said:
"I did not say Deputy Minister. I said
Minister."
An hon. member: That is a good point,
too, I think.
Mr. Bukator: If this problem is going to be
worked out it is going to be worked out by
the deputy and if it is going to be settled, it
is going to be settled by the hon. Prime Min-
ister. I think the hon. Prime Minister of this
province is a man who, regardless of his polit-
ical affiliation, is a man that we look up to
with respect, regardless of what we say in this
House. He is a diplomat and he is capable.
I think that the time has come— as a matter
of fact, it is long past— that he, along with
the Prime Minister of Quebec, who has not
turned his back on this programme, sit down
with the Prime Minister of the Dominion of
Canada and settle this problem, because now
three provinces have decided that they will
take part in it. The hon. Minister himself can
come to this particular point and correct us,
because again, as usual, he puts it very clearly
to us that he does not care to tell us what
stand he is taking.
I have the Niagara Falls Evening Review
here; it says:
The federal government plans to press
ahead with medical care legislation on the
basis of agreement with only three prov-
inces, Health Minister MacEachen hinted
here Wednesday night.
Then it goes on in the whole account, and
finally says:
Other informed speakers were Ontario
Health Minister Dr. Dymond and Dr.
Robert Jones of Halifax, president of the
Canadian medical association.
But it does not say, even in this account, what
our particular Minister of Health has in
mind.
The bill is a good one. It has taken a
tremendous stride forward to assist the poor
and it is about time that you took the sug-
gestion of the federal government. I am
looking forward to the day, and I hope it is
not next June but sooner than that, that the
hon. Prime Minister of this province, who
represents us all, will sit down with the
Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada
and take our problems seriously rather than
sit here and waste the time of the House,
as we have done, on many occasions on this
very matter. We have concluded absolutely
nothing up to this point.
Anyone who is in business would never
run his own affairs the way this particular
province is run. None of you would run
your own business the way you run your
different departments of government. We
ought to be ashamed of ourselves, with the
small amount of time we have to sit down
and debate these issues when we spend
millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars.
I have been under a doctor's care for several
months now, and I tell you that the plan we
have, and which is the best that money can
buy, even with your PS I, hospitalization and
all of these things that one has to have, I
find that, from time to time, one has to reach
into his own pocket, even with the best of
plans, and still pay part of the bill.
A doctor waited on me, I had my exam-
ination and he sent me a bill for $25. I sent
it on to PSI; they sent me a cheque back
and said that this man does not belong,
therefore we are sending you $16 or $17
and I had to make up the $7. They sent me
to the hospital to get a blood test and I
produced all of the cards that I had in my
pocket, but apparently I did not have the
jight one. I had to pay for the blood test
myself. This is Medicare, and I hope this
is not the type of thing you are thinking
about, Mr. Minister. I hope you give them
an all-inclusive plan which pays the shot
completely. I am looking forward to the
day this is done. I hope very soon that the
Prime Ministers of all the provinces, but
especially of Ontario, will wield the big
stick. I think our Prime Minister of Canada
wants to complete this problem and bring it
446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to a head, and I am looking forward to the
day that will be done.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, when I was first elected seven
years ago to represent the people of
Hamilton East, I committed myself to for-
ward certain legislation, and I committed
myself to represent the best interests of
everyone in the riding and, in particular, the
people of Ontario. It must follow then, that
I cannot, in all conscience, support legis-
lation that would separate the people of
Hamilton East and the people of Ontario
into three groups, as does this proposed
Medicare plan.
I have a kind of a rule of thumb which I
apply to this type of social welfare legisla-
tion. It must meet everyone's needs, it must
be available to everyone and it must be at
costs that everyone can afford.
Will the proposed Medicare plan meet
these three simple basic principles? Will it
meet the needs of everyone? Not com-
pletely, because it does not cover drugs,
dental or optical services, appliances and
certain other related services. But, since no
one is excluded from the services that it
does include, I suppose it could be accepted
as an important first step along the way.
The need to make at least a start is so im-
portant that I am willing to accept this
portion.
Is it available to everyone at costs they
can afford? Here is where we start separ-
ating into groups, and here is where I find a
major point of disagreement. I think there
will be a large group of people which simply
will not be able to afford to pay the high
premium. From all the figures thrown out,
I would estimate something like 15 or 20 per
cent would fall in this category. Let us take
the first premium category under which pen-
sion assistance is given; that is the single
person who has a taxable income of $500 or
less. The complete cost is $60. The govern-
ment would pay $30 and he would pay $30.
Presumably, this means anyone with a tax-
able income up to $500. The lowest category
would, I believe, be something like an
annual income of $1,110. The single person
would be allowed a basic exemption of
$1,000, plus $100 in lieu of medical bills and
donations, and would pay income tax on $10.
He would have a weekly income of $21. The
top of this bracket would earn $30 a week.
How can a single person making some-
thing like $21 to $30 a week forfeit one or
one-and-a-half week's wages every year, plus
hospital insurance to protect his health? The
answer, obviously, is that he cannot. So, of
course, it follows, as night follows day, that
he does not. The result is that he is excluded
from the plan by an economic barrier. He is
forced to take the big gamble that he will
remain in good health. Suppose a single
person earns $31 a week. With only another
$1 a week income, he then must pay twice as
much, so that he would pay $60 a year, or
two weeks' wages, all but $2.
There are people earning such low wages;
we all know they are in Ontario. It is typical
of this government to penalize low-wage
earners still further when it comes to the
most precious gift any man, woman or child
can have, and that is good health.
Why should these poor people have to do
without protection, or be forced into pay-
ing such high premiums? The very wealthy-
can afford custom-made shirts without
sacrificing any basic necessity. There are
those who can pay $15 for a shirt, without
giving it a second thought. Other income
groups can pay $5, $8, or $10 with no
personal sacrifice. Another group must
secure them in the bargain basements for
about $2, but the man whose every cent
goes to basic necessities must sometimes go
shirtless. That is just the position in which
we would place certain of our citizens with
the present Medicare plan.
I have chosen to illustrate my point with
category one, the single person. Perhaps
the plight of category three— the family
of three or more— is even more serious, be-
cause their medical needs, with several
children, are greater, not to mention their
other fixed costs of living.
Speculation has been rife in this House as
to who has had a hand in drawing up the
proposals and the premium rates. I know
one thing— whoever had a hand in this, has
never been in the financial position of the
people in these three categories, nor in the
position of those just emerging from this
financial status. I am sincere when I say
I hope they never are, although perhaps we
would now be examining much more realistic-
figures had they had this experience. Terror
—not just fear— of illness or any other addi-
tional expense, however minor, is the con-
stant companion of these people.
So then we have this fairly large group of
people excluded out of economic necessity.
Not just these three categories, mind you,
but those emerging from this financial strata
as well. And we must bear in mind that
these, plus those for whom the province is
picking up the whole tab, are the people
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
447
who, because of their low incomes and pen-
sions, are at least able to protect their
health through good and proper foods,
through preventive medications, through
well-heated homes and a supply of protective
clothing. These are the people with the
highest incidence of poor health and who
are termed the poor insurance risks. These
are the people who dare not now call in a
doctor at the first sign of ill health but who,
instead, wait another day and another day
and yet another day to make sure it really
is serious and then it is often too late.
Then we pass on to those people already
covered by some form of group insurance
and the forms of protection under these plans
are as many and varied as there are com-
panies. But what about these people? Some
of their plans will not provide as good a
coverage as we are considering here. Does
this Ontario plan make provision that no
plan falls below the standards of this one?
No. Well, the hon. Minister of Health says
we cannot take them in as a group. He says
they can give up their present group plan and
join the Ontario plan as individuals. But can
they?
In many cases, their plan is part and parcel
of a wage plan where they forfeited wage
gains to protect their health and that of
their families to some degree. They have
no way of saying: "Now that the province
has finally come up with a health plan, we'll
take the cost of our plan in wages and join,
as individuals, the Ontario plan." They will
not be able to do that. I think the hon.
Minister knows this and I can hardly credit
him or anyone else with making such a ridic-
ulous statement. But it was made.
To go back to considering these people
now protected by group plans, some of which
have equally good or better coverage and
some at less cost. Basically, these people are
healthier because usually they are in better-
paid occupations and because, over the years,
they have been able to visit their doctor
and call him in in case of illness. They are
called the good insurance risks. They are to
be excluded from the Ontario plan.
So now we have the Ontario plan covering
what is termed the poor risks, while this
government showers the profit-making private
insurance companies with the good risks at
the expense of Ontario taxpayers.
I am simply amazed, in spite of all the
reasoned arguments presented in favour of
a universal, government-operated Medicare
plan, that this government refuses to make
use of the magic of averages, through which
benefits are available to every Ontario citizen
regardless of health or income, through which
costs are spread to the maximum and through
which the lowest possible premium can be
set.
This principle is not something dreamed
up by New Democrats, it is the basic princi-
ple on which insurance companies operate. It
is the basis on which the Hall Royal commis-
sion on health services made its recommen-
dations.
Dr. Charles Berry, who is now with Prince-
ton University, carried out an investigation
which confirmed earlier opinion that govern-
ments can operate a medical insurance plan
at a much lower cost than can private
carriers. In Dr. Berry's study of private in-
surance plans, he discovered that 30 per
cent of premiums were spent to provide
profits and to cover office expenses and
selling costs.
As opposed to this, Dr. Berry estimated
that a universal, government-operated plan
would cost only 10 per cent for administra-
tion.
He clearly predicts a saving of 20 per cent
which this government is denying to the
people of Ontario, along with the even more
serious denial of health benefits for large
numbers of Ontario residents who simply
will not be able to pay the premiums set
by this government— premiums five times as
high as those of Saskatchewan— because they
have gathered unto themselves all the poor
risks and handed over to private carriers the
rich mother-lode of group insurance. Of
course, the five- and six-figure and higher in-
come brackets pay no more than the four-
figure income earner. I suppose you could
say they certainly are not paying more than
they can afford.
Although I heartily endorse the free cov-
erage extended to the pensioners and other
people receiving assistance under the various
welfare Acts, and while I support the princi-
ple of assisting those with low incomes, I
feel free coverage is cut off too soon and
that reduced premiums are cut off too soon.
No one should be excluded.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot feel I would
act in the best interests of my own constitu-
ents or the people of Ontario if I were to
support this plan as it is before us now.
Nor do I feel I could support the recom-
mendation of the Liberal Party members
to send it back for further study. Of course,
their proposal was to be expected. The fed-
eral Liberals have been studying Medicare
since 1919; now it is the turn of their provin-
cial Liberal body to start studying. We could
448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
go on into eternity with their approach and
still never have a Medicare plan in action.
Now that the Conservative and Liberal
members here have finally declared they
agree with New Democratic members that
Medicare is a must for Ontario, let us give
birth to a plan that is government-operated
and that covers everyone without exclusion.
Only under such a plan can all Ontario citi-
zens be protected at a minimum cost.
One final point before I close, Mr. Speaker.
It is a word of caution to the medical profes-
sion, which I hope it will heed.
The letter sent on January 17, 1966, by the
Ontario medical association to Ontario doc-
tors is reported to say that patients think their
own doctor is a "great fellow." Do they
really? If they do, how long will they con-
tinue to hold this opinion if the medical pro-
fession continues to wilfully misrepresent
Medicare?
People are becoming ever more dissatisfied
with the modern assembly-line techniques
now employed. The much-talked-of doctor-
patient relationship is almost a thing of the
past. When people, gathered together, discuss
doctors, as they often do, someone is bound
to recall the old family doctor in glowing and
affectionate terms. This often kicks off a
whole series of recollections by the others,
but the conversation invariably ends on some-
thing like: "Well, they're different now," and
everyone says: "You can say that again."
What was once a proud profession is fast
becoming a business. I do not know the
cause. Certainly I do not feel bad when I
can give my insurance number to the doctor's
receptionist and not worry about whether I
will be able to pay the bill. I really feel
much more kindly disposed toward my doc-
tor. I would think he would feel the same
way, when he did not have to worry whether
I would be able to pay his bill or not. He
and his fellow doctors are even free to charge
what they see fit, since the association sets
the schedule of fees. I wish I had had that
latitude when I was negotiating wage in-
creases with my employers. It would have
made me and every other worker very happy,
and so 1 feel it should please the medical
business.
They are free to treat and prescribe as they
see fit. Of course, there is the danger that
the patient will not be able to afford to take
his prescription to the drug store and have it
filled, but this has always been the case. It is
no different under Medicare than without it.
That problem will not be solved until drugs
are included in Medicare.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, in taking part in this debate I do
not really intend to deal with the particulars
of this bill. I will deal with some of the
principles involved. I think my hon. colleague,
the Minister of Health, has dealt with the
broad principles involved in the bill, both in
the remarks he made on first reading and his
part in this debate.
Before I enter into this debate I would like
to deal with the question that I seem to have
to deal with at least one a year; that is the
question of that advertising in the 1963 elec-
tion campaign. For the interest of the hon.
members, I went back to the Throne speech
of the session preceding that election. The
House opened on November 27, 1962, and in
that Throne speech, under the heading "Medi-
cal health insurance" the following appeared:
My government endorses the principle of
medical health insurance. In realization of
the present-day concern of our people
about the crippling financial cost of illness
and their desire to be able to obtain proper
medical treatment when required, legisla-
tion will be introduced which will ensure
that medical health insurance from in-
surers by arrangement with the government
will be available to all our people regard-
less of age and physical condition. The
government will also accept the responsi-
bility of providing coverage for those who,
for a variety of reasons, may be deemed
not to be able to provide for themselves.
Because of the many problems involved
in bringing this plan into operation and
the many groups that will be affected by
it, a committee composed of representa-
tives of medical, hospital, labour and other
groups will be appointed to examine the
legislation and to receive representations
from all interested parties before the
provisions of the bill are brought into
effect.
That is what we set out in the Speech from
the Throne; that is precisely what we did.
Interjections by h
>mbers.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
would really ask after all this time, let us
look forward to the next election and not
back to the last one. Now let us forget it.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now, Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that we need a little perspective
on the whole problem with which we are
dealing here and a little perspective in
looking at this particular piece of legislation.
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
449
I think that our critics, the hon. members of
the Opposition, have been dealing with this
matter in which I would term isolation; they
the dealing with this one particular bill with-
out looking at it in relation to the entire
problem that we face and the entire pro-
gramme that this government has initiated.
I would say that this bill is really only
part of a very large whole. To start at the
beginning, of course one must go back to
1959 when the health insurance programme
was first introduced. Since that time there
has been a great deal of activity in many
different areas, all of which was designed
to bring to our people a totality of health
care, if I may put it that way. This is de-
veloped along many fronts. The bill with
which we are dealing this morning is only
one item and I think it is necessary that we
look at the total picture in order to get
this bill and what it proposes to do into
proper perspective.
I would suggest to hon. members that this
bill, if it is looked at in relation to other
things being done by this government, is
four-square within the framework of the
recommendations of the Hall commission, Mr.
Speaker.
If I turn to page 14 in the early part of
their report, they have what they term a
basic concept. If I read from the bottom of
page 13— and this is under the heading "Basic
concepts" and I think it is very basic— they
say:
We must reiterate however that the
comprehensive universal health services
programme we recommend requires care-
ful planning, wise use of resources at our
disposal and acceptance of the principle
of prepayment whereby all Canadians can
be provided with health services.
On the top of page 14:
We recognize of course that this whole
programme cannot be put into effect imme-
dately or simultaneously in all provinces.
We do not foresee the programme coming
forth full grown but rather as an orderly
and well planned series of steps which
taken together will in a period of years
accomplish our objective.
Now this is the basic concept of the Hall
report. I consider it to be sound; this gov-
ernment is in agreement with that basic
concept and I think we are proceeding in
this province just exactly according to this
basic concept as set out in the Hall report.
Now I would like to read one more quota-
tion from the Hall report. And this is under
the heading "Medical education and recruit-
ment." This is found on page 70 and I
quote a paragraph there:
Because of the length of time [a mini-
mum of seven years] required for the edu-
cation of physicians there can be no sub-
stantial increase in our graduating classes
before 1970 since the students graduating
up to that year are already in university.
To meet our needs in the 1970's it will
be necessary both to expand several of
our existing schools to their optimum size
and to establish at least five new schools
to come into operation during the late
1960's and the early 1970's.
And then they go on to detail some par-
ticulars in that regard.
But the point I am making is simply this.
The Hall commission report is, I believe,
dated February, 1964. But looking ahead
from that date they see no substantial in-
crease in the number of doctors in Canada
prior to 1970.
Mr. MacDonald: They still urged action
on the plan.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Now, in the light of
that, let me detail for you what this govern-
ment has done and perhaps bring you up
to date on what is going on.
On October 29, 1964 I announced in this
House a programme which we undertook at
that time. I think it could be called a crash
programme to carry out some of the recom-
mendations of the Hall commission report
and to put this province in shape to be in
a position to implement the recommenda-
tions in that report.
We announced at that time the establish-
ment of a new medical school with basic
teaching facilities at McMaster University;
we announced the creation of a new school
of dentistry at the University of Western
Ontario; we announced the expansion of the
medical school at the University of Toronto
to admit an additional 75 first-year medical
school students; we announced an expansion
of the medical school at Queen's University
to completely renovate it and also to pro-
vide for additional students.
If this whole programme is taken in total,
it will provide places for approximately 900
additional medical students and 400 addi-
tional dental students.
That is the background. This programme
was announced, and this programme I might
tell the hon. members is proceeding at the
present time. I have here a newspaper
clipping, I am not given to reading news-
papers back to the hon. members of the
450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House, but it simply details a two-stage
medical centre planned by McMaster Univer-
sity.
We made the announcement, we made the
funds available to McMaster University and
I am now pointing out to the hon. members
that the plans we instituted in October of
1964 are bearing fruit and here is one ex-
ample of it: "Two-stage medical centre
planned by McMaster."
Some of the items are rather interesting
because of their estimates since those days
of 1964. I think we estimated about $150 to
$170 million in 1964. But I noticed in this
news report that the programme at
McMaster alone is going to cost $100 million.
One other thing I noticed about it, it will
be built over a period of ten to 15 years,
which further bears out the contention in
the Hall report that these matters take time.
In other words, it is difficult just to estimate
when we will get the first medical graduate
from the new medical school at McMaster
University.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Whose fault
is that? The government's fault or Dr.
Hall's?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not understand
the hon. member's question. Now in addi-
tion to that, I have-
Mr. MacDonald: The Liberal amend-
ment—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will get to the Liberal
amendment. This is what I would like to
show hon. members, because I had the great
tfood fortune to open the new medical build-
ing at the University of Western Ontario on
October 23, 1965. There is a $20 million
medical complex, and this is the report of
the latter part of last year, an additional
$20 million medical complex being created
at the University of Toronto.
I point out that within the total health
programme for the people of this province,
we are moving ahead on a fairly broad front.
There is the question of the construction of
hospitals and in this area we have certainly
been pretty active as well.
Since 1948, for instance, we increased the
number of beds from 16,000 to 40,600. Now
there was an increase in hospital beds during
that period of approximately 150 per cent
of the number of beds in the province and
our population during that period increased
approximately 69 per cent, to give you some
idea of the rapid increase in the number of
beds. At the present time, there is a total
of 4,980 beds under construction in the
province, and of course about 2,300 of these
are in this area.
I point these things out to indicate that
this bill with which we are dealing is nothing
more than part of an overall programme.
To go back to the beginning of the bill, as
I have said, it was announced first in the
Speech from the Throne in 1962. That bill
was introduced into this House, it was given
second reading and debated in principle.
It was referred to the committee men-
tioned in that Speech from the Throne, which
became known as the Hagey committee, be-
cause it was chaired by Dr. Gerald Hagey of
the University of Waterloo. That committee
reported in December, 1964, which resulted
in Bill No. 136 being introduced in this House
and debated very vigorously in May and June
of last year.
Then we come to the present bill, and as
I say, I do not propose to deal with the par-
ticulars of this bill, because I think that this
has been done by my colleague, the hon.
Minister of Health.
During the year since we debated that bill
here in this House in May and June, there
have been some really quite startling changes
in the whole area of medical health and in
various areas which affect this bill, in various
areas which have affected the government
thinking about this bill.
I would like to say that I make no apolo-
gies whatsoever, nor does this government,
for bringing forth certain amendments to the
bill we introduced last year. We said at that
time we did not think this was the final
answer. My own thinking is I rather doubt
that this bill in its present form is a final
answer to this problem.
Mr. Singer: Then why does the hon. Prime
Minister not bring in the final answer?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Because we are not
ready to bring in the final answer. No, sir,
we are not ready, and I propose to tell you
exactly why we are not ready.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am de-
lighted to hear these comments. All these
people over here I assume are going to sup-
port that half-baked amendment and what
they are doing is what they have done from
the beginning. They are attempting to shelve
the whole issue and put it away so they will
not have to deal with it.
I do not see any proposal in their amend-
ment for anything that is going to do anything
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
451
for anybody in this province in the foresee-
able future. All they are saying is: "Let us
hand it to a committee, draw up great terms
of reference and let them study it for another
couple of years and then we will see what
we will do about it then, or we will wait for
the federal government to make up our minds
for us."
Now I think it is part of their reason-
ing. I think what they are proposing has
some relationship to what goes on in Ottawa.
In any event, as far as I am concerned, the
amendment is completely unacceptable. It
will do nothing for the people of this prov-
ince.
I intended to save this part of my remarks
until the end, but when I get these inter-
jections, perhaps I will repeat this. I will
make these remarks now and at the end as
well, because I think it is the most ridiculous
amendment to any piece of legislation I have
ever read in my life.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If hon. members go
back to my remarks of last year in response
to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha),
I agreed with him that I hoped the Hall
commission report would not be filed away to
gather dust. As far as this government is
concerned, certainly this has not been the
fate of the Hall commission report, because I
am just pointing out what we have done,
positively in this government, to implement
the recommendations contained in the report.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): The Hall recommendations, phased in
by 1971.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, we
may have brought in three bills in three
years, but I remember one year when the
hon. leader of the Opposition's party had three
positions on Medicare in one year. As a
matter of fact, I just have an idea that it was
not even one year, I think it was about four
months.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It was in one calendar
year, but it was just four months. Here we
have a plan that will function on July 1, 1966.
That is what we have. That is what we are
proposing. No more committees.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid that I will
have to remind members that there are not
supposed to be any interruptions across the
floor when a member is speaking. The rule
book definitely states so, and I would ask the
members to refrain from further interruptions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I realize
the rules say that there should be no inter-
jections and so on, but there is a great deal
of custom in this House and I would hate to
see it all destroyed, either in this regard or
in many others.
I would like to mention some of the mat-
ters that have occurred in the years since we
last debated this whole programme and this
whole situation. In the first place, we have
coming into effect the Canada assistance plan
and, like many things that are going on at
the present time, this has been discussed,
but it is not yet in the form of law. The bill
has not yet been introduced into the House
of Commons, although there have been
many conferences between the hon. Minister
of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile) and the
Minister of National Health and Welfare in
the federal government. So we are not yet
in the position to be certain of the details
but we do know basically what we think if
the bill passes the House of Commons with
all the possibilities there are for change or
amendment.
But this bill, in one respect at least if
it takes the form it has been agreed upon,
will provide 50 per cent of the medical costs
for all those who receive general welfare
assistance— there are about 105,000 of these
in Ontario— and all those who receive mothers'
allowances— there are about 31,500 of these
people in Ontario.
We hope we will be able to work out
the same arrangement. As I say, this is a
hope, these are not facts. These are things
that have been, discussed but are not yet
accomplished although we think there is a
very good chance they will be accomplished
and we will then have a similar sharing
arrangement of costs as for those who are
receiving old age assistance, blind pensions,
disabled pensions and old-age security. In
that category, there are about 153,000 people
in the province.
Now, in regard to our programme for
construction and in regard to the recom-
mendations in the Hall report. The Hall
report recommends— and I will not bother
quoting the particular chapter— but it sug-
gests to the federal government that they
should underwrite 50 per cent of the cost
of the capital facilities necessary to develop
the personnel that will be required in order
to make any comprehensive medical services
plan possible.
452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, they recognize the lack of
doctors, the lack of nurses, the lack of para-
medical personnel, and their suggestion is
that the federal government should enter this
field to the tune of 50 per cent.
Now, on September 23 last, the federal
government announced proposals to establish
a health resources fund. Once again, I might
say to you that we are dealing in an area
in which this is a proposal. There have been
discussions concerning this fund, but the
fund is not yet created and no legislation has
yet been brought forward in the House of
Commons. Nonetheless, there have been dis-
cussions as to what this fund would be and
how it would be used. It is a fund of $500
million.
That sounds like a lot of money, sir, but
I would point out to you that immediately
following the $500 million it says over a
period of 15 years.
I hope I will not be interpreted as be-
littling the efforts of the federal government
in this regard, but I am of the opinion that
the sum of $500 million to meet these re-
quirements over a period of 15 years is not
a very realistic approach to the problem.
However, we will take our share with grati-
tude because we intend to proceed, as I have
outlined. These plans are going ahead.
They are going to cost the people of Ontario
a great deal of money, as was made very
evident in the Budget produced in this House
on Wednesday. $500 million divided over a
period of 15 years is about $33 million per
year spread across Canada; on that basis, our
share would be roughly a third or a little
less in this province— about $10 million per
year. In terms of what we face in this area,
much as we welcome this assistance, I do not
think it is as meaningful as the figure $500
million might lead one to believe. That is a
good round figure, but stretched over 15
years it does not amount to quite so much.
How it is to be finally allocated across the
country has not yet been finally decided,
although there have been discussions in this
regard. A technical advisory committee, set
up at a meeting of the hon. Minister of
Health and the Minister of National Health
and Welfare of the federal government, has
suggested that, in the first place, the top $25
million be allocated to the Atlantic provinces
in recognition of perhaps greater need in that
area than in other parts of the country, Then,
$375 million will be divided up across the
country on a per capita basis. The remaining
$100 million will be allocated by the federal
government on the basis of national need
and purposes. This simply means that in some
areas, perhaps, just one institution is needed
to produce a certain type of technician or
trained personnel for all of Canada. It just
is not reasonable to think that every province
would want to create this. When I think that
at the University of Toronto there is a school
of hygiene quite unique, it is doubtful
whether we need more than one of these
in Canada. This is the type of thing that
would qualify for assistance in this $100
million, which will not be distributed on any
basis of population nor per student equality
across the country.
That is where that fund stands. This is the
result of the discussions that have taken
place at various conferences. The hon. Min-
ister of Health of this province and his staff
have attended these conferences; I point out
to you, however, that this is only in the
agreement stage. The $500 million has not
been voted— indeed, the legislation has not
even been introduced. But it has developed
since the last time we debated this question
and I think will have, in time to come, quite
an effect on the total health situation in this
province.
The next question I would like to deal
with, and the next event that has occurred
since last June, was, of course, the announce-
ment by the Prime Minister of Canada last
July, at a federal-provincial conference, that
his government intended to institute what is
erroneously called a "national medical serv-
ices plan." I must point out to you that it is
impossible for there to be, under this scheme,
a national plan, because the federal govern-
ment has said in this proposal that each
province must develop its own plan. Those
plans must meet certain broad outlines, but
there is no national nor federal plan; each
province must develop its own individual
health care programme, which must meet
certain qualifications. Then the participation
of the federal government in this exercise
will be simply a matter of grants.
Mr. Singer: What an equivocation that is.
Playing with words— only $150 million.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think it is a valid dis-
tinction to make, because we really do not
know whether we are going to have a national
plan. There are wide areas of variation that
coidd occur from province to province and
still stay within the four boundaries they
have, that is all. I am not criticizing it; I
am not saying the federal government is
right or wrong. I am just telling you what
its proposal is. You asked for us to tell you
these things, and I propose to tell them to
you.
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
453
Mr. Singer: The hon. Prime Minister still
has not told us.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am telling what was
proposed at that time. And I am telling you
that th<- federal government, in its participa-
tion in this, will make a contribution of money
through grants. I might say that this an-
nouncement was made in July. There was—
and I have mentioned this before, and I will
mention it again in the House— no prior
discussion with any of the provinces, at least
not the province of Ontario. There may have
been discussions with other provinces. I do
not know about that, but at least I can tell
you that until the Prime Minister of Canada
read this announcement to that conference,
nobody in this province knew anything about
it; we had not been consulted in any way
whatsoever. Once again, I make no comment
on this, I am only telling it to the hon. mem-
bers as a fact, because certainly it has had
some effect on what we are planning to do in
this province.
Now, sir, once again, there has been an
announcement and we are in the area of
discussion. There is no legislation before the
federal government at the moment, unless it
has been introduced in the past day or so.
So far as I know, there is no bill before
the House of Commons at the moment, but
there have been some discussions. Originally,
a meeting of the Ministers of Health was
called by the federal government. At that
time, all the provinces were asked to say
by December 31, 1965, whether or not they
were going to participate in the plan of the
federal government. None of the 10 provinces,
by that date, knew what its intentions were.
I do not think— in fact, I am quite certain
-that the final details of this plan are yet
complete. However, as far as we can under-
stand it, I would like to outline to the hon.
members how we would participate if we
were to participate, how the financing of the
plan is to take place and how grants are to
be made.
I would point out that in the allocation of
these grants I think we should all under-
stand that there is a built-in equalizing
factor. As you know, in the fiscal arrange-
ments in this country we have equalization
payments made between provinces in varying
amounts in order to produce some sort of
standard income across the country from
coast-to-coast. In developing their system
of grants in this regard, the federal govern-
ment are planning to use a national average
cost. Their point is that they will pay in
grants 50 per cent of the national average
per capita cost of medical services, by way
of grants.
I think we should all understand, because
we are going to use the national average,
there will be a degree of equalization in this
and it simply means some provinces will re-
ceive as much or more than their actual
costs, that is 50 per cent of their actual costs
and other provinces will receive less. This
will be true of this province because our
medical costs here— I do not want to get into
a debate on the actual dollar amounts and
I am not going to; I want to stay in principle
—our medical costs in this province will be
greater than the national average.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Because of
private carriers?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: Because of private carriers?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No. Private carriers
have nothing to do with it. I am talking
about the medical costs in the province and
in the country as a whole.
Our costs here will be greater than the
national average but the grant that will come
to this province will be half of the national
average so we will not receive 50 per cent of
the actual cost as will accrue in this province.
Other provinces will receive proportionately
more in relation to their actual costs.
Now, I would assume that if this plan
comes into effect it would be necessary for
us to meet the balance of the cost probably
as we presently do with our hospital insur-
ance. This would mean that we would then
have to finance this plan, a combination of
grants from the federal government, premi-
ums which would be chargeable to individ-
uals in the province and the balance made
up from the general tax revenue of the
province.
I would point out that this plan would
wipe out of existence and destroy completely
some 16,000 group plans that are presently
in effect in this province, covering some
4.6 million people.
Now, most of these 16,000 plans, I sup-
pose, are different, tailored for particular
circumstances. They are tailored to suit
perhaps the employment contract; in some
of them the employer pays the whole cost;
in some of them the employee pays the whole
cost; in others the cost is split in varying de-
grees but the point I make-
Mr. Bryden: It could still be.
454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: But the point I make
is simply that this is what will happen. There
are 16,000 of these plans and they will com-
pletely disappear and there will be 4.6 million
people who will be affected by it.
An hon. member: Fair enough.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Fair enough? Well, I
think the interesting point here, that I might
make, is that these 4.6 million people, at
present looking after themselves, seem to
perhaps like it that way. I was interested to
see in the Toronto Daily Star yesterday, a
Gallup poll of Canada-
Mr. Bryden: A loaded question.
An hon. member: Read the question.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will read the question:
"Do you think the Medicare programme
should be a compulsory one in which every
Canadian would have to join or do you think
it should be a voluntary plan in which Cana-
dians themselves could decide whether or
not to join?"
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Prime Minister
misses the point.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, if it does not suit
the hon. member, he is going to argue against
it. But I am just pointing it out. A Gallup
poll question and in the province of Ontario
54 per cent of the people wanted a voluntary
plan; 40 per cent of the people wanted a
compulsory plan and six per cent of the
people were undecided. Now, the point I
make-
Mr. Bryden: Would the hon. Prime Minis-
ter not agree that in a complex matter like
this a simple question like that is bound to
falsify the facts? They are not pure alterna-
tives. It is not voluntary versus compulsory;
there are a lot of other factors involved, such
as the degree of coverage, but anybody faced
with the simple question, "Voluntary or com-
pulsory?" will say, "Voluntary." Mr. Speaker,
I have many times permitted the hon. Prime
Minister to interrupt me and you have never
objected.
Mr. Speaker: I am not objecting to the
question of the member, but I thought he
was launching into a debate.
Mr. Bryden: Well, the hon. Prime Minister
has occasionally done me the honour of doing
the same thing and he was not objecting
here. I have made my point anyway.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member has made his point. I might say
that I have no objection at all. I like to
debate. I do not like just to stand up here
and make a speech, and if there are any
comments I would like to hear them.
I think it is a complex question, an enor-
mously complex question, and it takes a great
deal of study to understand it. On the other
hand it is a Gallup poll and there it is for
what it is worth.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, if that is what the
hon. member wants, that is what he is going
to take from it. It either proves your point or
it is wrong, one or the other. It is my opinion
that 54 per cent are people probably who
are looking after themselves, and like it that
way. I think that is why they get that per-
centage.
Our people in this province are used to
insurance; they understand the principles of
it. We have a highly developed province;
we have a highly urbanized and industrial
society and I think our people understand
the principles of insurance. They are looking
after themselves, and I think the 54 per cent
represents a real area of thinking where they
are quite happy to look after themselves and
they do not necessarily want the state moving
in on them with a plan.
Mr. Thompson: Are they happy with their
hospital insurance?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I think they are, yes.
In regard to these 16,000 plans and 4.6
million people involved: this, of course, as can
be seen, poses an immediate problem in this
province that probably does not exist to a
similar extent in any other province in Can-
ada, because I doubt very much if any other
province has as highly developed a system of
medical protection in the private sector of
the economy, if I can put it that way.
This comes about simply because we are
industrialized, because we have what I might
term a very sophisticated form of manage-
ment-labour relationship in most of these
plans that come about as a product of terms
of employment and bargaining between em-
ployer and employee.
Some of these plans are part of labour
relation agreements that run until 1968 and
1969. There are a whole host of them, and
it poses just an enormous number of problems
in administration of rights and readjustment
of rights when you say in one fell swoop:
"We are just going to wash all those out of
existence as of such-and such a date."
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
455
Mr. Thompson: What does the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner) say
to that?
Mr. MacDonald: That is what was done in
hospital insurance and there was no problem.
It was done in one fell swoop and everybody
was happy.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would suggest to you
that there are many more complications in
this than there were in the hospital insurance
programme.
Please do not misunderstand me; I am not
saying these things cannot be done. But I
am pointing out to you some of the con-
siderations that I think have entered this
situation since we last debated this bill.
These are some of the considerations which
flow from the announcement made by the
federal government just before the election, 1
think in September.
Mr. MacDonald: Theoretically, the hon.
Prime Minister has got himself on both sides
of the question, and on top of the fence-
all at the same time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: If I can accomplish that
I will be very happy— both sides of the ques-
tion and sitting on the fence at the same
time.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The hon.
Prime Minister will not get any ploughing
done that way.
An hon. member: And the hon. member
knows a lot about that. The farmer from
Parkdale.
Hon. Mr. Robarts:
that one.
am sorry, I missed
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would suggest that
in considering this question of national Medi-
care and its financing, and what its effect is
going to be on the finances of this province,
the figures involved in it were very well put
before this House by the hon. member for
Forest Hill. I would suggest to the hon.
members some of the decisions that lie in this
area of national Medicare are but a part of
a much larger sphere of considerations respect-
ing the entire federal-provincial fiscal rela-
tionship field and the arrangements that will
have to be made between the various gov-
ernments of Canada between now and the
first day of April, 1967, when the present tax
agreements run out and we will have to
enter into some new agreements. We have
at work at the present time the Carter
commission, of which we are all aware. Some
parts of that report have been released by
the commission to officials in the federal gov-
ernment. They have not been made public,
so we do not know what they contain. But I
would be very surprised if the Carter com-
mission did not bring forth some fairly broad
and perhaps radical recommendations for
changes in the fiscal relationships between
the federal government and the provinces. We
have the tax structure committee, which is
working very hard at the present time; this is
a unique body in the history of our country.
There has never been anything like it. It is
an investigatory body established under the
aegis of a federal-provincial conference con-
sisting of the heads of the 11 governments of
our country. It is using the best brains that
we have from coast to coast in taking an
overall look at where our country is going as
such, instead of 11 separate entities each
going a separate way. We are trying to bring
this thing together, and I am certain, in my
own mind, what that committee will produce
will be very frightening indeed in terms of
total expenditures when they are put together
across the country and stacked up against
revenues across the country. But I think it is
something that has to be done.
Mr. Bryden: There is no use being fright-
ened.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is right. I am not
the least bit frightened, I am just saying what
I think they will find. Did I say frightening?
Mr. Bryden: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I did not mean it in the
sense the hon. member has taken it. Let me
put it this way. It will be startling, and I
think it will require a good deal of action
on the part of all governments.
In any event, I think I have put my point
across.
Now, sir, we have a working committee in
this province, but the point that I am making
is that this question of a national plan is
inextricably bound up with these other con-
siderations. I think they are all going to have
to be dealt with at one time.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask the hon. Prime
Minister a question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: I notice the hon. Prime
Minister is emphasizing the point that be-
cause of discussions and deliberations in
456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ottawa and across the nation, he is moving,
he says, slowly on the Medicare approach as
we Ret further clarification across the nation.
May I ask him, in view of the fact that there
are two tax committees, if he would not have
felt that the hon. Provincial Treasurer should
have applied the same principle instead of
having this enormous mass of taxes brought
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr Speaker, no doubt
we will debate this in the Budget debate,
but I am quite prepared to answer my hon.
friend. All that is needed to do is to look at
the expenditures that this government has to
make in the fields of health and education to
realize that we could not wait. The alterna-
tive would have been simply to borrow or
not to spend. No government has a choice in
anything more than three things— a govern-
ment can tax, borrow, or stop spending. We
felt that our priorities were there, that these
things needed to be done and so we had to
increase taxes. An alternative would be not
to spend the money on education and health
and these various items. The other alterna-
tive would have been to borrow, and we
did not think either of those courses was wise
in the overall good of our province.
What I am suggesting to you is that against
this background that I have outlined to you
here— and I have tried to give you all the
information that I have— we have brought
forth the plan which is embodied in this bill
and it is designed to meet our financial
capabilities at the moment. It is designed to
help those who need help most, and it is
designed to come into effect on July 1 next,
when we wish to help the people in this
province who need help. I would point out to
you that in this regard the Hall commission
report makes all its projections to the year
1971. It is perhaps with some misgiving that
we look ahead to what is going to be an
attempt to implement a plan right across the
country in 1967— four years earlier than the
Hall eommission felt this could be done. The
commission report established its priorities
in the area of education and so on, which we
have tried to follow.
On the other hand, against the background
of all this, this bill is before you today. It
is tailored and designed to suit the needs of
our people in this province. It takes into
account those 4.6 million people in those
16,000 plans that are presently looking after
themselves. It will provide assistance for
those who need it and we, in taking this step,
will develop the administrative machinery
which is going to be needed to administer
a plan of this size. In the meantime, as I
have pointed out to you, we will have ad-
vanced all our programmes which we are
developing for the training and the provision
of trained personnel. We will have time to
see what is going to be the ultimate fate—
and how it is to be dealt with— of these
16,000 group plans involving, as I say, over
4.5 million people, and we will be in a
position to put it in effect by July 1, 1967.
There is one other matter that I might
mention briefly in the area of federal-pro-
vincial relationships, and that is the question
of the conditions laid down by the federal
government in regard to grants of various
kinds. I think this is something that we will
have to think about in this province.
You will recall that several years ago, when
they developed the technique or practice of
opting out and in opting out, it simply meant
that any province could opt out of a shared-
cost programme so long as that province
agreed to conduct a similar programme with
certain standards. Then, instead of the fed-
eral government paying its share of that
programme, the federal government simply
paid the money to the province. So that
you opted out of the programme, but you
undertook to maintain those conditions and
for this you got a cheque— or as a matter of
fact, it was translated into terms of per-
centage points of personal income tax, which
is the most flexible instrument; and the bal-
ance, to get the exact figure, was paid in
cash.
Now, this means that for a province which
opted out, you got control of the source of
revenue in your own province, but you had
certain conditions to meet and opting out
took place on this basis.
I might say that the province of Quebec
is the only province that has opted out. This
province has taken no position, that is, we did
not opt out, but we did not say we would
not, we just simply went along with the
programmes as they were. The option to
opt out is open to this province if we wish
to have it.
I notice developing in this area, a change
which I think will be very significant to
this province. It will be very significant to
the federal government and to our country.
Spokesmen for the province of Quebec
are now advancing the proposition that when
they opt out there shall be no conditions.
Now, this would mean that the sources of
taxation would go back to the province, but
there would be no conditions imposed by
the federal government and the income from
the return of those tax sources will be used
FEBRUARY 11, 1966
457
by that province as it sees fit in any field it
wants.
I know that the Premier of the province
of Quebec made this proposition to a group
of students at McGill University. I happened
to be in Montreal at that time and I believe
Mr. Kierans raised the same point at the
conference of Ministers of Health in Ottawa.
You can see if this principle is accepted—
I do not know whether it will be, so far it
has only been advanced by the province of
Quebec— but you can see where this could
lead. You can see what effect it might have
on what we are discussing here this morn-
ing. You can see what an effect it might
have on all the national programmes we
have in this country.
Now this is yet another factor that I bring
to hon. members' attention in this equation
with which we are dealing at the present
time.
In view of the fact that we are able to go
forward here with this plan, which will do
certain things for those of our people who
need help, and in view of the fact that all
these matters are in the process of discussion
and debate, I do not think that it is necessary
for this province at this stage of the game
and in this debate, to say what we are going
to do on July 1, 1967.
There will be many meetings, there will be
many discussions on the points that I have
raised here between now and then. In the
meantime, we will go ahead with our own
programme of providing the care that is pro-
vided for our own people in this bill.
I will not repeat my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
about the amendment. To me, it completely
dodges the issues. It is an amendment that
would simply shelve the whole programme.
It would mean that there would be nothing
for our people on July 1, 1966. There would
be nothing being done immediately in the
realm of preparation for what may lie ahead.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Prime Minister if a standing com-
mittee, as he understands it, as certainly I
understand it, reports during the session? In
our amendment it is very clear that we
wanted to have a Hall type of commission.
We were very grateful that the New Demo-
cratic Party had supported it last year-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
just simply say: Support this bill and we will
have a plan in effect on the first day of July,
1966.
Mr. Speaker: The debate being concluded,
so that all the members of the House clearly
understand the procedure for voting on the
motion for second reading of this bill, I would
like to recall for the members that dur-
ing the last session of the House we returned
to the full adoption of rule 56, which perhaps
I should read, in case the members have for-
gotten it in the interval between sessions.
If on an amendment to the question
that a bill be now read a second time or
the third time, it is decided that the
word "now" or any words proposed to be
left out stand part of the question, Mr.
Speaker shall forthwith declare the bill to
be read a second or the third time, as the
case may be.
I would remind the members, therefore,
that by reason of this rule, when a motion is
moved to strike out the words "the bill be
now read a second time" the first question I
must put to the House, is whether or not
those words shall stand.
Therefore, all those in favour of the bill
being now read a second time, will please
say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
As many as are in favour of the bill being
now read a second time, will please rise.
As many as are opposed, will please rise.
The motion was carried on the following
division:
AYES
NAYS
Allan
Braithwaite
Auld
Bryden
Bales
Bukator
Beckett
Davison
Boyer
Farquhar
Brown
Gaunt
Brunelle
Gibson
Carruthers
Gisborn
Carton
Lewis
Cecile
(Scarborough West)
Connell
MacDonald
Cowling
Newman
Davis
Nixon
Downer
Oliver
Dunlop
Reaume
Dymond
Renwick
Edwards
Sargent
Evans
Singer
Ewen
Spence
Gomme
Thompson
Grossman
Trotter
Harris
Whicher
458
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
AYES
Haskett
Hodgson
(Scarborough East)
Hodgson
(Victoria)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kerr
Knox
Lewis
(Humber)
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
McNeil
Noden
Okie
Pittoek
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Reilly
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Root
|{ovve
Rowntree
Simonett
Spooner
Stewart
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Walker
Wells
White
Whitney
Yaremko— 55.
NAYS
Worton
Young— 23.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "ayes"
are 55, the "nays" 23.
Mr. Speaker: The
reading of the bill.
'ayes" have it. Second
Clerk of the House: The first order, re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if we might move the adjournment
of this debate; there are only 10 minutes
left.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member still has a long time to go,
I would be quite prepared to agree.
Mr. Young moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will take Bill No. 6
in committee of the whole House. The House
will sit at 3 o'clock and there will be a night
session.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 12:50 o'clock, p.m.
No. 17
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 14, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 14, 1966
Second report, standing committee on standing orders and printing, Mr. Apps 461
Police village of Baden, bill respecting, Mr. Reuter, first reading 462
Township of Pickering, bill respecting, Mr. Walker, first reading 462
Town of Burlington, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, first reading 462
Town of Weston, bill respecting, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 462
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mrs. Pritchard, first reading 462
Greater Niagara general hospital, bill respecting, Mr. Spence, first reading 462
Township of North York, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, first reading 462
Excelsior Life Insurance Company, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, first reading 462
Board of education of the city of London, bill respecting, Mr. White, first reading 462
Estate of William A. Dickieson, bill respecting, Mr. White, first reading 462
Board of trustees of the continuation school of the township of Pelee, bill respecting,
Mr. Paterson, first reading 463
Township of Michipicoten, bill respecting, Mr. Farquhar, first reading 463
City of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, first reading 463
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 463
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, in committee 467
Recess, 6 o'clock 490
461
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as guests to the Legislature today, in the
west gallery, students from Powell Road pub-
lic school, Willowdale.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston), from the standing
committee on standing orders and printing,
presented the committee's second report,
which was read as follows and adopted:
The committee has carefully examined the
following petitions and finds the notices as
published in each case, sufficient:
Of the Greater Niagara general hospital
praying that an Act may pass establishing the
terms of office of the board of governors.
Of the board of trustees of the continuation
school of the township of Pelee praying that
an Act may pass permitting it to pay a cer-
tain sum per day to the parent or guardian
of each pupil of grades 11, 12, and 13 attend-
ing a secondary school outside the township
of Pelee, in lieu of providing daily transpor-
tation to and from such school.
Of the corporation of the township of
Michipicoten praying that an Act may pass
authorizing a fixed assessment for the Wawa
curling club.
Of the corporation of the township of
Pickering praying that an Act may pass to
enable it to establish an area for the supply
of power for the use of the inhabitants
thereof.
Of the corporation of the town of Weston
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it to
lease or license certain portions of untravelled
highways for parking purposes.
Of the corporation of the county of Water-
loo praying that an Act may pass providing
for the re-establishment of the boundaries of
the police village of Baden.
Of the board of education of the city of
London praying that an Act may pass vesting
Monday, February 14, 1966
certain lands in the board in fee simple; and
for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
praying that an Act may pass to increase the
membership of the Hamilton transit commis-
sion; and for other purposes.
Of the corporation of the city of Toronto
praying that an Act may pass confirming a
certain bylaw respecting fences; and for other
purposes.
Of the corporation of the town of Burling-
ton praying that an Act may pass to defer
frontage charges on storm sewers, curbs and
sidewalks.
Of Fanny Eliza Dickieson and Viola Belle
Gray praying that an Act may pass vesting
certain property of the late William A. Dick-
ieson in the petitioners.
Of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company
praying that an Act may pass authorizing it
to apply to the Parliament of Canada for a
special Act continuing the company as if it
had been incorporated by special Act of the
Parliament of Canada.
Of the corporation of the township of
North York praying that an Act may pass
permitting it to require owners of certain
lands to enter into an agreement re conditions
relating to development of the land.
Your committee recommends that the cus-
tomary supplies allowance for the current ses-
sion of the assembly be fixed at $100.
Your committee recommends that copies of
the Canadian Parliamentary Guide, the Cana-
dian Almanac and Canada Year Book be pur-
chased for distribution to members of the
assembly and also that each member be given
a year's subscription to the Labour Gazette
and the Municipal World.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): May I speak to
this?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I ask your indul-
gence. This is the first time I have sat on
this particular committee, but I was rather
462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
taken back by the fact that the majority of
these bills or petitions were not advertised the
prescribed number of times.
It was taken for granted that, because an
affidavit was filed, and the contract for the
advertisements was before the committee,
they would, in fact, be advertised as many
times as required. I think it is dreadful, to
say the least, that many of the councils have
to rush through any amendments they may
want to get them here before the third week
of the session of the Legislature. This may
be fine if the session starts later in the year,
but many councils took office in the first
week in January; I think it is asking too much
that they should have all the necessary bills
ready to be submitted to this House by the
third week of the session. I think we are
perpetrating a fraud on ourselves when we
were moving that the advertising was in
order when, in fact, it was not. Many of
those still have to advertise three times, twice
or once. I understand that the committee has
a discretion. This was exercised in then-
favour, but the trouble was that the discretion
is exercised automatically. I think that if
something was done to extend the time for
the filing or applying for private bills beyond
the third week of the session, where the
session starts in January as it did this session,
it would give the municipalities more time
to submit their bills.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
POLICE VILLAGE OF BADEN
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the police village of Baden.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF WESTON
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the town of Weston.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mr. R. Welch (Lincoln), in the absence of
Mrs. A. Pritchard (Hamilton Centre), moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the city of Hamilton.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL
HOSPITAL
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East), in the ab-
sence of Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls),
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
respecting the Greater Niagara general hos-
pital.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF NORTH YORK
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell), in the
absence of Mr. D. Bales (York Mills), moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the township of North York.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
EXCELSIOR LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, in the absence of
Mr. D. Bales, moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting the Excelsior Life
Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the township of Pickering.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the board of education of the city of London.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWN OF BURLINGTON
Mr. W. D. McKeou.qh (Kent West), in the
absence of Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton), moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the town of Burlington.
ESTATE OF WILLIAM A. DICKIESON
Mr. White, in the absence of Mr. J. Root
(Wellington-Dufferin), moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act respecting the estate of
William A. Dickieson.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill. Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
463
CONTINUATION SCHOOL OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF PELEE
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the board of trustees of the continuation
school of the township of Pelee.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
TOWNSHIP OF MICHIPICOTEN
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma - Manitoulin)
moves first reading of bill initituled, An Act
respecting the township of Michipicoten.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
CITY OF TORONTO
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
the city of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. MacDonald moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Assessment
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, by way of brief explanation, section
13 of The Assessment Act fixes the limit of
municipal taxes for telephone and telegraph
companies at five per cent of gross receipts.
This results, for example, in the city of
Toronto, in the Bell Telephone Company
being freed from payment of an amount of
$726,617.88 in the year 1965 and smaller
amounts in many municipalities all across the
province of Ontario. The purpose of this Act
is to repeal section 13.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett), a copy
of which has been submitted to him. Will
the hon. Minister please advise if his depart-
ment is doing anything to control pollution
from motor vehicles?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, our department has been study-
ing the matter of the emission of gases and
the resulting pollution by motor vehicles. This
is a timely question. I have found occasion
to discuss this problem with motor vehicle
manufacturers, and I have seen something of
the very extensive experimentation and test-
ing that is being done in a variety of
approaches to this problem involving the
question of fuels: The reformulation of fuels,
known fuels that are uneconomic today; the
creation of new fuels specifically for this
purpose; the reconstitution of existing fuels
with additives that will make them suitable
and no longer dangerous; through the re-
designing and remodelling of the carbure-
tion system; and by dealing with the
products of combustion in the exhaust as by
afterburners and other devices for a like
purpose.
For the present, the matter of the emission
of gases and pollution is controlled by The
Air Pollution Control Act under The Depart-
ment of Health, and by our Highway Traffic
Act. These provide for this as follows:
The Air Pollution Control Act, section 3,
subsections 1 and 2, reads:
Section 3, subsection 1: The council of
any municipality may pass bylaws for
prohibiting or regulating the emission
from any source of air contaminants or
any type or class thereof.
Section 3, subsection 2—
running through paragraph (e) and sub-
paragraph (iii) thereof—
Without limiting the generality of sub-
section 1, the council of any municipality
may pass bylaws, (e) for prohibiting, (iii)
any person to operate, or to cause or
permit to be operated, an internal com-
bustion engine in such a way as to cause
air pollution.
Under The Highway Traffic Act, there is
this provision in section 42, subsection 2:
The engine and power mechanism of
every motor vehicle shall be so equipped
and adjusted as to prevent the escape of
excessive fumes or smoke.
This matter is under continuing considera-
tion by our department, and I have every
hope that effective steps will be found before
long.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a supplementary question?
During the summer vacation the hon.
Minister met with various manufacturers of
automotive vehicles both in Canada and the
United States. Did he receive any assurances
from them that the automobile in the near
future would contain such controls as to
prevent the pollution of atmosphere caused
by the burning of the fuels?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would not care to say
that I received assurances. What I related
464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the hon. member in reply to his primary
question covers the situation adequately, I
think.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may
follow through. The hon. Minister has not
received any assurances-
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the member can-
not make a statement. Has he another
supplementary question?
Mr. Newman: Yes. Has the hon. Minister
received any information from the auto-
motive manufacturers that the pollution of
the atmosphere by their manufactured
products will be stopped in the near future?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I did not get the last
phrase— that pollution will be stopped in the
near future, is that the question? I think
that is inherent in my original answer.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett): Of the approximately 400 indus-
tries written to by the Ontario water re-
sources commission asking if they would
undertake a programme of effluent improve-
ment promptly, I would ask: 1. How many
have replied; 2. How many would undertake
such a programme; and 3. How many have
actually undertaken such a programme?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the letter referred to requested no reply, but
drew attention to those sections of the
OWRC Act dealing with water pollution
control and the objectives for industrial
waste control in Ontario.
Approximately 320 of the industries re-
ceiving the letter have already met with the
staff of the OWRC to discuss the quality of
their effluent in the light of these objectives.
More than 50 per cent of them are meeting
their objectives, and 140 others have
appeared before the commission or senior
staff for further discussion, and are working
on improvement programmes.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Singer, I have a question for the hon. Attor-
ney General (Mr. VVishart). In view of the
hon. Attorney General's remarks in New
Brunswick on Saturday, can it be concluded
that it is the government's intention to remove
the function of his office, or any part thereof
from the consideration of this Legislature,
by means of the appointment of an official
or officials whose actions and omissions could
not be examined by the Legislature?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the remarks which I made to
the New Brunswick section of the Canadian
Bar association on February 12, consisted
simply of a historical review of the office of
the Attorney General, from the earliest times
up to the present. I have a written text
before me. I believe a copy has been made
available to the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Thompson).
I quoted largely from the text of a book
written by Professor Edwards of the centre of
criminology, called The Law Officers of the
Crown, in which he points out that since 1928
in Britain, the Attorney General has not
been a member of the Cabinet.
I think he makes it very clear that the
Attorney General is answerable to the House
for his actions. I expressed no personal
opinions. I merely gave a historical recital,
as anyone examining the text may see, and I
certainly expressed no suggestion of a policy
change on behalf of the government.
Mr. Singer: I take it then, Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Attorney General was not flying a
balloon, he was just giving an interesting
talk from Professor Edward's book. Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I trust the talk was in-
teresting.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree). Are all labour
standards, especially hours of work laws, in
the trucking industry, being enforced during
the current dispute within that industry?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to those firms in
the trucking industry which come under the
jurisdiction of the province of Ontario for
the purpose of labour standards, I can assure
you that the law is being enforced.
Of the 55 trucking firms directly involved
in this dispute, technically only 19 come
under provincial jurisdiction. I understand that
our labour standards branch has not received
any complaints in this matter since the truck-
ing dispute began.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Labour, notice of which has been
given.
In view of the hon. Minister's statements
on Friday, may the House expect legislation
at this session to amend the law in respect
of the granting of ex-parte injunctions in
labour disputes?
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
465
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I have
nothing further to add to my statement of
Friday last, except to say that this whole
question is currently under review by the
government.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
have three related questions to put to the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management:
1. How many property negotiations remain
unsettled in the acquisition of land for the
Pittock dam at Woodstock?
2. Were the negotiating committees set up
by the amendment to The Expropriation
Procedures Act used in these settlements?
3. What were the dates of meetings held
by the negotiating tribunal set up by the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) to bring
about settlements?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the first question, there are seven properties
which remain unsettled at the present time.
To the second question, the answer is "no."
The special negotiating tribunal was set up
by the hon. Prime Minister on January 28,
1965, prior to the amendment to The Expro-
priation Procedures Act.
To the third question: No formal meetings
of the tribunal were held; instead, interviews
were held with individual property owners.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask supplementary to
that, Mr. Speaker: Is this tribunal still work-
ing at the settlement of the remaining cases?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I might
say that the tribunal is not out canvassing
or talking with the property owners but it is
willing to negotiate if any of them would
like to come to Toronto.
Mr. Nixon: Then could he predict when
final settlement of these outstanding cases
might take place, sir, or are they just going
to stay up in the air indefinitely?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think I should answer that question. That
would be up to the property owners.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Is the hon. Minister of Transport using his
powers to ensure public safety on our high-
ways during the current trucking dispute?
And, supplementary to that, is the hon. Min-
ister aware that truckers not involved in the
dispute are going more than 60 hours per
week and in excess of 3,500 miles per week,
in violation of the PCV Act?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in
our scale operations we are conducting safety
checks on vehicles passing over the scales,
in the usual way, as we have been doing for
some years.
Is the Minister aware that truckers not
involved in the dispute are drawing more
than 60 hours per week? I would say I am
not aware of it. The PCV Act as such does
not prescribe hours of work for transport
drivers. These hours of work are administered
by the provincial and federal Departments of
Labour, through their respective labour stand-
ards legislation.
Mr. Paterson: Supplementary to that, does
not the department concerned with the
PCV Act rule on the number of miles that
can be driven by drivers in a week?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I do not think that is
limited by The Highway Transport Board Act
or regulations.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan), notice of which has been given.
Has The Department of Labour decided
whether employees of the Niagara Parks com-
mission may properly be represented for
bargaining purposes by the civil service asso-
ciation of Ontario?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask the hon. member if he
read his question as "has The Department of
Labour"?
Mr. Speaker: I might say to the Minister
that I had this question directed to The
Treasury Department. Originally the member
had it directed to The Department of Labour.
We thought it belonged to The Treasury
Department and directed it in this manner.
Mr. Braithwaite: It was transferred to the
hon. Provincial Treasurer?
Mr. Speaker: That is right.
Mr. Braithwaite: I repeat the question to
the hon. Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.
Has The Department of Labour or the hon.
Provincial Treasurer decided whether em-
ployees of the Niagara parks commission may
properly be represented for bargaining pur-
poses by the civil service association of
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid
that I am still not able to understand the
question. The Treasury Department has
nothing to do with the arrangements at Niag-
ara Falls, nor for that matter does The Civil
466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Service Department. The employees of the
Niagara parks commission are not civil serv-
ants but are employed by the Niagara parks
commission. They do have certain benefits by
way of pension but are not civil servants.
Mr. Braithwaite: A supplementary question
then, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. Provincial
Treasurer tell the House first of all, will these
employees be allowed to bargain collectively;
and secondly, which department would they
fall into, since they do not seem to come
under the Provincial Treasurer and they do
not seem to come under the civil service
commission?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, as I have
already mentioned, these employees are em-
ployees of the Niagara parks commission.
An hon. member: A Crown corporation.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes, that is right, which is
a Crown corporation, and I do not think any
department has anything to say as to whether
or not there shall be negotiations through the
civil service association.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Surely Crown corporations have to be answer-
able in this Legislature through some Min-
ister? There must be some responsibility,
or is this Legislature just a facade?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I would sug-
gest that those who are asking the questions
should study The Public Service Act and see
to whom it does apply.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is addressed to the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond).
Will the hon. Minister indicate if it is pro-
posed in the regulations under The Medical
Services Insurance Act to enjoin doctors from
billing patients directly?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. mem-
ber's question is "no." While it is anticipated
that the majority of doctors will bill the de-
partment directly, it is not to be forbidden
that they deal directly with the patients.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Transport. Are
weigli scales on Highway 401 and elsewhere
maintaining normal operations during the
labour dispute in the trucking industry? And
can the hon. Minister assure this House that
there are no excessive violations of the PCV
Act in respect to licences, ownership of
vehicles, bill of lading, types of freight being
transported and overloadings during the time
this dispute has been in progress?
4 Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to part one of the question, the answer is
"yes." In respect to part two, the answer is
that there have been no excessive violations.
Mr. Paterson: Yes. I have another question
for the hon. Minister.
Is the hon. Minister aware of the great
number of transferrals of ownership of trans-
port trucks at very nominal prices during the
past few weeks? If so, has there been any
violation of the PCV Act and The Ontario
Retail Sales Tax Act? Also, has The Depart-
ment of Insurance been notified of all these
changes?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, there are
in excess of one million transfers of motor
vehicles issued annually in this province
through almost 300 agencies. We have no
way of pinpointing any slight increase that
might occur for any reason or in any par-
ticular segment.
In respect to part (b), since the strike
began there has been no greater number of
violations than in normal periods in advance
of the beginning of the strike. The retail
sales tax is collected by agents of the Pro-
vincial Treasurer.
Finally, with respect to part (c), there is
no requirement that The Department of In-
surance be so notified.
Mr. Paterson: Might I get clarification from
the hon. Minister on his first point? He men-
tioned one million transferrals a year. Is that
specifically on PCV licences?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, on vehicle licences.
I say we do not break them down. There is
in excess of one million vehicle transfers
issued in the course of a year.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Provincial
Treasurer.
Inasmuch as the sales tax, after April 1,
will be five per cent instead of three per
cent, will the hon. Provincial Treasurer
ensure that the five per cent will be charged
only against the goods purchased, and not
also on the 11 per cent federal sales tax,
which is an example of tax on tax?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that the hon. member must understand that
it would be entirely impossible to sort out
the tax that has been charged on goods upon
which we charge sales tax. As everyone
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
467
knows, the 11 per cent is paid at some stage
before it reaches the retailer, or certainly
before it is retailed. We have no way of
knowing at what stage that tax was paid,
how much was paid, nor upon what amount
it was paid.
It may be that the hon. member is
referring to a few instances where the manu-
facturer sells directly to the consumer. One
instance of that is in printing. The material
is printed, the printer charges an 11 per cent
sales tax and our sales tax is added to the
invoice after the 11 per cent has been paid.
I think the hon. member would understand
that it would not be possible to make an
exception in one particular area, nor is it
possible to know the amount of tax that is
in any invoice for goods; certainly not in the
amount of the retail price of the goods.
There is one advantage of the retail sales
tax which is generally recognized, and that
is that there is no mark-up on the retail
sales tax. It is charged after the mark-up
has been added, and it is for that reason that
many feel that this is a just tax.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a brief statement in which I
think the House would be interested, on the
capture of the escapees from Kingston peni-
tentiary on Saturday, which I think was a
splendid example of co-operation among the
police forces of all three levels of govern-
ment. The Ontario provincial police, the
Metropolitan Toronto police, the Barrie and
other municipal forces were active from the
moment of the escape on Wednesday. Al-
though the men were known to be in
the Barrie area, their whereabouts were
uncertain.
On Friday, Commissioner McLellan of the
RCMP telephoned Commissioner Silk that
the personnel and facilities of the RCMP
were available. When word came that the
men were in the Niagara peninsula, the
alert went out on radio and Telex from the
Ontario provincial police Burlington head-
quarters to all OPP units, as well as to the
municipal forces on the peninsula. The
Royal Canadian mounted police were imme-
diately called in. A prearranged roadblock
pattern, which is available at a moment's
notice for any part of the province was set up.
The commander of the Smithville detach-
ment of the Ontario provincial police re-
called that the Lincoln county chief was not
equipped with radio and advised him by
telephone of the situation. It was Chief
Robert Rippey of the Lincoln county police
and Constable Juhlke who first sighted the
men. They followed, alerting the St. Cathar-
ines police manning the roadblock. They, in
turn, followed, meanwhile radioing ahead to
the other St. Catharines personnel who made
the actual arrest.
The public was most helpful in this whole
matter and the value of our Telex and radio
communication system was demonstrated to
be of great worth in this type of police
activity. I commend the forces that were
involved.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Third order, commit-
tee of the whole House; Mr. L. M. Reilly in
the chair.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill No. 6, An Act
to amend The Medical Services Insurance
Act, 1965.
On section 1;
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Chairman, under section No. 1,
we feel that secion (e) regarding covered
persons, should be enlarged, we are deeply
concerned that the hon. Minister (Mr.
Dymond) has chosen to develop his bill in
order that it will cost the government more
money. It will be a most inefficient way of
running an insurance scheme; in fact, it de-
fies every economic law of administration in
connection with health insurance.
I know the hon. Minister is as aware as
everyone in this House that the most expen-
sive method of administrating health insur-
ance programmes is on the individual basis.
Indeed, we look at PSI, a non-profit organiza-
tion. Under pay .direct, it was costing $204
a year for a family of three or more. PSI
were finding that the problems of extra bill-
ing and of reminders meant extra adminis-
trative costs. And PSI found that, under a
group plan, they were able to charge $159
a year and that they were making money
through this.
We feel that if groups are not included, it
means that the government is leaving the
groups for the private insurance agencies
and this is where they will be able to make
a profit, while it will be the obligation of
the government to take on this costly admin-
istrative approach, therefore the government
is going to have to subsidize its own plan,
as well. I say that, sir, because last year, as
you recall very well, the government was
suggesting a projected premium of $180.
468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This year, the premium has come down to
$150 but they have extended services.
Why could groups not be included in this?
I think, for example, of the 14,000 employees
of General Motors. This is an approach, if
they were allowed to join with the govern-
ment plan, which would bolster the plan. I
refer to the Laird of Lindsay and his remarks
about the hospital insurance commission,
saying the need for 15 employees or more to
join would give the economic bolstering to a
plan so that it would be workable. The fact
that in this amendment the hon. Minister is
saying "covered person" indicates to us that
he does not understand insurance principles
and, again, he is leaving the lucrative area to
the private insurance companies.
We are also somewhat dissatisfied with
the subsection 1, sub-paragraph (j). The hon.
Minister had said last year that one of the
things he wanted to do with the plan was to
avoid duplication and overlapping; he was
going to have facilities to avoid unnecessary
administrative costs. He was indicating that
this would be interrelated with the Ontario
hospital services commission. Now he comes
before us and tells us that his efficiency ex-
perts had a look at the floor plan and one
and a half floors are not enough for his new
programme. Well, I think that is not a suffici-
ently adequate excuse to present to the people
of Ontario to be setting up a completely sep-
arate division. Prior to this, he talked about
the fact that he did not want a separate civil
service division; he was going to avoid over-
lapping, he was going to avoid duplication.
Then he comes into the Legislature and tells
us the reason he has to permit overlapping
and duplication is because of some floor plan.
Sir, it is for these reasons that I move
that subsection two of section one be
amended by the addition of the words "a
group" after the word "person" where it ap-
pears a second time in the first line of sub-
paragraph (e), so that the said sub-paragraph
(e) will read as follows:
(e) Covered person means a person or a
group which is covered by a standard medi-
cal services insurance contract.
Section one is further amended by
striking out all the words after "division"
in the second line of sub-paragraph (j) in
subsection five and substituting the fol-
lowing: Of the Ontario health services
commission.
Mr. Chairman: In connection with this
amendment of the leader of the Opposition,
I am inclined to think that this has properly
been discussed under the principle of the
bill. I can see merit in your second amend-
ment in section one, further amended by
striking out all the words after "division"
in the second line of sub-paragraph (j) in
subsection five and substituting the follow-
ing: Of the Ontario health services commis-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I say
that under "covered person" I add "group"? I
fail to see how you can suggest that is against
all the principle that we discussed before and
was approved. I do not understand your
reasoning on that. I can surely add to en-
large on the definition of covered person to
mean covered person or groups. I am making
this very clear to you and I see nothing
wrong with that whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman: It would be my observa-
tion to the leader of the Opposition that we
discussed in principle whether we are going
to be covered individually or collectively as
groups, and I would consider that this would
be a principle of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
would you permit me a word on that? I
think it is important now that we try to get
our ground rules cleared, and I can appreci-
ate the position you are in. But, I submit
to you that the fundamental principle of the
bill has nothing to do with voluntary cover-
age of groups.
The fundamental principle of the bill, as
the government told us time after time, was
so-called voluntary versus compulsory insur-
ance, and limited versus universal coverage,
and this amendment does not violate that
principle.
The bill as it now stands provides that indi-
viduals can obtain coverage voluntarily upon
application, and all that the proposed amend-
ment offers, as I understand it, is that groups
should be put in the same category as indi-
viduals. They would not be necessarily cov-
ered, but they could make an application for
coverage, just as an individual.
Now, that does not go to the principle
which was settled in the vote on second read-
ing of this bill. I think it is an important
addition. The government may disagree that
it is a desirable addition, but at any rate the
whole idea as to whether or not we should
put groups in the same category as individu-
als is really an important point that has not
yet been covered by any decision of this
House. Therefore, I think it is in order that
it should be discussed either here or at some
other time during committee stages. This
may not be the appropriate time, but we
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
469
should be allowed to deal with it at some
other time.
Mr. Chairman: I want to say to the
member for Woodbine, I have some doubts
in connection with it. I am prepared to give
him and the leader of the Opposition the
benefit of the doubt in this connection, and
they will be heard.
Mr. Bryden: So the discussion, sir, now
is on the amendment— on both parts of the
amendment now before us. Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman: That is correct.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, I have something to say here.
This is in violation of the principle of the
bill. It has been stated throughout this entire
piece that this bill was directed toward
insuring individuals and not groups. Indeed,
it has been repeated time and again that
groups were not included in the bill. This
applies to individuals, and it is not the belief
of government at the present time that we
can extend this to include groups.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I
am ruling that this is now in order at this
time. Who wishes to speak on this amend-
ment?
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of my hon. leader in his
remarks on his amendment to this section.
One of the great weaknesses in this section,
and throughout the whole bill, is the fact
that groups have been ignored. It is an un-
fortunate situation that groups such as the
civil servants of the province of Ontario
are not within this bill because it is most
important that these large groups become a
part of any government-operated plan that
is going to succeed.
By inserting the word "group" and making
it possible that groups do become a part of
the plan, it makes it possible that so many
of the more prosperous— the better risk groups
—are within the plan.
Under the present situation, as this legis-
lation now stands, it means that the govern-
ment or the taxpayer is carrying those who
are more apt to join such a government
scheme as this, that is those who are ill, those
who are older. It is by having the group in on
a plan that we have an opportunity literally
to make money on the younger and on the
more healthy people who apply for health
insurance.
I would also like to emphasize the amend-
ment to sub-paragraph (j) in subsection five
of section one, in use of the terms, Ontario
health services commission. By broadening the
scope of the Ontario hospital services com-
mission and bringing all our health services
under one roof, under one plan, we will have
a far better organization, not only to admin-
ister the hospital services and the medical
services insofar as they are now planned,
but it gives the government a greater oppor-
tunity in an organized fashion, and in a well
planned fashion, to expand health services
that are going to be needed in the province
of Ontario in the future.
This section, in its definitions, is the begin-
ning, and in order to get off to a broad and
strong beginning, our definitions should plan
for the future.
We on this side of the House, when we
talk about health services, not only envisage
the medical services that are coming under
this bill, but we are looking forward to a
much broader scope of health services and
medical services, and in this we include
research.
But as it is now, under this subsection 5
sub-paragraph (j) in section 1, this business of
a medical services insurance division is just
one more large section of the department.
So we are going to find in insurance that we
have the hospitalization; we have medical in-
surance as envisaged under Bill No. 6; and
we have the groups that are run by the
private insurance companies.
So in essence, by bringing about these
amendments as the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition has suggested, we want to broaden the
scope of this plan, we want to bring in the
groups, and we want to see to it that we have
a well organized, well administered system
of health services here in the province.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
on a point of clarification on the amendment
which has been proposed by the hon. leader
of the Opposition, to what reference is the
reference to the Ontario health services com-
mission? Surely if a new term is to be in-
troduced into the bill, this is the place where
it should be defined properly.
Mr. Thompson: I would be glad, Mr.
Chairman, to answer the hon. member's ques-
tion. We have always envisaged that there
should be the broadest approach towards the
total health need. We saw the first move take
place with the Ontario hospital services com-
mission, and we felt that with the machinery,
with the experience, with the knowledge,
with the staff, which we have in the Ontario
hospital services commission, it would be
logical that when we move into the medical
470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
insurance field it would be within this frame-
work that we would continue. We want to
have the name called "health" because we
do not want a narrow attitude taken on this,
but a broad attitude.
We came to this conclusion really because
the hon. Minister of Health— who told us
that he could see a great deal of logic in this
—said, if I could quote him from last year,
Mr. Chairman:
I said that the division of the depart-
ment will be housed in the Ontario hos-
pital services commission building. We
will utilize all the facilities there so that
there will be no duplication and no over-
lapping and therefore no unnecessary
administrative costs.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there are two or three points that
I want to make, but to establish as much
continuity as we can in a debate of this
nature, let me carry on from the point that
the hon. leader of the Opposition has just
been dealing with.
I think there is merit in establishing the
proposition of a health services commission
now. I do not think this bill permits the
proposition of including, or even anticipating
at the moment, that great range of services
that is spelled out in the Hall commission
report or was spelled out in the amendment
that the Liberal group introduced on second
reading. Much as I would like to see those
included, I think we have to face reality and
recognize that those are future steps and
consideration of them at the moment is just
going to frustrate achieving the immediate
step of covering doctor bills.
However, it is not too early to establish
a health services commission so that we can
incorporate the coverage of both hospital and
doctor bills. We have the two basic needs
that can be covered, the one that has been
covered now for a number of years, and the
second one which is anticipated in this bill.
I recognize that the hon. Minister of
Health gave us a reason as to why he indi-
cated last spring that this could and would
be done and then subsequently changed his
mind. But I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, I
never heard a more feeble and irrelevant
excuse for changing his mind— namely, when
they took a look at the situation they dis-
covered that the floor space in one particular
building occupied by the hospital commis-
sion did not permit of including the two of
them together.
Mr. Chairman, surely we are all aware of
the fact that on occasions when floor space
became inadequate for a department in one
area, then the department may have to be
located in two different buildings, or con-
ceivably move to another building. But
there is no need to compound the difficulty
today and for years to come, by separating
the two of them when, in terms of efficiency,
they obviously should be included at the
moment.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, just let me quote
from the Toronto Telegram of February 4,
which is after the hon. Minister came to his
conclusion that he did not have enough floor
space and therefore he would have to reverse
his announced decision to this House last
spring. This is a special interview that Peter
Thurling of the Toronto Telegram had with
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts). Just
let me read the first two or three paragraphs:
Premier Robarts said last night that
Ontario will put together Medicare with
hospital services as the provincial health
plan develops.
I concede that the hon. Prime Minister was
saying "as it develops," but the hon.
Minister, after having indicated last spring
he was going to do it, now says he is going
to separate them. Our point, the point of
the amendment, as I interpret it, is that we
should move now. Indeed, if I may continue
the quotation:
In an exclusive interview, the Premier
said: "It is an obvious solution as Medi-
care evolves. If you have health services
over there and Medicare here," the
Premier said, as he showed how with his
arms, "sooner or later you are going to
bring them together."
Our question is, why later? Why not sooner?
Why not right now? Why compound the
difficulties and add to the inefficiency which
is almost an integral factor of this whole
proposal of the government by separating
them at the present time?
So we certainly would be in support of
that proposition. However, Mr. Chairman, I
want to go back to two other aspects, one
to underline a point that the hon. leader of
the Opposition raised, namely, that the
tragedy of this bill is that it is really violating
the basic principles of insurance.
It is a very interesting commentary that
we find a Conservative government has not
even an accurate assessment of how insur-
ance principles operate. Or maybe it under-
stands how insurance operates today with
many companies, as they gradually get away
from high risks to cut their losses, and the
government tolerates that kind of thing. But
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
471
what this government has done is to separate
the high risks and assume responsibility for
them, and to open the prospect that more
and more of those high risks will come to
the government-sponsored and subsidized
coverage, whereas the low risks and there-
fore the high profit coverage is going to be
left with the private insurance companies.
This is a travesty of the application of
insurance principles. Surely if you were
going to operate on the basic principle that
this government has been proclaiming right
from the outset— even though it is phony—
that this is a voluntary scheme and that any-
body who wants to come in shall have the
privilege to come in it, how can the hon.
Minister now rise and say that if you are
an individual you can avail yourself of the
voluntary basic principle of this bill, but if
you are a member of a group you are de-
nied the opportunity of availing yourself of
that voluntary principle? Because you are a
member of a group, you have to stay outside,
you have to stay with the high cost and the
high profit private insurance companies. It
defies logic and it makes a mockery of the
whole application of basic insurance prin-
ciples.
There is one other point, Mr. Chairman,
that I would like to make, and I make it in
comment on the hon. Minister's interjection
as you were soliciting views from the House
and laying the guidelines for this debate.
The point is, and I think it is interesting for
the hon. Minister particularly to take note,
that the proposal that groups should be in-
cluded in the amendment in defining covered
persons is not a proposal that has come only
from the Opposition.
Indeed, in second reading of the bill, the
hon. member for Scarborough North (Mr.
Wells), a Tory, indeed one of the most out-
spoken exponents of the government legisla-
tion almost on an automatic basis, rose in
this House and said that he thought we
should move immediately to include our own
civil servants. He proposed that if we are
operating our own bakeshop— I think was his
particular analogy— we should buy from our
own bakeshop.
Fine— if we are operating our own medical
services plan we should certainly provide
coverage for our own employees under that
plan. In other words, we have already had
from the government side of the House at
least one hon. member rise and speak— how
many were agreeing with him, I am not in
a position to say or even guess— but at least
one of them has risen and said that if this
government is going to be sensible and logi-
cal—if we can really ask for that in the face
of this kind of bill— it should then include at
least the civil service group which amounts
to some 45,000 people, and which, in this
past year, the government "rescued" from
PSI and handed over to the general mercies
of an insurance syndicate headed by London
Life.
The points made by the hon. leader of the
Opposition in these amendments deserve, and
will have, our support.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I regret that
this amendment should cover two points,
both of which are, in my opinion, of vital
importance and each of which deserves sep-
arate treatment by itself. However, that is
the way in which the amendment has been
put forward so we have to deal with the
two points at the same time, even though
they are not really related. The only thing
they have in common is that they relate to
clauses in the "definition" section.
I would like to say a little more about the
question of voluntary coverage of groups,
which I take is the purpose of the first part
of the amendment of the hon. leader of the
Opposition. I do not think we have to worry
about the technicality as to whether or not
the amendment, if carried, would accomplish
the purpose. It is sufficient to consider the
purpose and have the House go on record one
way or the other in relation to it.
The hon. Minister stated a few minutes
ago that it had never been his intention that
groups could be covered under this legis-
lation under any circumstances whatever. I
would like to hear some justification from him
of that arbitrary decision on his part. Cer-
tainly, the bill as it now stands would not
permit groups to apply for coverage to the
government agency which will administer the
Act and which, as far as individuals are
concerned, will apparently provide coverage
more cheaply than private insurance
companies are now doing, even more
cheaply than PSI is now doing, Mr. Chair-
man. Not nearly cheaply enough in my
opinion, but more cheaply than individual
coverage which is now available under any
existing plan.
Now, if that benefit is to be extended to
individuals, why should it not be extended
to groups as well? If the government can
provide coverage to individuals more cheaply
than do private carriers, then surely it can
provide coverage to groups more cheaply.
I think there are obvious reasons why it can
do it more cheaply. For one thing, it does
not have big selling costs; it does not have
472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
any profits to deal with; it just has the basic
administration costs.
If people who are not in groups are to get
that benefit, then I think that people who are
in groups should have the same benefit. As
my hon. leader pointed out, there was a sug-
gestion from the Tory back benches that
one of the largest groups in the province
should be immediately covered.
Unfortunately, the hon. gentleman who
made that— I was going to say he is not here,
but he has just arrived and I am happy to
see him. I hope his deskmates will fill
him in on what is going on.
I was not able to follow at the time he
made the suggestion why he wanted this
legislation to be available only to the group
that now constitutes the civil service. If that
group is to get the benefit of the legislation,
then I would think that any group should be
entitled to it, if they wish to apply for it.
We are accepting the decision as of last
Friday that it is no longer open to us to
debate the whole question of universality,
which is possible only under a compulsory
plan. We have let that go. We are accepting
the basic principle established by the vote
of Friday that this plan will be voluntary.
Our only suggestion is that all people should
at least be treated as equals within the frame-
work of the voluntary coverage, and that
people who are in groups should have this
possibly open to them, as well as individuals.
Furthermore, from the government's point
of view, there is no question that it would
be highly advantageous to have certain
groups— as many as care to— come into the
plan that is now being set up. Everybody
knows that coverage can be provided to
groups more cheaply than to individuals.
Why does the government deprive itself of
this benefit? Why does it take only the worst
risks?
I think the answer to the question is quite
obvious, and though the government will not
admit it, we might as well state it. It is far
more concerned in this legislation about the
welfare of insurance companies than it is
about the welfare of the people of Ontario.
That is the only conceivable reason why it is
not willing to aeeept the principle of the first
part of the amendment that is now before the
committee.
If it would concern itself less about the
insurance companies-who, after all, have lots
of other types of business to engage in if they
are gradually pushed out of this field-and
consider the welfare of the people of the
province, then it would, in my opinion, accept
the amendment now before us.
I would also like to refer to the second
part of the amendment which proposes that
the administration of this legislation, inade-
quate as it is, should be consolidated with the
administration of the existing Hospital Serv-
ices Insurance Act and any subsequent legis-
lation in the field that may be ultimately
adopted.
I would like to hear from the hon. Minister
an adequate explanation of why he is not
prepared to do that. I think that last year, as
has been mentioned, he suggested that it was
a sensible idea to co-ordinate administration.
After all, the hospital services commission
already has an elaborate administrative setup
with quite highly developed business
machines and so on. Why should we set up
another division to duplicate its work? The
job can be done much more efficiently if it is
all done in one agency, or through one
agency.
I think that the hon. Minister made some
excuse not long ago, that this was not feasible
because there was no more room in the hos-
pital services commission. Therefore he was
setting up a separate division of his own
department because of the lack of floor space
or something in the hospital services com-
mission.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you as a busi-
ness man that that is perhaps the weakest
excuse that has ever been put forward by
anybody— that one does not expand an agency
when it is logical to do so merely because the
agency has run out of floor space in its pres-
ent quarters. Either you get new quarters or
you expand the present quarters. At least
you do things in a logical and rational way.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the reasons
why the government will not do what is
obviously sensible from an administrative
point of view, and is obviously the most effi-
cient way of doing the job, is because of
some curious childish susceptibility of the
medical profession.
I see that out in Scarborough they are not
going to bill the government agency, they
are going to bill the patient who, in turn,
will bill the government agency. I suppose
the reason that the hon. Minister has set up
a separate agency is that he thought that they
might consider that they could protect their
virginity better if they were dealing with
The Department of Health rather than with
the hospital services commission.
Surely we cannot cater to that kind of
childishness, Mr. Chairman. We have to do
things in a logical way and expect that adult
human beings will act like adults.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister, in
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
473
any case, that if this is the factor that is
involved, he is not accomplishing his purpose.
The doctors out in Scarborough apparently
consider that they risk their virginity even if
they deal with The Department of Health.
So you are never going to get any rationality
out of these people.
You have to go ahead and do the thing in
a sensible way, and then hope that in time
they may see the foolishness of the position
that they are now taking.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly
urge the House that it should vote for this
amendment. It is an amendment in two parts,
in a sense. It might be fairer to put each
part individually. A person could be in favour
of one part and not in favour of the other.
But whether or not you feel it logical to do
that, I believe that the hon. members in good
conscience should support both parts, and if
they have to vote on the amendment in one
block then they should support it.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
I think that the hon. Minister of Health owes
it to the House to tell us in a straightforward
way what will happen if a union negotiating
the collective bargaining agreement with an
employer negotiates adherence to the Ontario
government plan. Will The Department of
Health or the medical services insurance divi-
sion require that each member of the bargain-
ing unit shall apply for a standard contract,
or will they be flexible enough to allow the
executive of that union to enrol them as a
group?
In other words, is the hon. Minister so
tenaciously committed to the principle of in-
dividual participation that he will not allow,
in the illustration that I have posited, the
enrolment of a large number of individuals
through one organization?
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
for Sudbury, I think the Minister has ex-
plained to us previously under the principle
of the bill it would be accepted only indi-
vidually and not as a group.
Mr. Sopha: I thought he might be enlight-
ened, Mr. Chairman, after the discussion that
has taken place today. It is possible that he
has changed his mind to the extent that he
sees the good sense of what is being proffered
from this side of the House. That indeed is
embodied in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the ques-
tion?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. Minister is going to sit there and say
nothing, we have put a very cogent reason
as to why, for example—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, if they
would just sit down and give me a chance to
speak— I am waiting until they have had their
say.
Mr. MacDonald: You were not waiting.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I am waiting.
Mr. MacDonald: The Chairman was calling
for the question and you were sitting back—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: How does the hon.
member know what I am going to do?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, as I
stated at the outset, this bill was aimed at
providing for a need that now exists, and
that need is to ensure that individuals have
available to them a standard comprehensive
medical services insurance contract.
We believe, and we know from experience,
that groups are now well covered and in
spite of all the arguments about them being
left to the tender mercies of the profit-making
insurance organizations, facts do not bear
this out. Indeed, there is not an insurance
carrier today who would not be very glad to
throw over this total service, because not one
of them admits to making anything on it. As
I said on Friday— close your eyes, my friend
—in spite of all that has been said in the
Hall commission, I sat at a table with the
director of research for the Hall commission
who publicly admitted that the insurance
companies were not making money.
But I am not here to defend the insurance
companies. As I have said many times before
they are big boys, all of this fancy and con-
jecture in which my hon. friend across the
way indulges is completely without founda-
tion in fact. Indeed, I think, sir, they talk to
hear themselves talk. The programme which
we have presented to the House is to meet
the need of those who cannot, for a variety
of reasons, get the medical services insurance
coverage. For this reason, I say to you, sir,
because of the fact that the government has
spelled out time and time again that this was
the reason for the bill, it would be violating
a principle if we included groups in this.
The hon. Prime Minister has already said
—and I have repeated this every time I have
talked about this programme— that this is but
a step and we must take a step at a time.
Surely none of us who listened to the Budget
last Wednesday afternoon can fail to appreci-
ate the fact that we must look carefully where
474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we are going. While in this bill we provide
for those who need— and I repeat this over
and over again, sir— provide for those who
need, I think the provinee of Ontario is tak-
ing a logical and a sound step forward.
This principle of insurance has not been
violated. The hon. members opposite speak
as though 40 per cent of our population, who
constitute the potential available to this pro-
gramme of the government, are all bad risks.
Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely foolish, and
this is the most kindly way I can express it.
The 40 per cent of the population may have
in it, because of the fact that ill health is
one of the reasons why these people cannot
get insurance coverage, we may have in it a
larger number of high-cost risks, but they
are not all going to be bad risks. Indeed the
actuaries and the economists who have studied
this brought the price down this year because
of the greater number which we could poten-
tially cover under the programme.
The figures which I presented in the House
last year of $72, $140 and $180 were the fig-
ures the actuaries then gave me for the limited
number available to us, recognizing that in
that limited number would be a very large
number of high-cost risks. By community
rating, I am told that for this whole group—
the whole potential available to us — this
premium structure is quite reasonable.
Tb.cn in the matter of 5 (j), Mr. Chairman,
if is obvious as one listens to the hon. members
of the Opposition that they do not listen to
whit is being said in the House. I know it
is not very interesting at times, but if the
hon. members would read the things they are
going to talk about and argue about, and
show they have some knowledge of what they
arc talking about, they would not talk so
stupidly.
They said that my whole argument about
the OHSC was because of—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That was one argument.
Would the hon. member kindly put his fist in
his mouth, please? My apologies, Mr. Chair-
Mr. Chairman: The Minister still has the
floor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the floor
space was only one of the features. Indeed,
last year when I introduced the bill in the
first instance, I said nothing about putting
this under the hospital services commission.
I said the medical services insurance division
would be housed in the OHSC building and
would utilize all of its resources, material
and human, that was possible. I stated in the
House last week, sir, that I had made that
statement and meant what I said when I
made it, without knowledge of what was
involved. When we had the organization
and methods people look at the programme,
they told me how much space was needed
and pointed out to me the great difficulty in
melding the programmes because they are
both completely different programmes. Even
if this were under the OHSC today, they
would have to have two separate divisions,
just as separate as they are at the present time.
The hon. Prime Minister has given this
House the assurance that as the programme
develops it will be melded under a health
service where there might be a commission.
But let me remind you, sir, and remind the
hon. members of this House, that all of the
health services including the Ontario hospital
services commission are melded within The
Department of Health. The Ontario hos-
pital services commission is not an agency
complete and separate or apart. It must re-
port to this House through the Minister of
Health and therefore all of the health serv-
ices are now under The Department of
Health. I would hope for the welfare of
Ontario this will continue.
Mr. Chairman, in the light of what I have
said, I cannot support the amendment.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, now that the
hon. Minister of Health has set the tone for
this debate, I think we are going to have
quite an interesting afternoon. He contra-
dicted himself completely out of his own
mouth.
If you talk about a principle of group
insurance, under any circumstance you must
recognize the fact that by enlarging the
group, by enlarging the number of people
covered, you reduce the premium. The hon.
Minister himself has just stated that because
the group which was originally to have been
covered under the standard contract has now
been enlarged it was possible for his
actuaries to bring down the cost of that
insurance. What we are asking here is that
the scheme be further enlarged and that if
it should be the wish of any group of people
in the province of Ontario to participate in
that plan, they be allowed to participate in
the hope that this would have the effect of
reducing the costs to all the people who
participate in the government plan.
Certainly, so far as the hon. Minister is
concerned, he has admitted this and it would
be my belief and my understanding that he
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
475
should now therefore accept the first part
of the amendment.
The hon. Minister has also stated, of
course, the perfectly ridiculous statement
that the insurance companies in the province
of Ontario would like to be out of this busi-
ness. If they would like to be out because
it is uneconomic then I say that in our
society we cannot afford to have uneconomic
activities carried on. The place where you
carry on economic activities in the health
field is by providing for group coverage of
all the people in the province of Ontario, and
if this is a first step or a second or a third
step, let us leave the avenue open so that
the next step can be taken without having
to have another protracted debate in this
House.
On the second part of the resolution, it
just seems that the hon. Minister is deter-
mined to confuse the points which are made
by the members on this side of the House.
It is quite true that the Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission reports through the Minister
to this House, but there is an entirely different
area of responsibility on the Minister between
a division of his own department and a separ-
ate commission set up and established by the
legislation of this assembly.
The Ontario hospital services commission
as such has a responsibility directly to the
people of the province of Ontario and
reports through the Minister of Health.
If we can have that kind of commission
divided, whether it is necessary or not, into
one or two divisions which will look after
the health needs of the people of this prov-
ince, then I think this is the time to do it.
We have had no indication from the hon.
Minister that he or his department is able
to provide the kind of statistical information
which is necessary for a continuing study
of the health needs of the people of the
province of Ontario. We have had very
good indication that the Ontario hospital
services commission, in the area which has
been its responsibility, is in fact able to
make adequate and continuing judgments
and assessments from the statistics available
to them as to the costs that are involved in
their services. What we are fundamentally
interested in here in this bill, and in this
particular amendment, is the cost to the
people of the province of Ontario. The costs
will be greatly reduced if groups are ad-
mitted into this plan, and the costs will be
greatly reduced if the administration is en-
trusted to the Ontario hospital services com-
mission under a renamed commission— the
Ontario health services commission.
I would urge that the hon. Minister either
answer the further questions which have
been raised, or that, in any event, the mem-
bers of the government would support this
particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
start trying to say that I hope that this
debate can be carried out with a certain
amount of calm, and that the hon. Minister
will not feel drawn on because of lack of
defence to say to a member of the House:
Put your fists in your mouth or something.
I do not think that is conducive to further
discussion.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I do
not need the hon. leader of the Opposition
to read me a lecture on parliamentary be-
haviour. I think I could give him a few
lessons.
Mr. Thompson: I would say that if a man
blows awfully hard and loud it is because
he has not got much substance to his argu-
ment. This is exactly as the hon. Minister
says, and exactly what is problem is. Sitting
next to him is the hon. member for Forest
Hill (Mr. Dunlop), a man with a keen intel-
lect who comes to the crux of a question.
Last year, when the hon. Minister had his
medical carrier he referred— I am referring
to the amendment— he said that the high
risks would be carried by the medical carri-
ers. As we understand it, the medical carri-
ers were going to form a pool system, by
which the private insurance companies would
have to pool the high risks. Now the hon.
Minister has taken that over. Either the
hon. member for Forest Hill is wrong, or
the hon. Minister is wrong. I expect that the
hon. Minister is wrong instead of the hon.
member for Forest Hill.
May I say that this affects the people of
this province in costs. I can see a situation
of members in the civil service. I will just
take that as an example. Some lowly paid
man— and gosh knows there are enough of
them— who is cleaning the floors or some-
thing, belongs to a group plan with London
Life Insurance. He decides he would like
to go with the government plan, but because
he belongs to a group plan he is going to
have to stay with that plan rather than get
the benefit of the government plan. I am
going to say this to the hon. Minister; I am
going to read this back to him, Mr. Chairman.
It was read back last year to him to show him
he was wrong, that he is going to have to
476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
subsidize this plan. And who is going to
subsidize it? The cleaner, the fellow who is
forced not to belong to the government plan
but to pay to a group plan. He is also,
through taxes, going to be paying to keep
the government plan going. We say that is
unfair. We think that people in groups should
be able to join.
I would like to see the example taken by
this government again to recognize the insur-
ance principle. I reiterate what members of the
Opposition have said— that the whole princi-
ple of insurance is that you get groups where
you have the healthy, who perhaps are better
risks, helping those who are not better risks.
I find it very indicative, frankly, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. Minister said, in explain-
ing about the fact of not moving into the
building with the Ontario hospital services
commission; "I made these statements," and
then, "I had no knowledge about some of
the factors." That, unfortunately, it seems
to me, is why he is blustering as hard as he
is, accusing us of not having any knowledge
when he openly admits that he made state-
ments without any knowledge.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the member
for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: "Stupid" was the adjective he
hurled across the floor at us, as if he has
a monopoly on all intelligence and his IQ, if
tested, would show that it is superior to ours.
We were not so stupid last year when we
stood on principle, which has now been par-
tially and grudgingly accepted by him. Now,
in a calmer voice, I have a suggestion. If
he sets the tone of debate according to that
demeanour, I suggest that the hon. Prime
Minister adjourn it and send him to Florida
for a week so he can calm down a bit. He
gets $30,000 a year to be courteous to us
here; we expect nothing less than that.
He appeared to say, if I followed his
tantrum correctly, that his plan was designed
to capture only the lower-income groups,
those who could not afford to belong to the—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, will the
hon. member permit me to correct that?
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did not say it was
aimed to capture the lower-income groups. It
was aimed to fill the need existing largely in
three categories-age, state of health and
financial status.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. I accept that correction.
In other words, to capture those who found
it difficult to get coverage through the classi-
cal means of obtaining coverage, that is, with
the private carriers. I would ask him rhetori-
cally—but he may not be pleased to answer—
if the hon. Minister does not envisage that
perhaps this plan being set up by the govern-
ment of this province and publicly operated
will, in some respects, be superior to that
which is offered by private carriers? For
example, unless I am badly misinformed, I am
under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that not
many of the private plans have eliminated
the waiting period for pregnancy in the way
this one has. Normally, in the private plans
there is a waiting period. Husbands of preg-
nant women cannot go down and enroll in a
contract, or get a contract from a private
carrier. Possibly it will be the policy of the
government to improve their plan as time
goes on, and accordingly the government plan
will, perhaps, in several different facets, be-
come more attractive than the plans offered
by private carriers. If that be so, it would
seem logical to me to expect that groups of
individuals, maybe some 40,000 strong, will
suddenly approach the Provincial Treasurer
some day and will say: "We no longer want
to be covered by London Life, we would
prefer to be enrolled in the government plan."
Perhaps, for all we know, the hon. Prime
Minister himself will join the government
plan. Perhaps the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition-
Mr. Thompson: I was thinking about it.
Mr. Sopha: Coming from a person who
must confess to some measure of stupidity, as
a suggestion, if the day comes that the 40,000
civil servants, through their association, want
to enroll in this plan, does the hon. Minister
of Health really anticipate that the Provin-
cial Treasurer would have to say to those
people— I want to stress this point, because
I think it has a good deal of validity—
"Each of you enrol individually?" Would it
not be the better part of good sense and of
common sense, of which commodity I am led
to believe the hon. Minister of Health has a
fair measure, that this statute now be
amended to say that groups may enrol whole-
sale in it?
Can we, as legislators, say, having set up a
government plan as we are doing now, that
we want our plan to be inferior in standards
or in characteristics than anything offered by
any other carrier in the country? We at least
want it to be equal, if not superior. If we
agree on that principle, it seems a logical
extension that from an actuarial point of
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
477
view, which the hon. Minister himself stressed,
we want groups of people that contain a
large proportion of the healthy as well as
the ill. He says the plan is designed to capture
those people and cover those people through
age, infirmity and income— his own words—
who are hot able to get coverage elsewhere.
For the good of the public purse, which
suffers much these days— there was a terrible
assault on it last week— we would want to
have groups enrol in the plan which would
make it all the more actuarially sound.
I hope those reasons, as well as the
reasons offered by our friends to the left,
commend themselves to all hon. members of
the House; so that they will vote to adopt
this amendment to section one.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
following up what the hon. member for
Sudbury has just said, there are a great many
local unions, small local unions, that have just
negotiated first contracts. These contracts have
a minimum amount of security within them.
They have shared with the employer in
cost, and they now have certain contracts
with private insurance companies which say
that they are entitled to certain benefits.
Those benefits, at the beginning, are often
very small, with perhaps large deductibles,
covering only medical care and similar kind
of protection.
Now these groups are shut out effectively
from this legislation. It may well be that
they might cancel the contract and come in
as individuals, but then they would forfeit
the amount the employer pays, and the
employer would have something to say be-
cause this has been bargained to cover a
certain length of time.
It is incredible that we should say to all
these people, who have benefits far, far less
than those given under the public plan, that
they are barred from the public plan for
the duration of the contract.
Even if, when next bargaining time comes
around, these people want to get into the
public plan, they will still want to bargain
with the employer that he pays 50 per cent
and they pay 50 per cent to get into the
public plan. At this point they are com-
pletely shut out. They cannot bargain to
come into the public plan and get the cover-
age needed at a low cost.
As has been said time after time in this
House, there is no question that the broader
the base the cheaper the contract. The
bigger the group, the lower the premium,
and the more of these smaller groups that
come into the large group— and thereby
make an overall larger number of people
participating— the lower the premium must
become. So it behooves this House to pass
this amendment so that the groups who are
outside the plan can come in, so that
premium levels can come down.
When I think in terms of the 40,000-
45,000 public servants employed by the
government and the contract that they have
entered into over this past year, we have a
responsibility to them to give to them insur-
ance at the lowest possible cost. Surely we
are not going to say to our own civil servants,
we are excluding you from our plan. We
are continuing your contract with the
London Life at a higher rate than you could
get in the public plan.
With another 50,000 people and other
similar groups within the plan, from muni-
cipal and other levels, there is no question
that the rates could come down. The group
would be larger, the premium would be
lower.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us
this afternoon should face this fact, and that
as responsible legislators in this province,
we owe an obligation, not only to our own
civil servants, but to these hundreds of
groups who are now participating in group
plans, the benefits of which are much lower
than the benefits of the public plan.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, the members in the Opposi-
tion dealing with this amendment are trying
to convince the government that the amend-
ment should be accepted, which would pro-
vide measures to bring in groups under the
Ontario plan and also to provide consolida-
tion of administration. Certainly there have
been many reasons given, and I am sure
that before the vote is taken, there will be
many more to justify the arguments.
I feel that the hon. Minister himself has
given a very good reason why the govern-
ment should take into the plan the groups in
the province of Ontario. When he makes a
statement that the private plans are not
making money and the companies would like
to get out, it indicates to us that if they are
allowed to continue covering people with
insurance in the province, they are not going
to give them the kind of attention they de-
serve.
The hon. member for High Park (Mr.
Cowling) and the hon. member for Waterloo
North (Mr. Butler), do not, I feel, agree with
the statement the hon. Minister made, but
I would take it as having some validity, and
if this is the case, certainly it is a good
478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reason why we should allow the groups to
come under the Ontario plan. I tried to
point out briefly during the debate on the
principle of the bill, that the private insur-
ance plans do not have the kind of standard
and quality supervision that they should
have. The individual has very little recourse
in having complaints looked after unless he
is in a group plan that is governed by a very
stable organization, such as a trade union
where they have full-time officers. There is
no place where he can register a complaint
through lack of service, or he has problems
finding and getting service at the time he
might need it. I get some examples of this
at different times.
We found that in our early plans some
years ago— I was president of the organiza-
tion at the time and had the members call-
ing me to tell me about some of the things
that they felt were not right in regard to
their coverage— when we paid only for the
second and the third doctor's calls, the
doctor sometimes felt that the patient might
be a little hard up and he would register
the first call as the second or third call,
thereby in a sense abusing the plan. We
had a very serious abuse of a hospital insur-
ance plan under a private company some
years ago, and only because of the drive
of the executive of the local union were we
able to get some recourse. That was the
time we had hospital coverage under private
plans, whereby the coverage was to provide
$3 a day for—
Mr. Chairman: Stay with this amend-
ment.
Mr. Gisborn: Just an example of the need
to bring the groups under the plan, Mr.
Chairman. We found that the coverage they
had provided for $3 a day in-hospital,
doctors' calls in hospital, based on an experi-
ence of the past, at that time was two-and-
a-half calls per week. We found that within
the first year it had advanced to four calls,
and within a two-year period the doctors
were billing us a straight $21 a week for
in-hospital calls. Of course, the company
agreed-
Mr. Chairman: I do not know if the mem-
ber realizes it, but he is wandering away
from the amendment here.
Mr. Gisborn: I will be brief on this point,
Mr. Chairman. Of course, the Steel Com-
pany of Canada agreed there was abuse and
jointly we approached the Hamilton
academy of medicine and we were able to
get the situation cleared up. We dropped
back to something that was reasonable in
the next couple of years.
Another very important reason why I feel
we should have the groups under the Ontario
government plan, is to have some continuing
research and statistical control on the trends
of the physical condition of the people
covered. As I recall, the Hall commission
spent a whole chapter in volume two of the
report dealing with the important need for
research and continuing statistical control of
the health trends of the people. It was
pointed out in that chapter that they had
never had any real research method to com-
pile data that would give them the con-
tinuing knowledge of just what the trend in
health needs were for the people of the
nation. They quoted from reports from the
United States where they found the same
problem.
I would say that under a government-
operated plan, if everybody was in it, the
government could keep its pulse on the trend
of the health of people by their statistical
compilation of the records of the people.
So I bring to the attention of the hon.
Minister these areas where I feel the groups
should be covered under the Ontario plan.
It would be better for the people in the
groups, it would be better for the other
people of the province, and it would be con-
ducive to a good plan and place the plan in
a position whereby we could go on into the
other stages of comprehensive coverage as
has been talked about in the House.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the hon. Minister a direct question.
Will he consider, and if not will he give
his reasons for not doing so, the proposal put
forward in this House by one of his own
supporters, the hon member for Scarborough
North that, if nothing else, this legisla-
tion should be broadened so that at the
first appropriate opportunity the civil servants
can be covered by it as a group? In other
words, their present group plan with London
Life would be revised to eliminate medical
benefits and those people would be provided
for within the framework of this legislation.
I would like to know if the hon. Minister is
prepared to consider that, and if not, why
not?
Before he answers the question, there is
one matter that I think he should bear in
mind in answering it. Under the lousy wages
that the government pays, especially to its
lower-rated employees, there is a substantial
number of employees of this government,
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
479
perhaps as many as 15 or 20 per cent, who
pay no income tax. A great many of them
are employed right in the hon. Minister's
own department. In fact I would say the
bulk of them are in his department in the
various institutions throughout the province.
If these people worked for anybody but
the government they could qualify under the
legislation now before us for 100 per cent
subsidy of their medical services insurance.
It is not in the bill, but as I understand the
hon. Minister's explanation of what will be
provided in the regulations, any person who
has no taxable income will be eligible to have
the entire premium paid for by the govern-
ment.
We are in favour of that, we are not argu-
ing about it, but the situation that now exists
is that if people employed by the government
have no taxable income they will not get that
benefit. Under the plan with London Life
they have to contribute. I am not quite sure
what the proportion is but I think it is more
than 50 per cent, certainly not less than 50
per cent. Therefore, persons employed by the
government will be discriminated against.
They will not get a subsidy out of public
funds that is available to other people.
If the hon. Minister is not prepared to go
along with the proposal of the hon. member
for Scarborough North, would he at least
give us, if he can, a justification of that dis-
crimination against government employees,
and indeed, against employees of his own
•department?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has already
indicated that he is not ready to support the
amendment at this time.
Mr. Bryden: Surely he can answer ques-
tions, Mr. Chairman. I thought that was the
purpose of committee proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not remember the exact words the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough North used, but I would
point out, sir, as the hon. Prime Minister
made very clear on Friday, that there are
discussions going on between the two levels
of government— the federal government and
our own. Proposals have been made in this
matter by the federal government, and they
are actively under consideration and discus-
sion at the present time. I think it would be
most unwise for us to disturb a programme
that is already in operation and operating
well for groups.
The hon. member for York South spoke
about the small benefits. We have looked
very well into this and when we talk about
82 per cent of our people covered we are
talking about 82 per cent of our people who
are covered by a comprehensive type of pro-
gramme in this province. There may well
be small groups that are not covered as ade-
quately, but by and large labour-management
groups are well covered. Thanks to the good
bargaining for which they deserve all kinds
of credit, they have seen to it that this is so.
At the present time, sir, I can only say
that the proposal that the hon. member for
Scarborough North did make, relative to the
civil service group, will be considered in
due course. But there are so many other
things, all part of the whole mosaic, that
need to be considered as part of the piece
and cannot be taken in isolation, again as the
hon. Prime Minister so well pointed out last
Friday.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister then attempt an answer to the
second part of my question? How does he
justify the discrimination that is going to
exist against his own employees, or some of
them, in that they will not get subsidies even
though they would qualify under the terms
of the legislation if they were not part of a
group? How can he justify that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I think
it is perfectly patent that the government is
already subsidizing the civil service pro-
gramme.
Mr. Bryden: But the government's plan
provides for contributions by the individual
employees. Under this bill, the employee who
has no taxable income makes no contribution
at all; the government subsidizes him 100
per cent. Surely that is discriminatory. An
employee in the civil service in that category
pays roughly half, an employee not in the
civil service pays nothing. I take it he can-
not justify that so he is not trying.
Mr. Thompson: I would just like to get it
very clear: Is the hon. Minister saying that
he is making it compulsory; that it is com-
pulsory that no groups can belong to his
government plan?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I said
nothing of the sort. I said they would not be
included at this present time. I never men-
tioned the word "compulsory."
Mr. Thompson: Well, can they join? Can
they join? Can they join, then, answer that?
The hon. Minister plays around with seman-
tics. I said that he said it was compulsory
that they cannot join.
480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister has deigned to speak in this debate
really for the first time. He gave us some
general comments on second reading, then it
is true the hon. Prime Minister followed
with some meat— the first meat other than
some political platitudes we have gotten
from the hon. Minister— but we are only now
getting back to basic features. The hon.
Minister is contradicting himself repeatedly,
either in terms of what he is saying within the
same five-minute period or in terms of what
he has said earlier. For example, he now
objects to the use of the term "compulsory."
This may be fine if he wants to object but
the fact of the matter is that groups are com-
pulsorily excluded. They cannot—
An hon. member: Nonsense!
Mr. MacDonald: Well, how do they get in
then?
An hon. member: They are simply not
included.
Mr. MacDonald: They are simply not in-
cluded, and if they seek to get in they dis-
cover that they are compelled to stay out.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, they are pro-
hibited to come in and prohibition is com-
pulsory. The hon. Minister charges us with
engaging in semantics, but it is he who is
guilty of tli at. But let me go a step further
here, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. Minister, in the course of his
comments, tried to defend the uneconomic
unit that is being built in defiance of in-
surance principles. He says, "You are all
wrong over there. You are stupid and you
are wrong. For example, 40 per cent of the
people come in under our plan—"
That is very interesting, Mr. Chairman.
For the first time the hon. Minister has con-
ceded that 60 per cent are out. They are
under the group coverage. He has been giving
us these figures of 82 and 85 per cent
covered, and a lot or others on the govern-
ment side have been repeating them. But
now he says there is a group of 40 per cent
that is broad enough for "group" coverage,
but he hastens to add, however, that it in-
cludes the aged, the infirm and the low in-
come groups. Mr. Chairman, the aged, the
infirm and the low income groups are groups
for which there is any amount of statistical
evidence and research to prove that these are
the high risks, and the government has all
those high risks.
The hon. Minister has now conceded that
he has got them in his 40 per cent. Indeed,
it will not be 40 per cent; it is about 25 or
26 per cent at the most— which leaves another
13 per cent of individuals who are going to
be out on a limb and who, at $150, will not
be able to buy it from a private insurance
company. They will be the approximately 15
per cent that will emerge in Ontario like the
15 per cent that emerged in Alberta as
people who will not be covered, so that the
whole objective of the plan will not be
achieved.
Another point: The hon. Minister gets up
and tells us to be knowledgeable and to know
what we are talking about. Yet, in the course
of his comment in answering the hon. member
for Woodbine he said the government would
be considering this in conjunction with the
federal plan. The interesting thing, Mr.
Chairman, is that in the early stages of the
presentation of this bill to the House, the
hon. Minister went through the most dis-
ingenuous procedures to suggest that he knew
nothing except what was in the federal plan.
When the press went to him, after he in-
troduced this bill in the House-
Mr. Chairman: I do not want to interfere
or interrupt the member, but I wish that he
would stay with the amendment, if he will.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Minister
digresses in dealing with what we have pre-
sented in dealing with the amendment, it is
pretty difficult to cope with his information
and misstatements of fact without digressing
along with them. I know that I am in bad
company when I digress with him, but I will
not go too far.
I just want to draw attention to the fact
that the hon. Minister stated, for example,
that when he was drawing this up he gave no
consideration to its integration with the
federal plan. Imagine a Scotsman, a Scots
Minister, not considering something that in-
volved $110 million. That was the furthest
thing from his mind, he said. How stupid
does he think we are? Well, we are not so
stupid as to believe that kind of argument—
An hon. member: Is that parliamentary
language?
Mr. MacDonald: I am using the hon. Min-
ister's own phrase; he described us as stupid;
he set the tone of the debate. He argues, for
example, when he was asked by the news-
paper boys— and I watched it on TV after
he had introduced the bill— what effect this
was going to have on the insurance com-
panies. "Oh, I never thought of it," said he.
"Never thought of it; it had never crossed
my mind. I give no consideration at all to the
insurance companies."
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
481
How stupid does the hon. Minister think
we are that we are going to accept that kind
of proposition when the bill— as we shall show
about a week from now when we have gone
through it section by section— in every section
has been designed to meet the interests of the
insurance companies? We will show the hon.
Minister, if he does not know, but he knows
that he has been in consultation with the
insurance companies or other people.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is an absolute
misstatement of fact. I have not— and I say
unequivocally in this House before you— that
I have not consulted the insurance agencies
or the insurance companies concerning these
amendments.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister on one
occasion said that he was not going to with-
draw—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: If this is the kind of
debate we are going to have, this is going
to be a long, interesting week. The hon.
Minister got up at the beginning and told
us we are stupid, and now the back benches
start yelling "withdraw." If this is the kind
of debate you want, just proceed with it and
you will get the kind of debate such as this
House has never seen, because this is not
going to be rammed through without the
most detailed kind of consideration.
The hon. Minister has told the city he has
literature prepared that is going to be dis-
tributed on February about a bill this House—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Sir, this is a misstate-
ment of fact. I did not say that I had liter-
ature prepared; I said that literature would
be prepared and ready to go out when this
bill received passage in this House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the speaker
is misinforming the House; the hon. Minister
is misinforming the House. I can get him a
clipping from the Toronto Telegram in which
he told the Toronto-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not know what
the Toronto Telegram says, but I am stating
unequivocally before this House what I
stated-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister at this
point may have changed his mind but he
has already stated that it was going to be
ready for February 15, and as a matter of
of fact, Mr. Chairman, if it is not ready, he
is not going to meet his deadline for the
enrolment period on March 1.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the
member for York South to accept the Min-
ister's statement in this House and to use
it as authority, and not to recognize some-
thing that he reads in the press.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps we will be able
to cope with that kind of situation in rather
convincing ways before this debate is over.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Has the hon. member recognized
the hon. Minister's statement yet?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I recognize it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: When did you
recognize it?
Mr. MacDonald: I will recognize it now,
if it satisfies another Minister who wants to
get into the fight. And before the debate is
over, I will show how, on occasions, the truth
is played with in dealing with this whole
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman, I state that the hon.
member, because of his attitude, has
affronted every hon. member of this House.
The hon. Minister stood up in his place and
said that the facts were misstated.
Mr. Bryden: That is no point of order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is a point of
order. It affects every hon. member. It is
a point of privilege, then, if I may say so,
Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: You have no point at all.
Sit down.
Mr. MacDonald: Then I get up on a point
of privilege, I am described by the hon.
Minister as stupid— stupid on this side of
the House— so maybe the hon. Minister
should just calm down and take a look at
the inadequacies and the attitudes of his
own Cabinet members. He should set the
tone of the debate and if this is the kind of
debate he wants, he will get it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Is that a threat?
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, it is a threat. We
have had threats from your side that you are
going to ram it through.
An hon. member: Ah, go on!
482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Sure, you are going to
ram it through. The fact is that you have
a March 1 deadline which you cannot meet
unless you get literature out across the prov-
ince. At least two weeks ago, inaccurately
or otherwise, the hon. Minister was reported
as saying that it must be ready for February
15.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the
member for York South to speak to the
amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: All right, Mr. Chairman.
I shall be glad to speak to the amendment.
There is one other aspect that the hon.
Minister dealt with and that is that the
private companies are losing money, said
he. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman
—and this is proof of the fact that we have
to build a viable, economic unit on the gov-
ernment side so that it can be efficient—
that the private insurance companies have
been abusing this field for years. They use
it as a loss leader. When they start to negoti-
ate with the group, they will quote a lower
price for the medical coverage so that they
may be very close to the margin.
I seriously doubt that they are losing
money, though I will concede that on some
occasions they will not be making a great
deal of money on the medical coverage
itself, but they do this as a loss leader to
get this group in. Then, when they have
5,000 or 10,000 of them, they will sell them
insurance— life insurance and other things
from which they reap their profits.
The interesting thing is that this govern-
ment was guilty itself in its negotiations
with the civil service association— which was
not particularly interested in getting life in-
surance—of forcing it into a package deal
this past year so that PSI could not meet
the package. PSI could not give life insur-
ance and therefore the whole deal went
over to a syndicate headed by the London
Life, which by mere chance happens to
come from the city of London.
An lion, member: Nonsense! What tripe is
that?
Mr. MacDonald: There is no "tripe" in
that, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact,
even before the arbitration board had de-
cided on it, the civil servants had reported
here at Queen's Park that the London Life
was down negotiating with representatives
of the government on it.
An hon. member: Speak to the amend-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: All right. Mr. Chairman,
I was speaking to the amendment and I was
underlining the fact that the insurance com-
panies are misleading the public when they
say that they are not making money. They
are using it as a loss leader and they are
making it up on other elements in the pack-
age deal. The sooner we get out of this
kind of coverage and the sooner this govern-
ment will accept a voluntary scheme per-
mitting everybody— individuals or groups—
to come into it, the sooner the government
will be living up to its own principles and
be able to establish a medical coverage that
will have some validity, instead of the phony
and the fraud that we have at the moment.
Mr. Chairman: Is the House ready for the
question?
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): I would like
to ask the hon. Minister a question.
Inasmuch as groups will not be covered,
may I ask him about groups that are now
covered by the various co-ops in the prov-
ince of Ontario? In order to qualify you
must belong to a church group or some group
such as that. Will people have to withdraw
from these groups and apply individually to
come under the government plan?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If they come under the
government plan, Mr. Chairman, they will
apply individually.
Mr. Chairman: Question?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, one of the
other arguments in favour of adopting the
amendment proposed by the hon. leader of
the Opposition is that, as we will all recall,
one of the few benefits of last year's bill,
the present Act, was that the standard con-
tract, which was then to be made available
not only by the government but also by the
private carriers, was to be non-cancellable.
It seems to me that now the amendment
which the government has proposed to this
section is going to provide that private
carriers need not issue non-cancellable con-
tracts, there is very good reason to think a
large number of groups might consider that
advantage was so great that they should be
allowed to come into the government scheme
to get the benefit of non-cancellation.
Even under the government scheme with
the London Life, as we attempted to point
out, there is no assurance that a retired or
retiring public servant will in fact be able to
continue his medical coverage with the Lon-
don Life. He goes through certain pro-
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
483
cedures upon retirement, and if he makes
an application to the London Life and agrees
to pay the premiums then in force, he may
be accepted for a continuation of that cov-
erage.
But at the present time, sir, there is no
assurance in the booklet that has been put
out by the government that the London Life
must, in fact, continue to insure him. I
would think it would be very important to
make certain that the government employees,
if no one else, should be protected by having
their medical coverage non-cancellable; I
think this is a very substantial argument in
favour of the proposed amendment to allow
groups to come into the government scheme
if they choose to do so.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed, will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment, will
please rise.
All those opposed, will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 26, the "nays" 55.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and the section carried.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, section 2, the
amended bill, suggests that clause (b) be
struck out. As I refer to the original Act,
section 2 says this:
The Minister is responsible for the ad-
ministration of this Act. The Minister may
(a) designate open enrolment periods,
(b) exempt licensed carriers from the
requirements providing standard medical
service insurance contracts, and
(c) approve the general form and con-
tent of standard contracts.
Mr. Chairman, section (a) which it is sug-
gested stays in, designates open enrolment
periods. I would like to spend a moment on
this.
Mr. Chairman: I think the open enrolment
is in another section, in which we can dis-
cuss it.
Mr. Young: No, it is right here. I read
the original Act and it is in the original, but—
Mr. Chairman: It is not in the amendment
before us and I will have to rule it out of
order.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, it is in sub-
section 2 which is being amended; we are
going to propose that the amendment be
somewhat broader than is now proposed by
the government. That surely is in order?
We are going to suggest that more be struck
out of subsection 2 than has been proposed.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I might point
out that the hon. Minister, in his announce-
ment, said that individuals receiving subsidies
under the various welfare Acts are to be
enrolled automatically.
Mr. Chairman: What I would like to do
is check with clause (a) first to see if it is
being amplified or not. Wait just one moment
if you will, please.
Mr. Young: Although I do not want to
move it at the moment, I can tell you what
my amendment is— that section 2 of Bill No.
6 be amended by striking out all the words
after the words "amended by" in the second
line, and substituting by striking out clauses
(a) and (b). In other words, we want to ex-
tend the amendment, the striking out of
clause (a), so this brings it well within the
scope of the debate.
Mr. Chairman: Carry on.
Mr. Young: The hon. Minister has said that
the various people under the welfare Acts
will be enrolled immediately, but the open
enrolment period for all others will be March
1 to May 1, 1966. That is this year. I am
not sure what plans the hon. Minister may
have for open enrolment periods later on, or
what the dates might be, but certainly in the
original Act the open enrolment was thor-
oughly discussed. At that time we were told
there would be certain periods within which
people could enrol in the Act.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this does
a grave injustice to the people who want to
enrol. There are many people who will not
be able to enrol at this specific time because
they may not qualify. There may be, for
example, people who have certain contracts
with private insurance companies as individual
contracts. Those may not end until later this
year. Therefore, they are faced with the prob-
lem of enrolling now and perhaps paying the
double subsidy over the period of time, or if
they wait until they are eligible they have
to wait for the enrolment period when it
next comes up. This seems to be completely
484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
unjust for the people concerned. There are
also cases where contracts may terminate in
groups and those individuals may want to
enrol as individual members in the plan. Be-
cause the termination date of that contract
may not coincide with the enrolment date,
there will be real hardship worked on the
people concerned.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to us that the
sensible thing, if we are going to stick, and
evidently we have just decided that to in-
dividual participation there should be pro-
vision for every individual to enrol at any
time during the year. When his need is there
he should enrol; there should not be this
enrolment period which will only work hard-
ship on our people. It will mean that when
contracts end there will be either the double
premium to pay or a long waiting period
when no protection is afforded. It seems to
us common sense that enrolment should take
place at the time when the person becomes
eligible for enrolment.
Mr. Chairman, I would move, seconded by
Mr. Renwick, that section 2 of Bill No. 6 be
amended by striking out all the words after
the words "amended by" in the second line,
substituting "by striking out clauses (a) and
(b)."
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview
has moved an amendment to section 2, that
section 2 of Bill No. 6 be amended by strik-
ing out all the words "amended by" in the
second line, and substituting "by striking out
clauses (a) and (b)."
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, we on this
side of the House support this amendment.
On a later section we had a very similar
amendment, but as you have ruled to debate
this matter here we are most happy to speak
in support of doing away with this waiting
period for enrolment.
As the hon. member for Yorkview has
stated, there are many instances and times
where an individual might, for example, be-
long to a group plan and finds, as a result
of unemployment, that he is no longer with a
particular company and therefore he is out
of a group plan. It means he must wait until
it is time to be enrolled. There are many cases
where a family has been left by the father.
The mother, in order to protect her children
and herself, and in order to get medical in-
surance, must wait until the proper time to
enrol.
This particular section, as the government
wants it passed, is one more roadblock on the
way to having a universal health insurance
scheme for the province of Ontario. For that
principle alone, we are opposed to this
section.
This section also, in the matter of admin-
istration, I believe, adds to the bookkeeping
and head-office expense. If a person had the
right to enrol at any time, there would not
be the necessity of the campaigns like
some of the private firms, in order that people
should enrol within a certain time.
So with these few remarks in mind, Mr.
Chairman, I wish to commend to this House
the support of this amendment, as it is
something that will further the administrative
value of this bill and will further the health
of the people of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
amendment-
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, before you put
the vote on this amendment, there are one
or two further things to be said on it. We
are not only confronted with the question
of open enrolment periods. We come to what
is really a basic defect in the government's
total approach— the so-called voluntary ap-
proach always carries with it the problem of
adverse selection. The government, having
opened itself up to adverse selection, is try-
ing to protect itself against it. I would suggest
to the hon. Minister, however, that he simply
carry that risk. He has always stated that
the purpose of his legislation essentially is
to provide a haven for the bad risks, the
older people, the people in a poor state of
health and those of low financial status. That
is his essential purpose.
So now why should he start to discrimin-
ate within those groups? If he is taking the
bad risks off the hands of the insurance com-
panies, which is true, then let him take them,
and let him not worry too much about adverse
selection. He will get a certain amount. No
doubt there will be someone who will not
apply to come under the plan until they
already are sick or until they know they are
going to have to have an operation. Those
persons are going to have to be provided for
some way or other in any case.
So if the hon. Minister has a plan that is
deliberately designed in the main instance to
take the bad risks, I do not think he should
worry too much about open enrolment
periods. There are bound to be nothing but
headaches and heartaches over the admin-
istration of any open enrolment period.
The hon. Minister, as far as I can recall,
has never stated how often he intends to
open the enrolment. He has stated that there
is going to be an enrolment period— I think
from March 1 to May 1, two months before
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
485
the legislation even comes into effect. And I
got the impression— if I am wrong perhaps he
will correct me— that there will be open enrol-
ment periods perhaps once a year after that.
Maybe he has in mind twice a year, I do not
know, but if he does not have them very
frequently, to the point where they really
become meaningless, he is going to create a
lot of hardship and injustice.
Take a person who is under, not a group
plan, but just under an individual contract
with a private company and who prefers the
rates offered by The Department of Health
under this legislation. Let us say he is now
paying to Medicall, let us say, $215 a year
or whatever the rate is and he would like
to switch over to the government plan where
according to the information we now have,
he will have to pay only $150. How is he
going to do this if the expiration of his
contract does not mesh with the open enrol-
ment period? Either he will have to carry
double coverage for a period or else he will
have to go through a certain period when he
has no coverage.
Perhaps the hon. Minister wants it that
way. Maybe he does not want people to be
able to escape from Medicall; maybe he
wants to keep them there. Maybe he is in-
terested only in taking the people that Medi-
call will not have.
But I say to him that if he is willing to
provide insurance at $150 a year-which
heaven knows is an extremely high rate even
at that, even though it may be a lot lower
than the private insurance companies are
offering— if he is willing to do that, then he
should be willing to do it with anybody and
he should not have obstacles that make it
difficult if not impossible for people to
switch over from one to the other.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I think I can
sum up the position we take here without
an excess of verbiage. Nobody on this side
of the House, as I comprehend it, is suggest-
ing that by the repeal of this sub-paragraph
we are anticipating that the individual breaks
his leg today and goes and enrols in the
government plan tomorrow. We recognize
that there must be some form of a waiting
period until the contract becomes effective,
and that will become clearer in respect of
one of the amendments we are proferring
in relation to a later section.
But it strikes me that here we see one of
the dichotomies in the position of the gov-
ernment and the explanations made by the
hon. Minister today. If we accept him at
his own word when he says that this plan
is designed to bring medical care to the
aged, the infirm and the people of low in-
come groups, if that is the purpose of it—
and I hope it is the purpose— we whole-
heartedly support such an object. Then
what is the need for open enrolment periods
at all?
The enrolment period is an insurance de-
vice, as I comprehend it, and I do not pre-
tend to be an expert in insurance matters.
But as I understand it, the enrolment period
is a device whereby they bring in a hard
group of good risks and bad risks which
have the effect of equalizing out. That is
why they do it, and that is why the PSI
and other plans open their doors for a
specified period during the year.
But in the words of the hon. Minister and
in his descriptions of the purposes of what
we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, it is
totally unnecessary that we have in mind the
actuarial principles of the mixing of good
and bad risks.
Now on the other hand, the hon. Minister
says— he says very intemperately, very deter-
minated/ and with a goodly amount of
phlegm— the groups are not permitted to
enrol in this plan.
Well, what, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is
the open enrolment period but the recog-
nition of the enrolment of a group? All those
people who enrol while the period is open
then comprise a group. They are a group
invited into the plan. They share in common
the fact that between two fixed dates they
enrolled in the plan. In that sense they are
a group. They share that characteristic in
common.
The hon. Minister shakes his head. I do
not know why he. should.
However, let us at least get together. Let
us come to a common purpose. We are
easy to get along with. If the underlying
principle of this legislation is, in the words
of the government, to bring medical care to
those in the province who most need it,
those unable to get it, if that is the goal we
all seek it together and in order to achieve
that goal we want these people in the plan
as quickly as possible, as quickly as they
want to come if they are able to put down
their money and say: "Give me a standard
medical care contract."
If they are not able to put down hard
cash— then as soon as they come and say:
"We qualify under the regulations relating
to those groups who are entitled to subsidy
in whole or in part," get them in as quickly
as possible.
486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. member for Woodbine says that
there is going to be an open group enrolment
period from March 1 till May 1. I thought
it was July 1 that the first enrolment period
was going to be open.
We have never been told when the next
one is going to open. We have never been
told how many enrolment periods there are
going to be a year.
Mr. MacDonald: When? How
many:
Mr. Sopha: Yes, how many and when they
are going to be. If one closes on May 1, or
July I, when is the next one going to open?
This plan, as it stands, is going to cover sev-
eral hundred thousand people. The number
on welfare, those that qualify from the elee-
mosynary point of view make up something
in the neighbourhood of 350,000.
Now nobody in his right mind is going to
get up and say on the floor of this House
that you are going to catch all them in the
first enrolment period. Is it not the better
part of good sense to take out this sub-
paragraph and say this plan is going to open
on such a day for enrolment and it is going
to remain open until all those qualified and
entitled to avail themselves of the benefit of
government-operated medical care insurance
within its terms and as prescribed by the
regulation, are enrolled?
Then, after you have them all in— and I do
not know how long that will take, it may take
the better part of a year, it might take two
years to get them all in— then when you are
satisfied, then perhaps it could be approached
on actuarial principles in line with what ap-
pears to be the intention of the government
here. But my plea is simply this: Let us not
waffle; let us not equivocate by shifting back
and forth between the insurance principle,
and the principle of bringing care to the
people who need it. I am one of those who
suspect that some advantages of the govern-
ment plan are so great, for example, the elim-
ination of the waiting period for expectant
mothers.
I am one of those who believes this may be
a very attractive thing to younger people-
newly married people-so that they would
want to be part of the government plan-
that is the people not using the pill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Are there some of
those?
Mr. Sopha: So I am told. Not in my com-
munity. But it will be so attractive that large
numbers-
Well, I do not need to reiterate it, but
these, I say to the hon. Minister through
you, sir, are the reasons that impel us to
support this amendment proffered by my
hon. friend from Yorkview.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to add a comment on this. It seems to me
that the government has in fact done away
with a substantial area of the enrolment
period by providing, if I understood the hon.
Minister correctly when he introduced the
bill, that those persons in the province who
from time to time, not just at the inception
of the plan, will be entitled to assistance
under various welfare Acts, will automatically
be enrolled as members, under whieh they
will be entitled to received a standard
contract.
It would seem to me that the hon. Minister,
for an administrative reason, is not going to
be flooded by a large enough number of
people that would require him to impose an
enrolment period. We were very puzzled
when we noticed this was retained in the bill,
not only for the various reasons that have
been given, but particularly for the reason
which the hon. member for Sudbury gave.
That is, that to the extent that you eliminate
the group principle from the government
part of the plan, then the need for the open
enrolment period should disappear.
We would urgently request the hon. Min-
ister not to feel that this is something on
which he needs to dig in his heels. I think
it is very simple— he should permit anyone
who wishes and is able to apply for this kind
of coverage to apply today and be covered
immediately. It seems to us that it is not a
very difficult amendment for him to agree to
and we earnestly suggest that he consent to
this amendment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister is not digging his heels in on this at
all. We have applied exactly the same prin-
ciple to this as we did to the Ontario hos-
pital services insurance plan. Hon. members
who were in the House in 1958 will recall
that there was one open enrolment period.
The open enrolment period provides an
incentive. It provides immediate coverage at
a date. It is quite true that July 1 is the day
on which benefits come in, but that is two-
months after the close of the open enrolment
period, to allow the administration to get
everything in order, so that the wheels will
go smoothly when July 1 comes along and
if anyone takes sick on that day he will get
immediate benefits.
But there will be continuing enrolment
periods. A person can enrol at any time, just
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
487
as he would under the hospital programme,
"but there is a three-month waiting period!
The open enrolment period eliminates the
three-month waiting period. It is an incen-
tive, and this is why we are doing this, to
encourage as many people as possible. We
are applying exactly the same principle as
PSI and all of the others who apply an open
enrolment period. It encourages a large
number of people.
The hon. members-rightly, I think-dis-
played some concern about the person who
has a contract, or whose contract comes to an
end for a variety of reasons, and is not in an
open enrolment period. He can continue his
coverage until an open enrolment period
comes along, or he can apply for coverage
while he is still covered under his existing
contract during his three-month waiting
period. There are all sorts of ways.
A person, for instance, who becomes 21
outside an open enrolment period is covered
immediately. A person who comes under the
operation of any of the social assistance Acts
automatically does becomes covered, no mat-
ter at what time he comes in. This obtains
now under the hospital insurance plan, be-
cause they are being maintained at public
expense anyway, and this is so.
But it is just this simple, Mr. Chairman,
that if we wipe out the waiting period
altogether, if we have an on-going open en-
rolment period so that one who joins comes
into benefits immediately, we have simply got
to put up the price. It is just that simple.
Because of the success that has attended
our efforts in the case of the hospital pro-
gramme, we believe this is a very sound
principle, and I would urge the hon. mem-
bers to recognize that we do need this for
a successful operation. It will not add, as
my hon. friend from Parkdale suggested, a
great deal to administration, nor is it a road-
block to any further development in this area
at all. All across Canada this three-month
waiting period now exists with respect to the
hospital care insurance programme and the
same principle is being applied to our pro-
gramme in medical services insurance here.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister at what frequency does he
expect the open enrolment period will be
made available?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would find it very
difficult to answer that question with any de-
gree of assurance. I find that my words
are being thrown back once in a while, de-
spite the fact that I confess to a certain
amount of ignorance, because this is a new
area for me, too, as it is a new area for many
of us.
I can only remind you that there was only
one open enrolment period in the hospital
programme. There was a time when we
spoke about periodic open enrolment periods
in that too, you know. We have never em-
ployed the device.
This will depend, I say to you very frankly,
on the response in the first instance, but I
would hope that open enrolment periods will
come along periodically. Indeed, at one time
it was urged upon me to write this either
into the legislation or the regulations. Of
course, we would defeat the whole purpose
of the open enrolment period if we did that.
I would like to feel that this is a valuable
instrument that can be used to bring more
people in as time and experience indicate.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to point out this one obvious fact, that this
is again one of the binds we get into when
we refuse to apply the principle universally.
If all our people were embraced in a plan of
this kind, if we had universality, we would
not then have to offer incentives and set
dates when people should come in. We could
systematically enrol our total population and
this kind of thing which is now being pro-
posed would not have to be undergone. I
think this again demonstrates the difficulty of
administering a plan which is not universal
and which is only partial and covers only a
very small proportion of our population.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I understand,
of course, that there is a three-month waiting
period in the case of the hospital insurance,
but you can enrol at any time, even though
you have to wait the three months. Why in
this case are there only certain enrolment
periods?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There are open enrol-
ment periods when there is no waiting period,
but you can enrol anytime. Then there is a
three-month waiting period if you enrol out-
side an open enrolment period.
Mr. Trotter: I want to make this clear.
Assuming that an individual is away from
Ontario and returns and the open enrolment
time is closed, how long does that person
have to wait? Three months, or until the
next enrolment period?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If that person regis-
ters or enrols on the day he returns to On-
tario, he would wait three months, unless it
happens to be an open enrolment period, at
488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which time he would wait only until the
first of the next month following.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want
to make a brief comment on that. The hon.
Minister, in effect, envisages one of two
ways. He said we might have only one open
enrolment period like we had for hospital
insurance; alternatively, he may make them
available more frequently to bring more
people in. If he does not make them avail-
able, that means they have to enrol three
months in advance and go through this three-
month waiting period. The net effect of this
is that the person is going to have double
coverage if he is seeking to transfer from
another group. He is going to have to pay
twice for that three-month period. Consider
the situation for one moment, and I will cite
a couple of cases. Here is a case of a
family whose child is in an educational sys-
tem, is covered, but who is going to work
as of a certain period— suppose we say at
the end of his academic year, in June. The
only way that person can avoid going through
an uncovered period from the end of June
on is to anticipate it by three months. They
pay their money for the three-month period
in which they are getting no coverage, and
they are already under the family coverage.
Or, alternatively, let us take a group. I got
a letter today from a school teacher who was
responsible, in one of the local school
teachers associations, for providing coverage
at the present time for the teachers within
that particular association. They have a
policy in connection with PSI. The query
was this: Can we forego this policy with
PSI, which costs more than the policy which
is now available from the government?
I had to say in a letter, which I have dic-
tated and which has not gone— I trust I can
correct it if any errors have crept into it
in light of the greater information we are
getting here— that the only way they could
enrol was to get out of PSI and join the
government plan as individuals. I think,
in light of what the hon. Minister said earlier,
that this is the case. But the only way they
can do that is to anticipate the conclusion of
their contract with PSI. If it comes, for ex-
ample, next November, they will have to
enrol with the government plan in August.
For September, October and November they
will be paying both PSI and you, although
they will not be getting any coverage from
you for the three-month period. So they will
have to make double payment for the three-
month period. As the hon. member for
Yorkview said, this is just one of the many
anomalies that come when you have this
piecemeal approach to providing coverage in-
stead of an overall comprehensive coverage.
Mr. Gisborn: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. Minister would tell us what the
prepayment period will be? In other words,
what is the advance payment period? Is it
going to be a one-, two- or three-month
period?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It will be payable
quarterly; three months.
Mr. Gisborn: But how far in advance will
it give coverage for? How far in advance of
coverage will that be?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It will always be paid
three months in advance.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, there are a
couple of matters I would like to raise in
regard to this discussion. First of all, I
wish the hon. Minister would cease making
reference to the hospital insurance plan,
which really is not comparable at all. When
the hospital insurance plan was initiated in
this province, it was compulsory for approxi-
mately 60 per cent of the people, for large
numbers of groups now excluded altogether
under this legislation. So it really is not
meaningful to talk about the hospital insur-
ance plan.
I would also point out to him that there
are provinces in Canada where there are no
open enrolment periods or waiting periods.
When the scheme is compulsory you have no
problem about waiting periods, nor of
adverse selection. Everybody is covered
anyway, and you thereby spread your risks.
That is one point.
The other matter I would like to raise is
in relation to the statement which I think
the hon. Minister made, if I heard him
properly, to the effect that it would defeat
the whole purpose of the open enrolment
period to designate in the legislation or in
regulations when the open enrolment periods
would be or, at any rate, how frequently
they would be, or how many times per year.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not follow his
reasoning on that. I wish he would elaborate
on that claim if I have interpreted correctly
what he said.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, it is
perfectly patent, I think, if we were to lay
down by legislation or regulation, that the
open enrolment periods would come at a
certain date each year. Then those who
wanted to delay until that time would delay
and we might very well be faced, as I stated,
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
489
with inordinately large claims. The simple
answer to this whole thing, I repeat, is if
we abolish the waiting period altogether
and allow people to come in at any time and
come immediately into benefits, we simply
would have to put up the price.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I do not think
the question has been answered at all. The
waiting period really is a distinct question;
it is not involved in this amendment. It will
come up later in the bill, as I see it. But
I do not see how the hon. Minister would
defeat any purpose at all by designating
when his open enrolment periods will be.
He has already designated in advance what
his first open enrolment period is going to
be. Has he prejudiced his plan by doing
that? The legislation is not even through,
but he said a couple of weeks ago that the
first open enrolment period would be from
March 1 to May 1 of this year. If he can
do it for that period, why can he not do it
for subsequent ones? Why can he not say
there will be four per year, or three per
year, or two per year or whatever it is, so
people will know?
Let him even specify the dates. Let him
say that every year between March 1 and
May 1 there will be an open enrolment
period, possibly one in the fall, too. It is
quite true that people who are sick will
probably wait for those open enrolment
periods and move in the minute one is called,
but they will do that anyway. If they are
sick and you call an open enrolment period
obviously they are going to move in at that
time. I would say that they should, too,
because they probably need help.
There will still be a certain amount of
adverse selection under any form of open
enrolment period. The hon. Minister no
doubt hopes that he will offset it by a
propaganda campaign that will also bring
in a lot of people who are not sick, but any
person who is sick, unless he is very foolish
indeed, will register as soon as the open
enrolment period comes along.
I am suggesting to the hon. Minister that
if he cannot accept our amendment— and I
get the impression from what he has said
that he is not going to accept it— at least he
should reconsider the proposition that appar-
ently he once had considered, that he should
designate preferably in the Act, but at least
in the regulations, a certain minimum
number of open enrolment periods. I would
have no objections if he wanted to declare
still further ones, but certainly he should
designate some periods when enrolment will
be open so that people can take such steps
as are necessary to transfer from other forms
of coverage if they wish to do so.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (Humber): Mr. Chairman,
may I ask, in the interest of a successful plan
—having had some experience in hospital in-
surance and referring to the statements of the
hon. member for Woodbine— is he suggesting,
Mr. Chairman, that people, indirectly with
the idea that there would be more open enrol-
ment, should not enrol until they are needing
to pay a medical bill or hospital bill? In
order to make any plan successful, whether
it is government or privately run, premiums
over a period of time make the equation
where the bills may be paid.
From what I understand from what the
hon. member is saying, he wants to have more
open periods. Even in the case of pregnancy
a woman will go six months without paying
her premiums and so forth, and then will
come another open period when she may get
in. I suggest to the hon. member for Wood-
bine that that is not economically feasible.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am now
confused by what the hon. Minister has said
and what the hon. member for Humber has
said. If you look at the Act, you will see
it is not correct that the standard contract
comes into effect by making an application
and waiting three months. There is nothing
to do with a three-month waiting period in
this Act.
The condition of getting coverage under a
standard contract is that you enrol during the
enrolment period if you pay the premium dur-
ing the enrolment period. If that is the prin-
ciple, this is the principle which by our
amendment can be instituted by providing
that there be an open enrolment period. If
there is a concurrence provision to the bill
—it has escaped me— which says that regard-
less of whether there is or is not an open
enrolment period, I may go and make applica-
tion to get a standard contract and then
wait, and then automatically three months
later I become an enrolled member regard-
less of whether it is an open enrolment period
or not, then those are two different factors.
As far as I can see, the second part of it
just does not apply and therefore it gives
very much point to our need to know how
many open enrolment periods the hon. Min-
ister anticipates having.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, again in
answer to the hon. member for Riverdale,
may I suggest that I think he has misunder-
stood my point. In Ontario hospital serv-
ices—
490
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: It is not relevant.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: I beg the hon. member's
pardon?
Mr. Bryden: We understood the point per-
fectly. It is not relevant.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: Well, it is relevant to
the fact that the hon. member is asking for
more open enrolment periods, which is not
feasible or economically possible. In effect,
the hon. member is saying open enrolment
periods must be extended.
Mr. Bryden: No, I say we should eliminate
them.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: Eliminate them entirely?
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member wants to know what I said, I
will tell him.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Bryden: I have been asking the hon.
Minister to indicate what he has in mind
with regard to open enrolment periods and he
says he does not know. This is one of the
difficulties which we have always been up
against when bills of this kind come before
us. We ask for highly relevant information
which is important to the people of the prov-
ince and the government has still not figured
out the answers.
It is going to be sending out propaganda
shortly and it does not quite know where it
stands. I have been pressing the hon. Min-
ister for information as to how many open
enrolment periods there would be, and I was
proposing to him that it should possible to
do as he apparently once thought of doing,
namely, set forth in the regulations certain
periods in the year, or one period at least,
when there will be an open enrolment period.
Now the hon. member for Humber, as I
understand it, suggested if that were done
there would be a certain amount of adverse
selection and that is true. But there is always
a certain amount of adverse selection under
open enrolment periods.
The people who happen to be sick during
the period of open enrolment will obviously
get in at that time. So I really do not think
that the example he cited greatly affects the
point I am trying to make. My basic point is
to support the amendment that has been pro-
posed, namely, to eliminate the open enrol-
ment period altogether and have what the
hon. Minister has aptly described as a con-
tinuous open enrolment period. If that should
fail then I think we should have some indica-
tion of how generous the government hopes
to be with respect to its open enrolment
periods.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, again, if
I may be permitted, I now understand the
idea of the hon. member for Woodbine that,
quoting his words: "There should be a con-
tinuous open enrolment period where there is
no waiting for benefits."
Now, is that the idea? If that is so, no
plan in the world, whether it is government-
run or privately run, would be feasible. You
just could not make it work.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I can tell of many plans
in the world that have no open enrolment
period. They are compulsory plans and,
therefore, they eliminate this problem of
adverse selection.
If the hon. member for Humber had been
here earlier when we were dealing with the
open enrolment period per se, he would have
heard our argument. We admitted that the
elimination of open enrolment periods would
permit a certain amount of adverse selection.
We further suggested, however, that that is a
penalty— if I can put it that way— that the
government should be prepared to accept for
its flat refusal to institute the only adequate
type of plan, and the only type which would
make them totally unnecessary. It should be
prepared to accept that penalty and to accept
a certain degree of adverse selection.
We do not think that people should be
penalized, for example, by having to pay
double premiums for three months or what-
ever the period may be in order to switch
from one plan to another. We think they
should be able to make a direct transfer
without double premium and without any
interruption in their coverage.
It being 6.00 o'clock, p.m. the House took
recess.
No. 18
ONTARIO
Hegtsilature of (Ontario
©etiatea
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 14, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 14, 1966
Medical Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, in committee, continued 493
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 518
493
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 14, 1966
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
THE MEDICAL INSURANCE ACT, 1965
(continued)
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: Moved by Mr. Young, that
section 2 of Bill No. 6 be amended by strik-
ing out the words after the word "amended"
in the second line and substituting "by strik-
ing out clauses (a) and (b)."
All those in favour of the amendment say
"aye."
All opposed to the amendment say "nay."
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All in favour of the amendment as moved
by Mr. Young, please stand.
All those opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 17, the "nays" 35.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and section 2 is carried.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): On section 3,
Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Unfortunately I had the
eye of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter)
first.
Mr. Bryden: I do not know how you could
have seen him, Mr. Chairman, you have been
looking at me all the time. Were there any
arrangements here that we did not know
about?
Mr. Chairman: No arrangements.
Mr. Bryden: It is very hard to conceive,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chair-
man, on this very important section 3, I
would like to say a few words.
Section 3 is the section that forms this
council, the council that is to give the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) advice on
how to run the scheme that will effect medical
insurance in the province of Ontario. We on
this side of the House would like to see the
hon. Minister get some good advice, not only
from the council but from us this evening.
Mind you, he listened to lots of good advice
from us last year and he finally decided to
take it this year.
It is extremely important in any plan
such as Bill No. 6-or last year, Bill No. 136
—that it does not fall into the hands, either
by advice or otherwise, of any particular
small group. There is one improvement in
the amendment as before the House this
evening in that the potential power of the
insurance companies has been cut down,
simply because all these provisions for
private carriers have been removed. But the
fact that the council is going to be cut down,
according to this amendment before us now,
from nine members to seven is a bad thing.
What we need on such a council is a group
large enough and varied enough to repre-
sent the various regions of Ontario as well
as various groups.
For example, let me point out to you the
importance of the regions of Ontario. We
know full well that parts of northern Ontario,
eastern Ontario and western Ontario do not
have nearly as good services as they do in
what is called the Golden Horseshoe from
Oshawa to Niagara Falls. There is no doubt
that there is greater wealth in the southern
end of the province, but it would, I believe,
and this party believes, be of great assist-
ance if on this council we had, let us say, one
representative from western Ontario, one
from eastern Ontario and one from northern
Ontario. In this respect, these areas that
have not had as strong a voice as they should
have, would have an opportunity to voice
their needs to the Minister.
Also, whenever this council meets, instead
of just having the council meeting maybe
in some large building here in Toronto, or
in some other large centre close by, it would
be wise, I believe, for good medical services
here in the province of Ontario and for the
interests of all Ontario, to see to it that
the council should meet at least once a year
494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in some other section of Ontario. When I
say some other section, I mean the west,
the north and the east. By doing this, the gov-
ernment would emphasize that it recognizes
the needs for these other regions in Ontario
for greatly improved services insofar as this
Act concerns medical services.
The other thing that is so important to
keep in mind in this council, is that just as
we vigorously fought the fact that the insur-
ance companies seemed to be getting a vise-
like grip on the council and on the insur-
ance plan as they had under the legislation
last year, I think it is important also that
neither the insurance companies, either di-
rectly or indirectly, nor the OMA, either
directly or indirectly, gets any type of vise-
like grip on the administration of our scheme.
If any medical insurance scheme is going to
advance over the years it is important that
we receive advice, and particularly that the
Minister, who is administering the scheme,
sir, receives advice, from those people
who are most interested in advancing and
improving medical services so that it can
be within reach of all the people in Ontario.
For example, we have known that the
Ontario federation of labour has been
anxious to further the cause of medical in-
surance. We know that the Ontario federa-
tion of agriculture has also advocated a broad
universal scheme in the matter of medical
insurance, and the Ontario welfare council
for years have campaigned and have, through
publications, education and talks by their
leading men and women, advocated medical
insurance here in the province of Ontario.
These are the types of people who should
sit on a council. Too often, on our various
advisory committees, be they within govern-
ment or be they on hospital boards, you
find a very select few, a great tendency, being
overwhelmingly from big business. We all
know that big business, especially those con-
nected with the large insurance interests,
will do everything they can to hold up any
expansion of medical insurance or any type
of insurance— in fact, any type of other busi-
ness—that is going to interfere with their
profits.
I grant you that naturally on such a coun-
cil doctors should be represented, and I
would suggest and recommend to this House
that two members of the medical profession
be on the council. But the important thing
in this section— and this I emphasize again
and again, Mr. Chairman, and through you
to the committee of the whole— is that if
this scheme and this Bill No. 6 really is the
incubation of a scheme that I hope will be-
come far broader and far more universal, it
is very important that this section have in it
the possibility and the real hope that the
hon. Minister is going to bend his ear and
listen to those people who are really anxious
to encourage the cause of good health here
in the province of Ontario.
We have seen, over the last four or five
years when this matter of medical insurance
has been considered, a great inundation of
literature. It has been very obvious to all
of us that the insurance companies have been
lobbying against medical insurance, as well
as the OMA. And what we most certainly
need is to give the Ontario public every
protection we possibly can against what I
have called on many occasions the strongest
lobby in Canada, the insurance lobby.
So with this in mind, Mr. Chairman, in
regard to section 3 of this bill, I move:
That section 3 of Bill No. 6 be amended
by striking out the words after "1965" in
the second line thereof and substituting the
following:
It is repealed and the following substi-
tuted therefor:
1. There shall be a medical services
insurance council which shall be appointed
by the Lieutenant-Governor in council and
which shall be composed of nine members,
as follows:
(i) One representative from western
Ontario, eastern Ontario and northern On-
tario and one from Metropolitan Toronto;
(ii) One representative each to be
named by the Ontario federation of agri-
culture, the Ontario federation of labour
and the Ontario welfare council;
(iii) Two representatives to be named
by the Ontario medical association, and
the Lieutenant-Governor in council shall
designate one of the representatives named
in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) as chairman.
2. Subsection 4 of the proposed section
3 is amended by adding to the proposed
subsection 6 of the Act, the following:
And for the purposes of this subsection
the council shall hold public meetings ad-
vertised in advance, at least once a year,
in western Ontario, eastern Ontario, north-
ern Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto, and
at such other times and places as in its
discretion it seems advisable.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Trotter moves an
amendment to Bill No. 6, section 3:
That section 3 of Bill No. 6 be amended
by striking out the words after "1965" in
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
495
the second line thereof and substituting
the following:
It is repealed and the following substi-
tuted therefor:
1. There shall be a medical services
insurance council which shall be appointed
by the Lieutenant-Governor in council and
which shall be composed of nine members,
as follows:
(i) One representative from western On-
tario, eastern Ontario and northern Ontario
and one from Metropolitan Toronto;
(ii) One representative each to be
named by the Ontario federation of agri-
culture, the Ontario federation of labour
and the Ontario welfare council;
(iii) Two representatives to be named
by the Ontario medical association and the
Lieutenant-Governor in council shall des-
ignate one of the representatives named
in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) as chairman.
2. Subsection 4 of the proposed section
3 is amended by adding to the proposed
subsection 6 of the Act, the following:
And for the purposes of this subsection,
the council shall hold public meetings ad-
vertised in advance at least once a year
in western Ontario, eastern Ontario, north-
ern Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto, and
at such other times and places as in its
discretion it seems advisable.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): What about
central Ontario?
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Is there an insurance man over there at all?
Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member
for Woodbine has the floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, if need be
we will support this amendment as it is
proposed, although we would like to see
some changes in it. In principle, it incorpor-
ates the idea of an amendment that we pro-
posed last year when this same section was
before the House. I think, in one way, it
proposes one change which is an improvement
on our amendment of last year, and one
change that is the reverse. When I speak of
improvement I refer to the second subsection
of the amendment which proposes that the
medical services council to be established
would meet at least once a year in various
regions of the province, and hold such other
meetings as they saw fit to hold.
In a province as diversified and far-flung
as this, that is a good idea, and one that
should be incorporated in the legislation. The
amendment also proposes a change in the
method to be used in naming this council.
It carries on with the government proposal
essentially, in that two of the members would
be named by the Lieutenant-Governor in
council. Actually, the proposed amendment
says they would be named by the Ontario
medical council, but I presume that what
the draftsman meant was that they would be
named by the Lieutenant-Governor in council
on the nomination-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): It says that.
Mr. Bryden: If they really mean what they
say, that they are to be named by the On-
tario medical association, I am not too happy
about that, either. I would prefer the idea
that people could be nominated by an in-
terested group, but that the final responsi-
bility of naming them would rest with the
government.
Mr. Sopha: Paragraph 1, subsection 1.
Mr. Bryden: It says to be named by the
Ontario medical council. As I said, I assumed
it means that they are to be nominated, not
named, by the Ontario medical council.
Although I have had some conflicting advice
from my hon. friends over here, I take it that
their final view is that they meant "nomi-
nated" and not "named," so I will take it that
is the purpose of that clause of the amend-
ment.
The first two clauses are in a somewhat
different category. They propose that there
will be an additional seven members— which
in my opinion is a sensible idea; that three
of them should be nominated, although they
say "named," by special organizations which
I think could be considered as having a right
to claim that they represent a substantial
part of the public— not all of it by any means,
but a substantial part of it.
Then we have above that a further proposal
that there should be four representatives
named on a regional basis. Apparently it is
to be left wide open to the government to
decide who these regional representatives will
be. To be honest about it, Mr. Chairman, on
the basis of experience I am much less trust-
ful of the government than my friends on the
Liberal benches appear to be. I have no
doubt at all that, under this clause 1, the
four representatives from western Ontario,
eastern Ontario, northern Ontario and Metro-
politian Toronto will be in all cases good,
sound Tories who can be counted upon to
496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
recommend to the government whatever it
wants them to recommend. When you take
those four and add to them the representa-
tives of the Ontario medical association, you
have six out of nine; six representatives of
reaction as opposed to three representatives
of the public. I do not like that kind of coun-
cil very much more than I like the kind that
the government is proposing.
The government is proposing a council of
seven— two to be appointed on the nomination
of the Ontario medical association, the other
five to be appointed by the government as
representatives of the public, but without
any consultation at all with organizations that
could be considered representative of the
public. We well know that when the govern-
ment set up the Hagey committee, to con-
sider its now defunct and unimplemented bill
of a couple of years ago, it named people
who were ostensibly representatives of the
public; but, with one or at most two excep-
tions, they were all people who could be
counted upon to give the government the
recommendations it wanted.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that that
is not the purpose of the Ontario medical
services council. If it has any significance at
all, it should genuinely represent the public;
and although ultimately all members would
be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
council, I submit that they should be ap-
pointed in such a way that there can be no
question but that they represent various
organizations with broad public support.
I do not think it should be left to the
government just to put its handpicked people
on the council to give it the recommendations
it wants. Such a council would be a waste of
time. The government knows what it wants
without consulting a council of that kind. I
would suggest that, if they are not prepared
to provide in this section for a method of
appointment which will guarantee that the
members, whether they are Conservative,
Liberal or NDP, will indeed be representative
of broad sections of the public, then they
should forget the whole thing because it
will just be a piece of window-dressing. The
Ontario medical services council will be noth-
ing, merely a rubber stamp for the govern-
ment. It might as well not exist.
The section the government proposes leaves
itself wide open to that sort of abuse. I am
afraid that the amendment that my hon.
Liberal friends have proposed also leaves it
wide open. There is no method suggested in
the amendment whereby the representatives
from various regions will in fact be nominated
by organizations independent of the govern-
ment. In my opinion, that is a rather serious
weakness in the amendment. I would much
prefer to see a situation whereby the seven
so-called public representatives are all nomi-
nated by organizations with a broad base of
public support. The more of those organiza-
tions we can have who are involved in the
thing, the better— the better for the public.
The better also for the government because
in that way the government will not in that
way get the advice of yes-men but of people
who have some claim to speak for the public.
I think it is far more important at this
stage to guarantee that these people will be
nominated by independent organizations
than to try to impose some formula of
regional representation. Frankly, I suspect
that if, say, seven different organizations
with broad public support, nominate panels
from which the government will make its
selection of members on the council, there
will be a considerable regional variation in
the composition of the council.
In any case, I think it is far more important
at this point to ensure the genuine inde-
pendence of public representation than to try
to arrive at a formula of regional representa-
tion. After all, subsection 2 does meet the
regional problem to a certain extent by
requiring that the council shall meet at least
once a year in each of the main regions in
the province.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move
that the proposed amendment be further
amended by striking out the proposed clauses
1 and 2 of section 1, that is, the two clauses
which provide (a) one representative each
from four different regions and (b) one repre-
sentative each nominated by the Ontario
federation of agriculture and the Ontario
federation of labour and—
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order, we estab-
lished last year that no amendment is per-
mitted to an amendment. Last year we had
the wonderful exhibition of co-operation be-
tween ourselves and that group to our left
in proffering amendments sometimes after
consultation. If we were to change that, I am
perfectly happy to change the rules if you
are agreeable to change them, Mr. Chairman.
But if not, I think you should rule now on
what your course would be.
Mr. Chairman: I will have to rule before
you move the subamendment that the same
conditions which prevailed last year will pre-
vail where the amendment is to strike out
words; then you cannot have a subamend-
ment to strike out further words.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
497
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, that being your
ruling, I do not see how I can argue with it,
since it is obviously correct. But I will read
the amendment I would have proposed if
you had let me get away with it, and perhaps
my hon. friends might consider whether or
not they will incorporate it in their amend-
ment. If not, that is their business and as I
said, we will vote for their amendment as is,
but we would vote for it with much greater
alacrity if it were changed in the way I am
going to suggest.
What I am going to suggest is that the
proposed clauses 1 and 2 of the subsection 1
of their amendment, which I have already
outlined, should be struck out and that in
the place of them we should have the fol-
lowing:
Seven representatives of the public, one
of whom shall be nominated by the Ontario
federation of agriculture, one by the On-
tario farmers union, one by the Ontario
branch of the Canadian association of con-
sumers, one by the Ontario federation of
labour, one by the Ontario welfare council,
one by the Canadian association of social
workers, Ontario division, and one by the
Canadian council of churches from among
its members in Ontario.
Essentially, what this proposes is that the
seven public representatives should be
nominated from panels submitted by seven
different organizations, each of which clearly
has a broad basis of public support and all
of which together, I think, could be con-
sidered as speaking for almost the whole of
the public. If my hon. friends would see fit
to incorporate that in their motion, that
will be fine, but that is entirely up to them.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I do want to
emphasize again that if we are to have
public representatives, there should be a
meaningful way of appointing them. It
should not be left totally to the discretion
of the government. The government should
be expected to solicit the opinions of bodies
that have broad bases of public support.
I am not suggesting that any of these
organizations should have the right of
appointment, any more than the government
proposes that the Ontario medical associa-
tion should have the right of appointment,
but I think the government should be pre-
pared to ask them to submit panels of, shall
we say, two or three names each, from which
the government will select one nominee.
This would do two things. First, it would
protect the government's ultimate right of
appointment. On the other hand, it would
guarantee— and what is more important it
would convince the public that there is a
guarantee— that there has been a genuine
effort to find representatives to speak for
the public.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Chairman, in principle I would
say that we agree with the hon. member for
Woodbine. We hope that the representation
from the public would indeed represent
elements of our society which are close to
the health of the people of Ontario. Our
concern, frankly, had been that if you take
from the council of churches, there are some
—I do not know, is the Presbyterian Church
under the council of churches? I apologize
that I do not know that but I am not of
that particular sect. I would not want to
leave that group out, perhaps. For that
reason we were particularly concerned that
it should be from regions, Mr. Chairman.
I think you can see the validity in that—
there are such glaring deficiencies of health
services in some of the regions that even
though a man is a true-blue Conservative,
his veins would be strong enough that he
would say, "I am going to speak out if I
get on that council to see to it, for the people
in my region, that something is done." That,
sir, is why we thought we should pick from
the north, for example, and from the west
and from the east and from the centre as
well— we do not want to leave out Muskoka.
I know that they have problems, when you
look at the comparison of the health services
up in that area with Metro Toronto.
Mr. Boyer: Muskoka has very good health
services.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I say this, that we
last year had a look first of all at the child
mortality rate in Glengarry county for ex-
ample, and then compared it with another
county. We looked at the number of doctors
in one county and compared it with another
and there was such disparity that it was a
shocking situation.
One of the concerns that we also have is
the role of the council itself. I would hope
that this whole area of health is never going
to be narrowed down just into a straight
little suffocating approach on the administra-
tion of bills. I would hope that the people
on the council would have a much broader
point of view than this.
I have been interested that the President
of the United States has been realizing there
has to be new team work and new
498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
approaches to providing health services. I
notice where he has suggested that the
three main killers today are heart disease
and cancer and strokes and that they are
planning a co-ordinated approach on this
throughout the United States.
I am saying this because I would hope
that the commission would not see itself as
purely looking after the administration of
bills, and that it would have a broader
vision. I would suggest that as the com-
mission was meeting in the north, for ex-
ample, it might look at the health units in
the north and it might see that there should
be more efficiently equipped methods of
communication and of transport for the
people in the north. This might mean the
difference between life and death for a
number of people.
I have been interested recently in having
a look at one of these main killers, heart
attacks, and I find that today, with modern
medicine, you just do not have one doctor
who is looking after heart attacks. You will
have a doctor with a special talent to
diagnose, to suggest that something has got
to be done quickly and the kind of approach
to be taken. You will have another special-
ized doctor who will be dealing with a
failing heart. A cardiac surgeon may be
drawn into the picture for cardiac massage.
You need biochemists to control the sub-
stances in the blood. You need anticoagu-
lant therapy. You need engineers for
monitoring equipment. You need psycho-
therapy.
In other words, I am suggesting, sir, that
team work is needed today in medicine and
my hope would be that the council would
have people— representatives from medicine,
but also from the public— who would, as they
move from region to region throughout the
province, have a broad health approach.
They would decide, for example, where
there is a university that it might be an idea
to have a certain kind of health unit which
will do research and provide other services
because they are near a university, and that
this picture then may be given to the
Minister of Health, so that he will be look-
ing at it with a larger vision on health needs.
It is for that reason, sir, that we felt that
the council should definitely be made up of
representatives from regions. We have
tabulated in this Legislature the fact that
there is not an adequate dispersement of
medical people throughout this province.
There are not adequate health services.
There are not adequate health units. There
has got to be a broad plan by the hon. Min-
ister of Health. Advice could certainly be
given to him to have a broad, concerted
approach, if he had a council which was
made up of regions.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if I might put a question
to the hon. Minister before we have the vote
on this?
Has the hon. Minister started to build this
council? Have there been any nominations
or appointments to the council as yet?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Not yet, Mr. Chairman, but I have been giv-
ing a good deal of thought to it. One almost
thinks that if I had put anything on paper,
the confidentiality would have been broken,
but it is still in my own head, so that there
is no fear of that. But I also believe in
regional representation and it is fully my
intention to have the province represented. I
cannot accept the fact that we should seek
panels of nominees from a certain specified
group of organizations because, after all,
Ontario is a large province with scores of
organizations, each one of which might
rightly claim the privilege of naming repre-
sentatives, and this would be an impossible
task.
Mr. Chairman, I think surely the hon.
members of this House must trust the gov-
ernment to do something. After all, we are
charged with the responsibility of doing it
and our concern is not that this council will
represent sections or represent particular in-
terests. It is specifically spelled out in the
Act that the council represents the people of
the province of Ontario and to that end we
have set up a council of five to represent the
interests of the people, and two nominated by
the doctors, because after all the doctors and
they alone are going to give the professional
service necessary under this.
The hon. leader of the Opposition gave a
very interesting talk about what he envi-
sioned in this council but I would suggest to
him and to the House that these duties
envisioned by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion are far broader than is inherent in the
responsibilities of this council. The duties and
the matters that he has pointed up are very
important and are of very great interest, but
they will come under the direction of another
council, the appointment of which was an-
nounced in the Speech from the Throne. This
is the Ontario health council, which will be
responsible for the overall broad research and
planning necessary to ensure a continuum of
the best possible quality of service.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
499
A council of seven, we believe, is quite
adequate. We use as precedent the hospital
services commission of seven. I have been
advised on every hand not to establish too
large a council. It might well be, as time
goes on, that we will see the wisdom of a
larger council or perhaps the wisdom of a
smaller council. I personally have the belief
that in the long range again we should have
a council both for the hospital services com-
mission or at least in the long range for the
health services representative of all the
regions of the province. There are now 11
health regions in our province, and it would
be our thinking, again in long range, that a
representative from each of these regions
might well constitute the health services
council.
For the present and for the purposes of
this bill I submit to you, sir, that our choice
has been sound. The government I think
must be trusted to choose. I do not suppose it
would matter how much I argue that we will
do this with care and with the best possible
judgment and wisdom we can exercise, some
of my friends might not be satisfied. But this
I assure the hon. members we will do, and I
will certainly assure this House that the prov-
ince will be represented in all its regions as
outlined here.
In the matter of moving from place to
place, I think it would be a great mistake to
tie the council down to this in legislation.
In my opinion, if the council feels that it
should go to any region to meet or to hear
complaints, this should be their right, because
this is one of the problems and this is in an
attempt to assure the people of the province
that there will be a ready and a sympathetic
ear to listen to their problems quite divorced
from government. If in the wisdom and the
judgment of the council they feel they should
go to any region of Ontario to listen to com-
plaints or to hear submissions this should be
their right, but I would be most loath, sir, to
tie it down in legislation. It may not be
deemed advisable or in the discretion of coun-
cil to go.
There will be no bars placed upon them,
if they feel this is part of their responsibility,
and their terms of reference are quite broad.
I therefore see, sir, no great value flowing
from this amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister swept forward in his comments so
quickly that I did not quite grasp what he
said. I asked him whether or not there had
been any move towards the establishment
of the council; for example, any nominations
towards its personnel as yet.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have nominations
from the medical association, Mr. Chairman,
and certain names have been submitted to
me from interested persons and interested
groups, but there has been no formal moving
forward to appoint a council yet.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the hon. Minister
have nominations?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have nominations
and I have written to certain people asking
if they would be interested, but there has
been nothing beyond this toward their ap-
pointment.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I just suggest to
my hon. friend down here to not be so hasty,
because the first reply was that there had
been no nominations or appointments and
now we find there have been quite a number
of nominations.
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): He said
he had done nothing on the thing at all.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I take it the hon. Min-
ister has solicited some nominations and has
also contacted some individuals, so that much
has been done. I take it now he also has
nominations from the Ontario medical asso-
ciation. Could he tell us for how long he
has had these nominations?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No; it is a matter of
weeks, but just how long— I could not give
you the exact date. But it is some weeks, and
they would invite-
Mr. Bryden: Did the hon. Minister solicit
his nominations, say, last September?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I do not believe
so. Now, I may have done, but I think I
would have to look up my file and I am quite
prepared to do that, but I did invite nomina-
tions from the medical association in keeping
with the terms of Bill No. 136.
Mr. MacDonald: I think if the hon. Min-
ister looks it up he will find he solicited
them September 29 and got them October 5.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That might well be,
but I will look at my file.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, with regard to
other organizations, the hon. Minister said
that some organizations had made nomina-
tions to him. Were these purely on their own
initiative or did he solicit these nominations
from them? Second, could he tell us what
organizations have made nominations?
500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have not solicited
nominations from any organizations. Those
that I have gotten have been apparently,
as far as I am concerned, on their own in-
itiative. I am sorry I cannot give the hon.
member the names because I do not know.
Again, I will look this up if he is deeply
interested.
Mr. Chairman: Are members ready for the
question? All in favour of the member for
Parkdale's amendment please say "aye."
Those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
You have heard the amendment. All those
in favour, please stand.
All opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 22, the "nays" 45.
Mr. Chairman: I deel ire the amendment
lost and section 3 is carried.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): On section 4, Mr.
Chairman, the recommendation is here that
the section be repealed but I would like to
call to the attention of the House that there
are certain matters here which have been
overlooked and which in our opinion should
not be overlooked, particularly that part of
the section which deals with the setting of
maximum rates on the part of the private
carrier. In subsection (5) (a) of section 4 of
Bill No. 136 we have recommended that the
council recommend from time to time changes
in benefits and maximum subscription rates.
Mr. Chairman, we quite realize that this
recommendation of knocking out section 4 is
to make it jib:* with the rest of the bill, but
it should not in our opinion be knocked out.
We think that certainly if there are to be
private carriers still in the field, as evidently
the House has decided there shall be, then
some control should be exercised over those
private carriers in the matter of rates.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: On a point of order,
this is out of order Mnce The Department of
Health Jv»s absolutely no authority over in-
surance carriers now. If this is repealed, The
Department of Health has no authority over
insurance carriers whatsoever.
Mr. Bryden: Well, speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, the section that it is
proposed to repeal contained among other
things certain provisions for controlling rates
and other things. The amendment proposes
that, instead of the section being entirely
knocked out, those features of it should be
retained and The Department of Health shall
carry out such duties as the Legislature
decrees.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, this would really violate the
entire principle of this bill and the amend-
ments coming in, because this section which
we are proposing now to the House should
be repealed had reference to what was
identified as the standard comprehensive cov-
erage, the standard contract.
The standard contract now is in the hands
of, and can be sold only by, the medical
services insurance division. We have abso-
lutely no control over anything else even
under the terms of Bill 136 with reference
to insurance carriers, and therefore I submit,
sir, that since the standard contract is no
longer possible or available to private carriers
for sale, The Department of Health has no
power over them whatsoever.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, it should have.
This is the point that we are making, that
there is no reason in the world why we
should turn over a large section of our popu-
lation because part of that population will be
subsidized and a lot of the people who are
under the private plans will be subsidized by
this government.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no, Mr. Chairman,
there is absolutely no subsidy that goes to any
private plan. The only subsidy, the only
public moneys that will be spent at all, will
be handled by the medical services division
of The Department of Health. No public
moneys will go to any private plan or private
carrier.
Mr. Young: This means then, Mr. Chair-
man, if I could ask the hon. Minister, that
the worker in a certain plant who may be
earning $2,500 a year and who has a
piddling little fringe benefit through a
private insurance company and who pays no
income tax and is having a tough time, will
not be eligible for subsidy.
Is that what the hon. Minister is saying?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, we
have already gone over this. If he applies
for an individual contract, yes. If he is part
of a group at his place of occupation, no.
Mr. Young: Then he is completely out of
luck, even though he may not be paying
income tax. He is already tied and cannot
possibly—
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
501
An hon. member: Who is making $2,500?
Mr. Young: There are people who are
doing this.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, we carried this
in the first section, dealing with this par-
ticular question. What are you talking about
now?
Mr. Bryden: We are talking about con-
trolling rates of private insurance companies,
Mr. Chairman, which—
Mr. Chairman: You are talking about
carriers-
Mr. Bryden: There is something being
taken out of the Act-
Mr. Young: We object, Mr. Chairman, to
this deletion from the Act and we are talk-
ing about this clause 4 which deletes some-
thing. Our contention is that it should not
be deleted and we feel that we have a
right to talk in that regard.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, on the point
of order. We have considerable sympathy
with what the hon. member for Yorkview is
saying, but I do not like to, in the name of
sympathy, see violence done to the rules of
this Legislature. The hon. Minister of
Health, I contend, is perfectly right on this
point of order, because in section 1 we have
deleted the phrase "licensed carriers."
This section 4 of Bill No. 136 deals with
carriers as it was defined in that bill and if
you permit an amendment by leaving some-
thing in, you may permit a very enlightening
discussion with which, as I say, we have
every sympathy, but it will do violence to
our rules.
Mr. Bryden: I do not know how the hon.
member for Sudbury suddenly gets so con-
cerned about doing violence to the rules.
He does not normally show such-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order! I would like
to rule that this is out of order. If you want
to question my ruling-
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, we can still
discuss the section. The section is to repeal
a great, long, two pages of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: Order! There is nothing
to discuss. It is taken out of the bill entirely.
Mr. Bryden: We can discuss whether or
not we want it out.
Mr. Chairman: It is out.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, are you
suggesting that there cannot be an amend-
ment to a repealed section?
Mr. Chairman: Not when this is already
out of the bill. I have ruled that this has
already been dealt with in section 1.
Mr. Bryden: In what way?
Mr. Chairman: Because carriers are ruled
out.
Mr. Bryden: But, Mr. Chairman, all that
was taken out of section 1 was a definition.
A definition is not an operative part of an
Act. Whether or not carriers are defined in
section 1, we submit that we can still pro-
pose amendments that to a certain degree
would retain certain provisions of the old
Act to regulate them. I am surprised by the
argument of the hon. member for Sudbury,
who suggests that because a definition was
dropped out of the Act, therefore the whole
substance of that matter has now been dealt
with.
Mr. Sopha: I did not say that. I merely
said that you could not amend it. We can
discuss it until 4 o'clock in the morning, as
far as I am concerned-
Mr. Bryden: But, Mr. Chairman, just be-
cause a definition of licensed carriers is
dropped out of the Act, that surely does not
mean there is no way of ever bringing those
words into the bill. Because they are not
defined is not important; we may bring them
in with a new definition or permit the
ordinary usage of the words to prevail. I
had thought my hon. friend from Sudbury
was interested in trying to force the govern-
ment—or induce the government— to make
changes here, but apparently he is interested
only if he himself proposes the changes.
I really do not know why he lined up with
the hon. Minister of Health on this matter,
but I submit to you that what my hon.
friend is talking about is in order and that
it would be in order to move an amendment
to retain the substance, not the words— that
is impossible— but the substance of some of
this section. That is all we are asking for.
Mr. Chairman: All I am saying is, how can
you control the rate of licensed carriers when
there are no licensed carriers?
Mr. Bryden:: Our province is full of
licensed carriers. Whether or not—
502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Not under this Act!
Mr. Bryden: Well, they have been and
the fact that a definition has been dropped
out means nothing. The section has not
been dropped out.
We would not like to vote that the whole
section be retained, because it obviously
needs to be changed for housekeeping pur-
poses, but we would like to retain some of
it— that part of it that can be retained can
still be consistent with the rest of the Act.
That surely is quite in order.
There are more licensed carriers and more
contracts covered by licensed carriers than
there will be by this bill, and it seems to
me that they are still relevant.
Mr. Chairman: The rates are not covered
under this Act, but they will be carried under
The Insurance Department.
Mr. Bryden: The Act had proposed to do
something about rates.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, let me
draw to your attention a point that is now
really being illuminated. The hon. Minister
and other members of the government
earlier protested strongly when we suggested
that this bill was drafted in consultation with
the insurance companies. All I would say at
this point, Mr. Chairman, is this: If you can
get a bill as favourable to the insurance
companies as this without their consultation,
God help us if you ever had consulted them.
And I will tell you why.
When this bill was first brought in, this
government was going to do two things:
one, it was going to regulate the maximums
that private carriers would be permitted to
charge, because it had come to the conclu-
sion that the public should not be exploited
on a standard policy; second, Mr. Chairman,
it had come to the conclusion that never
again should any private carrier-
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. member on what he is speak-
ing now. Is it a point of order? Is it to your
ruling, or just what is it?
Mr. MacDonald: I am speaking on this
section-
Mr. Cowling: You ruled it out of order,
Mr. Chairman. Is it out of order or not?
Mr. Bryden: We have not moved the
amendment yet—
Mr. Cowling: It does not matter about
the amendment. The Chairman ruled the
discussion out of order. Is it out of order
or not, that is what I would like to know?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I trust
you will advise the hon. member for High
Park that the debate on the section has not
been ruled out. You are considering ruling
out an amendment.
Mr. Chairman: There has not been any
debate-
Mr. MacDonald: Right.
Mr. Cowling: Let us have some clarifica-
tion, Mr. Chairman. Where do we stand on
this section?
Mr. MacDonald: You need it-
Mr. Cowling: Just a minute, you have been
hollering all afternoon. Where do we stand
on the section?
Mr. Chairman: Order! The debate will
continue on—
Mr. MacDonald: Good. Do you hear it
now?
Mr. Cowling: No, I did not hear it.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chair-
man, speaking on the proposal contained in
section 4 of Bill No. 6, that section 4 of the
Act should be repealed, I think it deserves
a considerable amount of comment because
this in fact is the section under which the
whole of last year's plan by the government
foundered.
It just fell apart at the time when the gov-
ernment approached the carriers who were
going to be members of this Medical Carri-
ers Incorporated to fix a rate for the stan-
dard policy, and found that even with the
pooling arrangement which was contained in
that section of the bill, the government was
unable to persuade the licensed carriers that
there should be such a thing as a uniform
premium that the licensed carriers would
charge for the standard contract. At that
point the whole of the government's scheme
fell apart, and it had to bring in this bill to
make substantial deletions, including the
elimination of anything having to do with
carriers.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that to
the extent that there was any merit in last
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
503
year's plan, one of the things there was
some merit in was a machinery and a way to
regulate, to some extent, the maximum rates
which would be charged by the licensed
carriers for the standard contract. If that
whole scheme fell apart, so that now only the
government is going to issue the standard
contract, it seems to me that the 60 per cent,
70 per cent or 80 per cent— depending on
which view the government happens to be
using— who are not going to be allowed to
come under this bill for the purpose of hav-
ing the benefit of the standard government
contract, are at least entitled to some portion
of the protection which they would have had
last year.
A substantial part of that protection relates
to the ability of the hon. Minister, on some-
body's advice, at least to take into consider-
ation on occasion whether or not the rates
which are being charged by private carriers
to the 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 80 per
cent of the population who are on their
hands, should, or should not, be subject to
some kind of regulation. It is our contention
that if the government is going to eliminate
the whole of section 4 because its plan
fell apart, it should at least rescue that
small part of it which would provide some
protection to a large number of people in
the province.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Renwick: But the hon. Minister does
not understand they are not allowed to buy
the government plan because they are mem-
bers of groups and the groups have already
been ruled out. Mr. Chairman, with those
remarks I would like to move that section 4
of Bill No. 6 be amended by adding thereto
the following words:
and the following is substituted therefor:
4. The Minister may, on the advice of
the council, fix maximum subscription
rates charged by private insurance carriers
for any classes of benefit.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that
section 4 of Bill No. 6 be amended by add-
ing thereto the following words:
and the following is substituted therefor:
4. The Minister may, on the advice of the
council, fix maximum subscription rates
charged by private insurance carriers for
any classes of benefit.
I will have to rule that this amendment is
out of order because this particular clause
of this bill has nothing to do with private
insurance carriers.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
no point in challenging your ruling, but I
want to complete the remarks I made before
the hon. member for High Park came awake
and tuned in on the—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I am hoping that
perhaps I can persuade the Liberals, and
perhaps we can get some support from them
on the issue.
Mr. Chairman, the simple point is this:
In the government bill last year they at least
were going to give the people some pro-
tection from the excesses of the exploitation
of private insurance. Last year, the bill of
the government which is going to be re-
pealed in this section was going to fix
maximums at least for the standard policies
when they were provided by private insur-
ance.
If I may momentarily anticipate another
section, they also said that no insurance
company could cancel a policy. Now in both
instances— fixing maximums and the cancella-
tion of policy— the government has wiped
them out, so that we are right back to a
wide open field in terms of exploitation of
those who happen to be captured in groups
and must buy their insurance from the
private carrier.
What we are trying to propose is that
there should be a fixing of these rates by
the hon. Minister on the advice of council
which we have already agreed on in a
previous section.
I submit this can be done if the govern-
ment would accept the principle that was
part of their bill last time, namely, they were
going to regulate some of the maximum
rates. Apparently that has gone out the
window, too, so that we are not in a posi-
tion even to protect the people from these
excesses.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, when
we debated this bill in principle, the first basic
change was, and I quote:
The standard medical services insurance
contract is to be supplied only by the
medical services insurance division of The
Department of Health. Accordingly pro-
visions dealing with the licensing and
regulation of carriers and the medical
services insurance programme have been
repealed and complementary amendments
have been made.
Mr. Chairman, we debated this principle,
indeed it came in for a good deal of debate,
504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but I think it is right it should. It was passed
by this Legislature, sir, so the principle was
accepted.
We cannot reintroduce it here because to
do what the hon. member proposes in his
amendment— which I note you have ruled
out of order— is quite impossible because the
clause to which they are referring, as I said
a few moments ago, sir, has reference to a
standard contract.
It was last year proposed that the standard
contract would be made available to the
people who were to purchase their own from
the carrier of their choice. We changed our
mind about this and if we can improve the
bill further, we will change our mind again.
But this is what this subsection 5 (a) has
reference to— that standard contract— and
since this bill exercises no control and we
have agreed in principle that the private
carriers are out altogether, then it is quite
impossible to consider an amendment of this
nature proposed by the hon. member.
It seems to me, sir, there is a place where
this can be done and this is through The
Department of Insurance, not through The
Department of Health, because we have no
authority over insurance other than this right
we are asking by legislation from the Legis-
lature, now.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, if in fact you
have ruled as you have that an amendment
here is impossible, then I simply plan to
oppose section 4 and we have no alternative
;'ri this case but to vote against the deletion
of section 4 even though we do not agree
with everything in it.
Now there is a principle here which we
feel is fundamental. It has already been out-
lined by various speakers on this side of the
House. There is no question that we are
going to face over the next few years,
pressure to raise rates in the public part of
this plan. The pressure will come in large
measure from private interests because of
the competition of a couple of hundred or
300 companies; their selling costs, their
advertising costs, their commissions, their
profits, arc going to demand that rates go up
and so they are going to bring pressure to
bear on the public sector of this plan to raise
rates there, too. Competition will not lower-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Young: Competition will not lower
rates; the very fact of competition in this
field has raised rates incredibly. Where we
have no competition in the insurance field,
wherever we have public insurance, there
are low rates, much lower than this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, because of this
kind of pressure that will inevitably arise
we believe that some control should be ex-
ercised on the private carrier, and over the
group insurance that they are selling. This
is why we are so much against deletion of
this section of the bill in toto. Some of the
principles in that section we think ought to
be retained, and we have no alternative but
to vote against section 4.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 of this
bill stand?
Mr. Sopha: In order to make perfectly
clear the position that we take, I say that
we in this party are delighted to see section
4 go. We support this section of the bill,
because when section 4 goes along with some
other sections that have gone already it both
justifies and rewards the stand we took eight
months ago.
There has been eliminated up to this
point in the bill every reference to private
insurance carriers.
This bill is simply not about private insur-
ance carriers. This is a public plan we in
the Liberal Party are concerned about in
proffering our amendments to the chair as
we do, to see if we can get out of this
Legislature and this committee the best pos-
sible public plan. There are other places that
the matter of maximum rates can be dis-
cussed. For the information of my hon.
friends health insurance is dealt with in
The Insurance Act. If they wish to bring in
a bill to amend The Insurance Act to give
to the government the right to control rates,
that is fine; during the estimates of The De-
parment of Insurance, they can speak until
the small hours of the morning about insur-
ance rates.
One of the failings of our friends— and I
would beg leave courteously and indulgently
to suggest to them— one of the major failings
of our hon. friends to the left is that they
will not stick to the point and they flail about
in all directions on all kinds of subjects. That
has rendered them ineffective and limited
them to the arithmetic progression of an in-
crease of two members every four years.
Mr. Bryden: Now, Mr. Chairman, we ap-
preciate as always the unctuousness of our
friend, the hon. member for Sudbury. We
now have discovered, Mr. Chairman, that the
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
505
Liberal Party stands opposed to efforts to
regulate private insurance companies in this
field when the opportunity presents itself.
We have just been told by the hon. Minis-
ter of Health that after this legislation is
passed— assuming it is passed and I take it
my hon. friends are going to help the govern-
ment along on at least some parts of it— at
least 60 per cent of the field in Ontario will
still be occupied by private insurance com-
panies.
We consider that 60 per cent to be im-
portant and as far as this blather about regu-
lating it under The Insurance Act, I would
point out to my hon. friend and to the hon.
Minister that The Insurance Act has been
on the statute books for 50 years at least and
it has never been possible to get any proper
regulation of insurance companies under
that Act.
I would like further to point out to this
House, sir, and particularly to the hon.
Minister and the gentlemen on the Liberal
benches who are supporting it, that the gov-
ernment here has now gone pretty well full
circle.
The first bill that was brought into this
House two years or three years ago, before
the last election at any rate, the one that they
talked about being done or something in the
last election— yes, that bill— it was essentially
a bill to regulate private insurance companies.
There was very little more in it relating to
medical care insurance.
It did two things: first, it regulated private
insurance companies, which had never been
done in The Insurance Act, and second, it
provided for certain government subsidization
of certain people who could not afford the
exorbitant rate being charged by private
insurance companies.
Now, we did not agree with the second part
of that bill, but we always agreed with the
first part, the regulation of private insurance
companies.
In the bill we had last year, there were
features that continued to provide for the
regulation of insurance companies. Now we
have gone the whole circle, there is no regu-
lation of the insurance companies, there is
no effective regulation under The Insurance
Act. The hon. member for Sudbury knows as
well as I do that if a private member in this
House should bring in a bill to try to
reform that Act we would not get to first
base.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): You do
not need a bill, you just need a proclamation
of two or three sections in the Act.
Mr. Bryden: Well, that makes it even worse
because we have no way of influencing
proclamations at all. We could at least bring
in bills to put forth our point of view but
we cannot bring in proclamations. Only the
government can recommend proclamations. So
here we are.
There was a certain degree of regulating
insurance companies which was desirable; it
is now proposed that this should be thrown
out in total. We object to that. We proposed
an amendment which I think would have
rescued the principle of this old section 4 that
was still sound, it would have continued to
regulate the rates of these private insurance
companies.
That has been ruled out of order. I do not
agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but
I am not going to dispute it, we accept your
ruling. But since we cannot bring in an
amendment, that would rescue from the
section that aspect of it that was desirable,
then we have no option but to vote, for the
present, for the retention of the whole
section.
We quite realize that there are features of
that section which in the interest of good
housekeeping should be stricken out because
they relate to matters that are no longer
provided for in the Act. But if we are to
have no regulation at all now— after all this
period, where we started with considerable
regulation of insurance companies, we now
end up with none— if that is the way it is to
be, then in order to indicate our opposition
to that vicious principle we will simply vote
against the repeal of the section and will
vote to retain the whole thing as the lesser
of the evils.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on this section
I will, as my colleague, the hon. member for
Woodbine has said, oppose the repeal of it
on this particular limited ground.
As in the case of the plan put forward
by London Life, which has been adopted
by the government for the civil service, it
will from now on, unless we put in some
such provision in this bill as we had hoped
would have been acceptable as an amend-
ment, be impossible under package schemes
at any time for 60 per cent of the population
at least of the province of Ontario to find
out in fact how many dollars each year
they are paying for coverage for physicians'
and surgeons' services.
The reason is very simple and you only
have to look at the booklet that this govern-
ment put out to ascertain that the members
of the civil service in the province of On-
tario cannot today find out the number of
506
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dollars which they are being charged by
way of premium in order to support the
scheme of London Life.
All it has is two or three columns which
indicate what the individual civil servant
is paying and then a bald statement that
of course the government itself is assuming
a substantial portion of that cost.
Now I think it is a very, very important
part of group insurance, as it is going to be
carried on for most of the population of the
province of Ontario, to be able to say in this
package scheme where they have basic and
supplemental life insurance and any other
kind of coverage that you want, how much
in fact is the insurance company charging
for the actual cost of physicians' and surgeons'
services.
Now if we are not prepared to do that,
then it will never ever be possible to find
out what the premiums being charged are;
it will not be possible to compare them with
the premiums which the government is charg-
ing under its standard contract, and the
whole coverage of the province of Ontario
economically—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the civil service programme
is not under debate in this bill whatsoever.
We have nothing in the wide world to do
with it. I have nothing to do with the London
Life Insurance Company. I cannot possibly
answer the questions the hon. member is
raising or comment on the matters he brings
up. It is quite outside the purview of my
responsibility.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: And the information
is available if the hon. member wants it. I
will get it for him.
Mr. Renwick: I thank the hon. Minister of
Mines.
Mr. Chairman, the reason why I think this
has a bearing on it is that the government has
in its own words this afternoon decided that
they are going to charge an uneconomic
premium for the standard policy.
Now that means that the private carriers
are going to be given an area of charging for
this kind of coverage at least up to the level
at which the government is going to charge.
The reason the hon. Minister had to admit
that this rffernoon is because he admitted
a number of individuals who apply for and
obtain s^ndard contracts over and above
the number that he was going to provide
for last vmr. ho was able statistically and
on an ac^^n-d basis to reduce the premium.
Now if the Kovernment had accepted the
proposition that the groups could have come
into this scheme, obviously the price of the
insurance would be much lower. But now
because we are not allowed to say anything
whatsoever about what is to be charged by
way of premiums to the licensed carriers you
have a twofold problem.
You have a high premium which is the
only standard on which comparison can be
made, and you have permissible schemes
where you will never ever be able to find
the actual cost being charged by licensed
carriers for the coverage for physicians' and
doctors' services which will be provided
under that type of scheme.
For that reason, of course, we have to
vote against the repeal of this section.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston): Mr. Chairman, it
is my understanding that anybody who
belongs to most of these group insurance
schemes, if he does not wish to remain in it,
can opt out and get in to the government
scheme if he so desires.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member's under-
standing is all wrong.
Mr. Apps: Now, just a minute. We have
a group scheme in my own company which
is a pretty good scheme. I looked into it very
carefully and I think we are competitive
with the government. If we are not, if there
are occasions where it is not, we are certainly
not going to stand in the way of any of our
employees opting out of that scheme and
taking advantage of the government scheme.
It would appear to me that the very fact
that we have the government scheme will
be a very regulatory system to make the
private insurance companies be more com-
petitive than they are at the present time.
I do not see why all the argument about
private insurance companies going to raise
their rates all the time. I think the very fact
they are in competition with the government
scheme is going to make them be very much
more realistic and they will bring their rates
down.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question? Is the plan which the hon. member
refers to underwritten by a private insurance
company?
Mr. Apps: Yes.
Mr. Young: Then if half your employees
decide to opt out, will the insurance com-
pany insure the other half for the same rate
that they will insure all, or will the rates
go up for the remainder?
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
507
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, that is under
discussion right now. I am quite certain
that they are going to come up with a much
more competitive scheme than they have had
before, simply because of the competition
that the government scheme provides, and I
think that is going to happen with a lot
of group insurance schemes.
Mr. Bryden: They have-
Mr. Young: But the group remains intact.
But you will find I think because of contracts
and because of participation, Mr. Chairman,
that in almost every case, it will be almost
impossible for individuals to opt out of these
plans, because the rate-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 stand as
part of this bill?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.
All those in favour of section 4 standing
as part of this bill, please rise.
All those opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 65, "nays," 7.
Mr. Chairman: Section 4 of this bill stands.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is a
section of the bill which I think, with one
minor amendment, we will be able to agree
wholeheartedly with the government.
I think one of the principles which the
hon. Minister of Health enunciated both last
year and again this year is the absolutely
essential requirement that under this scheme,
standard medical services insurance contracts
should be made available to all residents of
the province and their dependants wi'hout
regard to age, physical or mental infirmity
and so on. We have been concerned, of
course, by the absence of that word "all" in
the bill, even though it was a stated prin-
ciple of the hon. Minister that if there was
anything at all that was of merit in this bill,
it was the availability to every resident in
the province of Ontario of standard medical
services insurance contracts.
We want, more than anything else, to
make certain that standard medical services
insurance contracts are in fact available to
every single resident of this province and in
order to achieve that we accept the amend-
ments made by section 5 of Bill No. 6 in the
amendments to section 5 of the Act and
would move an additional change to section
5 of the bill. It is that subsection 1 of section
5 of Bill No. 6 be amended by inserting after
the word "amended" in the second line, the
words, "by striking out 'standard' in the first
line," so that section 5 of The Medical Serv-
ices Insurance Act, incorporating the amend-
ment proposed by section 5 of Bill No. 6,
will now simply read:
Medical services insurance contracts
shall be made available to residents and
their dependants without regird to age,
physical or mental infirmity, financial
means or occupation, only by the medical
services insurance division.
In this way we believe the principle of the
hon. Minister's bill will be completely ful-
filled by making certain that every resident
of the province of Ontario is able to obtain
a medical services insurance contract from
the government.
Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on
that? All those in favour of the amendment-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
simply like to say we are here to get clari-
fication. The hon. member for Riverdale says
to leave out the word "standard" with medi-
cal services insurance contracts. Someone just
mentioned to me that he might be nit-picking
—is that the term? I would not like to have
that said about him and I wonder if he
could describe to us, when he sr'd "medical
services insurance contract," rather than
"standard," what is the difference?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would be
glad to explain. I think everyone in the
House will agree that the purpose of the bill
is to make certain that standard medical
services insurance contracts are available to
everyone in this province. Obviously the
hon. Minister has decided in his own wisdom
not to insert the word "all" in here, or the
word "every." so that the only way in which
we can make certain that these contracts
are available is to leave out the word
"standard" and require that all medical serv-
ices insurance contracts be provided by the
medical services division of the government.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I have
to agree with my hon. friends on the Liberal
benches that the most kindly thing I can say
about the proposed amendment is that the
hon. member is nit-picking.
508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
First of all, the principle of this bill as
outlined in the front of the bill has reference
to the standard medical services insurance
contract, which is defined in the Act. We
cannot adhere to the principle of the bill if
we are going to change the reference to the
basic principle of the bill as we go along.
We have reference all through this bill to
a comprehensive contract known as the
standard medical services insurance contract.
The fact that he wants "all" in does not alter
the bill in any way. Of course it is available
to any individual resident of the province
who applies for it and meets the qualifica-
tions of eligibility. There is no question
about this. I am advised by the legal coun-
sel that this does not change anything in
the bill, but I cannot accept the amendment,
sir, that "standard" be dropped from this
section.
Mr. Eryden: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped
that the hon. Minister might accept this
amendment because I think if he did it would
bridge almost all, or certainly a large part,
of the gap between us. The section, in effect,
if it were changed to drop "standard," would
provide that medical services insurance con-
tracts would be made available only by the
medical services division of The Department
of Health. In other words, that division would
become the sole carrier and we think this is
the most effective way to give this bill some
real meaning for the people of Ontario.
Of course, if our proposed amendment were
to be carried, as I hope it will be, certain
other housekeeping amendments would have
to be made to strike out the word "standard"
wherever else it appears in the Act, or in
most places anyway, but we believe we would
then have good legislation if this very simple
amendment involving only one word were
adopted.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
amendment, please say "aye."
Those opposed say "nay."
The "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please rise.
All those opposed to the amendment will
please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 23, the "nays" 49.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and the section carried.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Sopha: On section 6, Mr. Chairman,
it is not carried yet. The proposed amend-
ment deals only with the repeal of subsection
4 of that section. I am going to move in a
moment that only subsection 3 be retained
and that it be rewritten to some extent by
the hon. Minister of Health.
This is the section that provides that the
hon. Minister, pursuant to the regulations to
be promulgated— and we of course have no
foreknowledge on this side of the House what
those regulations will contain; we were never
supplied with a copy of them as proposed,
and indeed often they are not promulgated
until several weeks or months after the
statute is proclaimed— but under this section
the hon. Minister may, in accordance with
regulations to be promulgated, provide stand-
ard medical services contracts for persons
designated by the regulations to qualify for
total subsidy and he may in the same fashion
provide standard medical contracts, for in-
stance, for other persons designated by the
regulations.
I will not be detained by focusing to any
great extent on the use of the word "classes."
That is used in subsections 1 and 2 of the
present section 6. I made some comments
last year. I think it is a term of opprobrium
that does not suit our Canadian democracy
and I merely say that we do not have any
classes in this country. I hesitate to see any
legislation of this House set up any system
of classes.
Everybody in Canada is middle class; we
have no peasantry at one end and we have
no aristocracy at the other. All are proclaimed
to be equal and I would prefer a less loaded
word such as "groups," to be used. It cer-
tainly is a pejorative word. When one thinks
of the connotation of "classes," one thinks of
the days in our history when indeed we did
have classes, we had an establishment and
we had an established church, but all that is
gone.
Mr. MacDonald: Has the hon. member read
the Alberta-
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes, and Bennett, the idol
of the hon. Minister. Indeed, he resuscitated
classes, because after we had decided in 1919
that Canadians would no longer be awarded
peerages and other honours by the Monarch,
then Bennett revived the custom. Perhaps,
Mr. Chairman, that is the reason they are in
here again.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: They did not give us
the crystal-ball gazers.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
509
Mr. Sopha: Yes, that is another subject, a
very inviting one, but let me say on that
score that the man who was the intimate of
Prime Ministers, Bruce Hutchison, says that
at no time were his political judgments ever
influenced by crystal-ball gazing. So let us
let the poor man requiescat in pace, as our
Roman friends say.
Mr. MacDonald: What has this got to do
with the medical bill?
Mr. Sopha: It has nothing to do with it
but it is diversion stimulated by the hon.
Minister of Health.
Mr. Chairman: I know the member for
Sudbury wants to get back to the bill.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. This House has just
affirmed section 5, which to some minor
extent rewrote the earlier statute, and that
says in the clearest possible terms that medi-
cal services insurance contracts shall be made
available to residents of the province without
regard to age, or physical or mental infirmity.
1 ask, perhaps blandly, having passed that
and adopted that principle and enshrined
it in the bill, why do we need to give power
to the Minister to use the regulations to
designate those who qualify?
Surely we know the people who will
qualify for total subsidy. Those will be
recipients of welfare, persons in receipt of
pensions for the blind, persons in receipt of
disabled persons' allowances— they will be the
people envisaged by section 5. Preferably I
would much rather see spelled out in the
statute and endorsed by this House, subject
to discussion, the groups of persons that
the hon. Minister has in mind to grant total
or partial subsidy, rather than to give to the
Minister by legislation the power to designate
them.
Mr. Chairman: I wonder if I may have a
copy of the amendment of the member for
Sudbury?
Mr. Sopha: Oh, I am sorry. I have not
moved it yet, but I will supply you with a
copy.
I iterated and I will reiterate that I do
not like to see this Legislature give any
power to the Minister of Health, or for
that matter any other Minister, that will
enable him on the eve of an election to use
the regulations to give a wholesale bribe to
any group within this province. Certainly
the power to do so under subsections 1 and
2 of the present section 6 is inherent, and
the Minister may do it.
I am not saying this hon. Minister would
do it. Some Minister might do it. This hon.
Minister might resist such a temptation and
indeed be overpowered by his Cabinet
colleagues— that has happened before— who
would insist that he indulge in this whole-
sale. Are we not entitled, on the other side,
to see in the statute the groups of persons
for whom it is intended the public money of
the province will be used to subsidize, either
in whole or in part?
To pass on, I intend to move that the only
subsection that should remain be subsection
3, and in that subsection I would delete the
reference to subsections 1 and 2— for if my
amendment is adopted they will have gone—
and I would move that the contracts be
issued through the medical services insur-
ance division of the Ontario hospital services
commission.
An earlier amendment, you will recall, Mr.
Chairman, dealt with the Ontario health
services commission, which is a title that we
in this party would prefer to see given to a
new body which would be responsible for
all the health of our people, and I do not
need to reiterate the arguments in regard to
that. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would
move that section 6 of the bill be amended
by striking out the first three words, so that
the said section shall read:
Section 6 of The Medical Services In-
surance Act, 1965 is repealed with the
exception of subsection 3, which is
amended as follows and renumbered by
striking out the words in subsection 3
"mentioned in subsection 1," and the
words "Department of Health," and sub-
stituting the words "the Ontario health
services commission" so that the new sub-
section 1 will read as follows:
1. The Minister shall provide contracts
through the medical services insurance
division of the Ontario hospital services
commission.
Mr. Chairman: I will have to rule this
particular amendment out of order. This
section that we have before us now, as you
know, deals only with subsection 4 and this
is the only part that I can deal with at this
particular time. If you wish to bring in an
amendment to this other effect, you can of
course do this—
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, may I say this?
I am not interfering with the amendment to
subsection 4. I am adopting it. My amend-
ment adopts what the Minister does in
regard to subsection 4. I am adding to it. I
510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
am adding to what he does and I am repeal-
ing subsections 1 and 2, and rewriting sub-
section 3, which certainly is a different thing
from the device proposed by our hon. friends
in regard to subsection 4.
Mr. Chairman: I realize the member for
Sudbury is now dealing with section 1,
section 2, and section 3, but what we have
before us is an amendment dealing only
with subsection 4. I must rule it out of
order.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest
to you that you may find yourself some day
making discussion almost impossible? If
when a section is affected, only the part that
the government wants affected can be
touched, this is surely a most restrictive
ruling. Once they affect a section, then that
whole section is open— my hon. friend from
Sudbury said that he accepts this but he
wants to broaden it a little bit. He might
not accept the amendment if he cannot
broaden it. I submit to you, sir, that once
the government opens up a section then it
cannot regard the parts of the section it has
not touched as sacrosanct, the whole section
then surely is open.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I am
no lawyer and I am afraid I am getting
caught up in legal arguments here, but it
seems to me that I have to support your
ruling, because if the government had in-
tended in its Bill No. 6 to propose amend-
ments to these sections, we would have
brought them in.
I submit therefore, sir, to you, that the
only thing the hon. member can do, and he
knows more about this than I, is to bring
in a bill proposing amendments to these
sections which he proposes to change so
drastically.
Mr. Bryden: He is just dealing with
section 6.
Mr. Thompson: You opened it up with
your own amendment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not at all. I opened
up discussion on subsection 4. This is the
amendment that I proposed in the govern-
ment bill, not the other sections at all. Had
we intended or had we proposed amend-
ments to those, we would have brought them
in in Bill No. 6.
Mr. Chairman: Is the section carried?
Mr. Sopha: Just let me expand a little.
Surely it is open to us in the Opposition to
say, as we are saying here: "We agree
with what the government is doing with
regard to this section. We agree that sub-
section 4 should be repealed, but having
agreed with that, we go a little bit further
and we say subsections 1 and 2 should also
be repealed and subsection 3 should be
rewritten."
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is why I say, Mr.
Chairman, and I must bow to the superior
legal knowledge of my hon. friend, but it
would seem to me the logical way to do it
would be for the hon. member to propose to
bring in a bill proposing an amendment to
the Act. It would seem to me it would take
another bill to amend this section.
Mr. Bryden: Are you presuming then that
the other subsections are related to 4, or why
did you put them all in one section in the
first place? It was your bill last year, too.
If they are related, then they are affected.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Cer-
tainly, Mr. Chairman, when the Legislature
votes on a bill— as happened in the last ses-
sion of the Legislature— votes on a section,
and it is carried under the democratic pro-
cess to become law, then the Minister
brings in an amendment that deletes part of
that section, which could change the whole
context of that section, certainly the Opposi-
tion should have the right to deal with the
rest of the section. If not, then there is a
change being made without the right of vote
in the House.
Mr. Chairman: I am ruling that the
Opposition, under these circumstances, does
not have the right to deal with other sec-
tions of the bill.
Mr. Bryden: Other sections? We are just
on one section.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, on subsections.
Will section 6 stand as part of the bill?
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order. While we
are still dealing with the rules in this House,
may I draw to your attention a rather grave
discourtesy— in my mind, in any event— by
the hon. member for Sudbury to the other
hon. members of this House by dealing with
that last subsection in the manner in which
he did.
I do not want to pick him out particularly
here, but I think it is a growing procedure
that should be stopped and should be
stopped right now, before it proceeds any
further.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
511
Certainly if a member wishes to bring
in an amendment to a section, surely
he should have to give the terms of that
amending motion when he stands up to
speak on it, rather than to speak on it for
about five minutes and then bring in the
actual terms of the motion.
In many of these cases, and we have just
seen an example of it, a member can
speak for about five minutes on a motion
that is clearly out of order.
Surely if the hon. member wished to speak
on section 6 of the bill, as he just did, or
attempted to, then he should speak on sec-
tion 6. But on the other hand, if he is going
to speak on an amending motion to section 6,
at the very beginning when he stands up,
he should give the terms of his motion, other-
wise it may be out of order and he may be
speaking for five minutes on something that
is clearly out of order.
Mr. Bryden: Well, it is a new ruling.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I may say to the mem-
ber for St. George, it has not been the
practice or the custom or the usage of this
House so to do. Since I have been here, it
has been the practice and the custom of this
House for a member to speak in ad-
vance of the amendment he wants to put
forward if he wishes to do so and that is
why-
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: Then anybody can
bring in a motion that may be clearly out
of order-
Mr. Chairman: That is why I asked for a
copy of the amendment that the member
had-
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: Yes, sir, and I be-
lieve that that is a grave discourtesy to the
rest of the hon. members in this House who
had as perfect a right as you had to know
what the terms of that amendment were.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, speaking
to the point of order. I think the hon. mem-
ber for St. George has missed a very key
point. As soon as an amendment is made, all
the debate must be centred on that amend-
ment and when it is voted on, if it is defeated
the whole section carries.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: This is one of the
risks of bringing in an amendment.
Mr. MacDonald: Therefore, I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, to the hon. member for St. George
that it is a completely legitimate procedure
that if you want to talk about the section
as a whole and then finally end your remarks
by bringing in the amendment, that you
have a full right to do that. Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I suggest that you do have it, because
that is the only way that you can debate the
whole section.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: The defect in that
argument, of course, is that if you bring in an
amending motion to a section, such as section
6, you obviously have the right, and it has
been the procedure in this House to give
the speaker the right, to talk on the whole
of the section, both amended and prior to
the amendment. This has been the procedure
in this House.
Mr. Chairman: I have ruled on this.
Shall section 6 stand as part of the bill?
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7:
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, with
regard to section 7, you refused to accept an
amendment earlier on the point here. I feel
rather confident that an amendment here is
completely in order.
The proposal in section 7 is that sections 8,
9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of The Medical Services
Insurance Act, 1965, are repealed. Now what
this does is to strip completely out of all the
licensing of carriers, all the rules and regu-
lations with regard to it.
Some of it, I agree, has to go. But I
think that it is necessary to retain the right
for the licensing, which is contained in
section 8 (1). I think it is entirely necessary
that we should have in section 8 (3) "an
application for a licence under this Act shall
be made on a form supplied by the superin-
tendent." In other words that in the pro-
cedures by which this is done, we should
have an appeal from a refusal to grant a
licence.
In section 10, for example, "that the super-
intendent may cancel or suspend a licence
under this Act" we should have the appeal
related thereto and the penalties in the event
of an offence under this Act.
In other words, what they are doing is
throwing out the baby along with the wash.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
take a minute to explain this? This licensing
has only regard to the operation of Bill No.
136 and since the amending Bill No. 6
removes the private carriers altogether from
this programme, all this is rendered un-
necessary.
512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, this has no regard to the licensing
of the carriers under The Insurance Act.
They had to be licensed separately to operate
under this Act, Bill No. 136, namely, to
provide the standard medical services con-
tract and the standard medical co-insurance
contract as provided in Bill No. 136.
But it has nothing to do with their licens-
ing nor has the repeal of this section anything
to do with robbing the superintendent of
insurance of any of the powers he has under
his own Act. They still remain completely
under his jurisdiction now and we have no
control or authority over them whatsoever.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister's logic is rather strange. If all of
these powers were invested in the superin-
tendent of insurance and presumably he was
exercising them, why in the bill a year ago
did there have to be created parallel legisla-
tion in this Act?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This was with respect
to two particular types of contract only.
Mr. MacDonald: I realize—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The only legislation
that gave government the power to control
subscription rates.
Mr. MacDonald: I realize and accept the
differences between the hon. Minister and
me, Mr. Chairman. He insists that the private
carriers should be given complete carte
blanche, that there is going to be no licensing;
that there is going to be no regulation at
all. We fought it out on the issue of maxi-
mum premiums a while ago, and now we
come down to the basics. In our view there
should be a licensing— there should be all of
the necessary paraphernalia so that there is
going to be some regulation of the private
carriers.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There is. There is
licensing under the two Acts— The Prepaid
Hospital and Medic. il Services Insurance Act
and the ordinary insurance Act. There is all
the power necessary, but it is vested in an-
other department of government, not in The
Department of Health at all.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister and I
are not on the same wavelength. The powers
were invested in those statutes last spring
and the lion. Minister still saw fit to duplicate
them here.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: But not with respect
to the standard and the co-insurance con-
tracts-
Mr. MacDonald: I realize that—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —the control of maxi-
mum rates.
Mr. MacDonald: I realize that, but the
difference between the hon. Minister and me
is that I insist that we should have some
regulations here where conceivably they
be effective— they have not been effective
elsewhere on any occasion up till now. There-
fore, I move that section 7 of Bill No. 6 be
amended to read as follows:
7. Subsection 2 of section 8, and sec-
tions 9 and 12 of The Medical Services
Insurance Act, 1965 are repealed.
Mr. Chairman: I must say to the mem-
ber for York South that it has already
been decided that this bill has nothing to
do with the private carriers and any amend-
ment dealing with the licensing of the private
carriers is out of order. And I would so rule
this amendment out of order.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8:
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha Thank you. To accommodate
my friend, the hon. member for St. George,
whom I esteem most deeply, I am going to
move an amendment to subsection 1 of section
8 of the bill.
I move that subsection 1 of section 8 be
amended by striking out all the words after
"1965" in the second line thereof and substi-
tuting the following:
Is amended by striking out in sub-
section 1 of section 14 all the words after
the word "paid" in the fifth line and sub-
stituting the following: "And the effective
date of such contract shall be the first day
of the following month," so that the said
subsection 1 of section 14 shall read as
follows:
1. Every resident who is not a depen-
dant or where such resident is the head of
a family and has not applied for a stan-
dard contract, his dependent spouse is
entitled to have a standard contract issued
to him if the application therefor is made
and if the subscription therefor is paid
and the effective date of such contract
shall be the first day of the following
month.
2. Subsection 3 of the said section 14
is repealed.
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
513
You will note that section 8 of the bill pro-
vides for the repeal of subsection 3. I have
accommodated that in my amendment.
You will further note, Mr. Chairman, that
the proposed subsection 1 (a) of the bill uses
in its first three words "notwithstanding sub-
section 1." Sir, my contention to you is that
one cannot comprehend what the hon. Min-
ister intends— yes, what the mover of the bill
intends— in regard to the proposed amend-
ment without reading subsection 1; they are
inextricably linked together. Therefore, my
amendment has the effect of rewriting to a
limited extent subsection 1 of section 14 and
I do away with the proposed amendment by
the mover of the bill. The change that I make
in section 14 is to change the effective date
of the contract from the first day of the
month following the closing date of the open
enrolment period to the first day of the
month following the application. It is as
simple as that.
I am not going to debate, on this amend-
ment, the matter of open enrolment periods.
That has been decided. We have expressed
our views. But, sir, notwithstanding that
that has been decided, it is open to this
House, in dealing with this section in the
way I propose, to say simply that when a
person wishes to enrol— and the hon. Minister
has said time and time again that this bill
is for persons, it is for individuals— the per-
son makes the decision that he wishes to en-
rol in the government plan, then he goes
down and he plunks down his money for his
contract, and says to the issuer, like the
issuer of licences, "Give me a contract."
We on this side do not believe that he
should have to wait two, four or six months,
or a year, or that he should have to wait
until another enrolment period is designated
by the government. But within a reasonable
time he is entitled to be issued his contract
of medical insurance. As to the reasonable
time, one must more or less pick it out of
the hat in regard; one must select a date.
We think it eminently fair that the date on
which the services become available to him
should be the first day of the following
month. There is a nice, even place to start—
the first of the month. Many decisions are
made on the first of the month. It is a time
of new beginnings, the time of resolution
and determination, the first of the month—
An hon. member: The rent is due.
Mr. Sopha: The rent is due, for one thing.
Perhaps it is pay day for another thing. And
we feel it is as good a time as any.
On the other side, there will be those
accustomed to dealing with the picayune, the
trivial, those who elaborate the obvious, and
distend the trivial, who will say that a person
will wait until he gets sick, or will wait until
he feels the pangs of sickness coming on and
then will go down and enrol in the govern-
ment scheme. I would submit that if you
thought about it for a little while, that
would apply to only a very small minority of
the great number of responsible citizens in
whom we can trust and who reside in this
province.
Furthermore, under my amendment, if he
is sick, if he has broken his leg, if he
suddenly discovers he has a herniated disc
or something else, or his gall bladder needs
removal— if it is a choice between the high-
way and the mother-in-law's gall bladder-
he is going to take out his gizmo and he is
going to have to wait at least until the first
day of the following month. So, if it is the
second of the month that he applies, he
has 29 days to wait and the corresponding
lessening number of days as the end of the
month approaches.
To sum it all up, if, in the words of the
hon. Minister the purpose is to bring to our
people adequate health care— and he has
said that and I have underlined it and I have
written it down that he has said it— and we
want to bring adequate health care to people
who otherwise cannot get it, then we take
him at his own word. We simply do that;
we take him at his own word and we say
that we believe on this side of the House
that the best way to get medical treatment
.for him is to enrol him in the government
plan as soon as possible.
At the other extreme, we do not want the
individual in hospital suddenly deciding that
the government should start to pay his
doctor's bills when he has not taken any
steps at all to provide those services for
himself. To obtain a happy medium, a
reasonable compromise between the two,
we intend to take the reference to the open
enrolment period out of section 14 and
substitute for it "the first day of the month
following the payment of the subscription."
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I should read this
amendment to members. It has been moved:
That section 8, subsection 1, be
amended by striking out all the words
after "1965" in the second line thereof and
substituting the following:
Is amended by striking out in subsection
514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1 of section 14, all the words after the
word "paid" in the fifth line and sub-
stituting the following: And the effective
date of such contract shall be the first
day of the following month, so that the
said subsection 1 of section 14 shall read
as follows: Every resident who is not a
dependant or where such a resident is
the head of a family and has not applied
for a standard contract, his dependent
spouse is entitled to have a standard con-
tract issued to him if the application there-
for is made and if the subscription there-
for is paid and the effective date of such
contract shall be the first day of the
following month.
This is if 2, section 3, of the said
section 14 is repealed.
I think it is on a thin line as far as the
acceptance of this particular amendment in
some parts but I am prepared to accept it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
respectfully disagree with your opinion in
this matter? This is exactly the same argu-
ment as I put forward before. Just because
we used the words: "Notwithstanding sub-
section 1." This certainly does not give a
member the right to bring in an amend-
ment to a part of the Act which has already
been passed and has been considered law by
this Legislature. It would be necessary again
for the member to bring in a bill to amend
the section which he chooses to amend.
The amendment we proposed, sir, is an
additional paragraph. We could have started
this paragraph out, I feel, by saying, "where
an application is made," but to make it
simple for us we have put in "notwithstand-
ing subsection 1."
But it would seem to me, sir, that that
indeed, is a very fine line. Again, I must
bow to the superior legal knowledge of my
hon. friend, but in my opinion I think this
is a very, very thin line indeed on which
to stand and say: "This gives me the right
to propose an amendment to a part of the
Act that became law last year."
Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the comments
of the Minister, but I have already given a
ruling in connection with this.
I recognize the member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, having estab-
lished the "thin line," I appreciate that
ruling and I would also say that the remarks
of the hon. member for Sudbury have
demonstrated his concern for the welfare of
the people of this province in trying to get
a little thinner line between the time of
payment and the time of operation of the
contract.
It seems to me that even down to one
day— I have no objection to that— because it
seems to me that what we are trying to do
with this bill is to meet a fundamental
human need, the need of our people for
medical care. This is a fundamental thing
and we should be searching for ways and
means by which those needs can be met
effectively and as soon as possible after the
date when the person pays his amount of
money.
Now it seems to me that the sensible
thing would be to establish a date. If it is
July 1, 1966 and if we could have said that
on that date everybody is covered and our
people will start to pay their premiums,
this would have been, in my opinion, the
proper solution to the whole problem.
Since it is not, then the sooner the con-
tract takes effect after the premium is paid,
the better. It seems to me that the hon.
member for Sudbury has brought forward a
sensible arrangement here.
I am sorry he has gone, because I want to
make a further suggestion to him, because
section 14 of Bill No. 136 did lay down
a pretty fundamental thing which is simply
an extension of what the hon. member has
outlined.
Subsection 3 (a) said:
A standard contract issued under this
section shall not provide any waiting
period or any limitation of benefits with
respect to any pre-existing physical or
mental infirmity or condition.
It seems to me that perhaps the hon. Minister
himself might be willing to bring this within
the scope of the Act and it might be that
the hon. member for Sudbury would include
in his amendment that very idea, that no
standard contract issued under this section
shall provide any waiting period or any limi-
tation of benefits with respect to any pre-
existing physical or mental infirmity or
condition. Because after all, people who are
now suffering from physical or mental in-
firmities or whatever it may be and have
some deterioration of the body, these people
need help at the earliest possible moment.
I do not think in this case, that any of us
would say that there should be any waiting
period. I am wondering if the hon. member
for Sudbury might be willing to include this
within the scope of his amendment because I
think it is very important. I wondered if
anyone can speak for him—
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
515
I see that the hon. member for Sudbury
has just come back and if I could repeat my
request of him—
Mr. Thompson: I will relay it to him.
Mr. Young: All right, if that could be done,
I would pass this to him and suggest that
this might be done. It is simply a matter of
incorporating section 3 (a), the general idea
of it, within his amendment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, this
would be totally redundant. We have
already said in section 5:
Standard medical services insurance
contracts shall be made available for resi-
dents and their dependants without re-
gard to age, physical or mental infirmity,
financial means or occupation, only by the
medical services insurance division.
We proposed in our amendments that sub-
section 3 of 14 be deleted because this called
for waiting periods and we have decided to
cut out waiting periods.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, could I ask—
section 5 does not guarantee that such people
will not have to wait the regular waiting
period. You say that it is not in there?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, you do
not repeat the terms of the Act in every
paragraph. These terms are laid down and
we have already made the point clear on this
matter.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, does it not
mean that a person with a physical infirmity,
if he pays his subscription today— according
to what you have said, if I understand
correctly— he has the services immediately?
He does not have to wait until the first—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I did not say any
such thing, Mr. Chairman. The hon. mem-
ber is putting words in my mouth. I have
stated already in this debate that if the sub-
scriber enrols during an open enrolment
period, his contract comes due on the first
day of the month following payment of his
subscription. If he does not enrol during
an open enrolment period, but enrols any
other time, there is a waiting period for all
conditions of three months.
This subsection which we are proposing
now under section 8 of the amendment,
simply spells that out for the initial enrol-
ment period, because again, as I explained
this afternoon, the open enrolment period
we hope will close two months before the
first day on which benefits become available
to subscribers.
This two-month period is needed by the
administration to get the machinery in
operation so that there will be no disappoint-
ment and we will be able to carry out our
contract. This section 8, section 14 1 (a)
simply has reference to the initial open en-
rolment period and will have no effect after
that initial enrolment period is over.
Mr. Bryden: But, Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the hon. Minister has yet appreciated
the point. He also—
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me for just one
moment. The Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Yaremko) tried to get my attention earlier.
You were on the floor before the member
for Woodbine.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak on a
point of order, but on that very thin red line.
Thank you.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, may I say this
on a point of order? We are getting into far
too much legalism here. Let us get on with
the discussion of the principle of these ad-
mendments and let us not get down to petti-
foggery and cavilling about the procedure of
the House. We waste more time in ruling
whether these amendments are in order or
not, than we do in discussing the principles
involved.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Woodbine.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think the
hon. Minister has missed the point, and I
think it is a very valid point that the hon.
member for Yorkview has raised and on
which he would have proposed an amendment
if he had managed to catch your eye before
the hon. member for Sudbury.
The proposed section 8 of the bill will
amend section 14 of the Act, first of all by
putting in a new subsection which has been
discussed to some degree. Secondly, it will
strike out the subsection 3 now in there. We
submit to the hon. Minister that although
we certainly would not want clause (b) of
subsection 3— we fought it like steers last
year— there is in clause (a) of subsection 3, an
important point which is not covered by any
other part of the bill. The important point
is that a standard contract, if this part of the
thing were retained, shall not provide any
waiting period or any limitation of benefits
with respect to any pre-existing physical or
mental infirmity or condition.
516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I submit to the hon. Minister that section 5
of the Act, as it is re-enacted, does not
change its basic import at all; section 5 of the
Act does not cover that point. Indeed, if
section 5 did cover it, why did the hon. Min-
ister bring this clause in last year? Section
5 was in the Act last year— the same in
principle, but changed in words in order to
fit into the new framework of the Act. Sec-
tion 5 just gives a general guarantee that
standard medical services insurance contracts
shall be made available. But it does not say
anything about limitations that may be im-
posed.
But, if one goes over to the regulations
section of the Act— section 28 of the Act—
and looks at clause (k), which even under
this amending bill is still to stay, it provides
that the Lieutenant-Governor in council may
make regulations prescribing limitations on
benefits under standard contracts.
Put those three things together and I sub-
mit to the hon. Minister that there is a guar-
antee contained in clase (a) of subsection 3
that he wants to repeal that should be there,
and that is that neither the Lieutenant-
Governor nor anybody else can monkey with
this thing so as to impose a waiting period
or other limitation, because of a pre-existing
condition. If he takes that section out of the
Act, then there is no guarantee against that.
It may be that the government would not
do such a thing, I do not know, but I think
when we are dealing with laws we should
have a right to expect guarantees on certain
matters and not have to rely on the goodwill
of the government. I submit to the hon.
Minister that he put that section in last year
and he had a section 5 that pari passu was
exactly the same as it is now. He considered
it necessary last year; I suggest to him that
it is still necessary this year and that we
should make it absolutely clear that the
people are not going to be limited because
of pre-existing physical or mental infirmity or
condition. This is all we are asking for.
It is almost 10:30 now, Mr. Chairman. I
do not know if the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) has been following the procedure of
adjourning at 10:30, but if that is his plan
now, I would suggest you let this section
stand overnight and perhaps the hon. Minis-
ter can think about the representations we
have made to him.
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the member
for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, if I may speak to the amendment
as proposed by the hon. member for Sud-
bury, I would like to bring in the problem
of the immigrant.
Under the amendment as proposed by the
hon. member for Sudbury, the immigrant
would be covered on the first of the month
following the payment of the premium. The
immigrant coming into the country has had
to pass a medical exam, so we would assume
that he would be perfectly physically fit,
and would not be requiring medical serv-
ices to any extent. Under the scheme as
proposed by the hon. Minister now, there
would be a waiting period unless that immi-
grant were to come in at the time of an
open enrolment period. I do not think this
would be fair to the individual.
The other point that I would bring up is
the person covered by a family coverage.
They may have a youngster at the age of
19 or 20 who shortly will reach adulthood.
Where does that youngster stand in relation-
ship to coverage? Will that person now have
to have a waiting period before he will be
covered by the medical services?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, in re-
spect of the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-
erville: The immigrant has to be a resident
of Ontario for three months before he is
eligible for coverage at all under any of our
social legislation— certainly under our hospital
plan and under this plan.
The youngster who becomes of age outside
of an open enrolment period is covered
under subsection 2 of this section.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Minister, in what way
is he covered?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Every dependant who
becomes 21 years of age and every person
who qualifies as a resident after the expira-
tion of an open enrolment period is entitled
to apply for a standard contract, if the appli-
cation therefor is made and the subscription
therefor is paid within 30 days following the
date on which he so qualifies, and the effec-
tive date of such a contract shall be the first
day of the month following the date of appli-
cation and payment of subscription.
This would cover the immigrant. As soon
as he became a resident and enrolled,
whether it was in an open enrolment period
or not, he would be covered on the first day
of the month following the payment of his
subscription.
Mr. Newman: If I can ask the hon. Minis-
ter a question, what happens to the student?
Does the student now have to pay a premium
FEBRUARY 14, 1966
517
or is the student covered under this free
medical? The student more than likely does
not make earnings that are taxable.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If he does not make
earnings that are taxable, he has a right to
apply and get free coverage.
Mr. Newman: So all students then—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If he has taxable earn-
ings and he is over 21 years of age, then he
will be treated the same as everybody else.
Mr. Newman: Then all students would be
eligible to obtain the free medical plan?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If they are over 21
years of age, yes.
I cannot understand why the hon. mem-
ber for Woodbine should be worrying about
the guarantee. It is here quite clearly in
section 14. It is not spelled out, but it states
that the subscriber shall be eligible in an
open enrolment period for coverage. The cov-
erage is spelled out already in the definition
section of the Act, and under section 5, as
the hon. member points out, it was spelled
out in the Act before. That is the guarantee
that there will be no discrimination for age,
state of health or financial status, and section
14, subsection 1 states that he is eligible for
benefits on the first day of the month follow-
ing the payment of his premium in an open
enrolment period.
Mr. Bryden: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman.
It is not quite that simple, because the Act,
assuming that all the amendments that the
hon. Minister is proposing are carried exactly
as they are, will still contain a provision
whereby the Lieutenant-Governor in council
will be able to alter.
To go back to the bill of last year, or the
bill as it was passed by the committee of the
whole House, in section 28, which is on page
14 as it was printed here, the Lieutenant-
Governor in council may make regulations.
Then you go down to (k), prescribing limita-
tions on benefits under standard contracts,
respecting any matter necessary or advisable
to carry out effectively the intent and pur-
pose of this Act.
These are the things I am worried about,
Mr. Chairman. I am not saying that he has
in mind using that power for the purpose of
putting some special limitations on persons
suffering from physical or mental infirmity or
condition, all I am asking is the quite harm-
less request— it would not hurt his bill any—
to just leave that guarantee which he saw fit
to put in last year. Why did he put it in last
year if it is unnecessary? He has not made
any material change this year that renders it
any less necessary now than it was last year.
I submit he just should do what he did last
year on that point.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the lim-
itations referred to in section 28 are the
limitations in schedule A.
Mr. Bryden: It does not say that, but even
so you can put it into schedule A. If you
left in the guarantee you had then, there
would be no question that any limitation
could be imposed with respect to these
people.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to follow on the question asked by
the hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville. I
notice in the answer that the hon. Minister
referred to when the immigrant is a resident.
By that I had a feeling that he implied that
after three months he becomes a resident, but
this is not quite correct, sir. An immigrant
becomes a resident— has the status of a resi-
dent—on the first day he arrives off the boat.
Because of this I think that to say categor-
ically that after three months he can have all
the social benefits that Ontario provides, is
questionable. It seems to me there is a period
of adjustment during those three months
where it is pretty severe for the immigrant.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: As far as this Act is
concerned, Mr. Chairman, "resident" is
spelled out in the definition section and this
is what it says:
An individual who is legally entitled to
remain in Canada who has ordinarily re-
sided in Ontario for a continuous period of
at least 90 days immediately preceding the
date on which an application for a standard
contract is made by him or on his behalf,
but does not include a tourist, transient or
a visitor to Ontario.
It is spelled out here. I may have been in
error, and I think I qualified my statement
with respect to his eligibility for all help
under our social welfare. But certainly under
our hospital insurance plan and under this
plan this is the definition of a resident. In
the first three months I believe there is an
arrangement with the department of immi-
gration that looks after some part, at least, of
the hospital and health care.
Mr. Thompson: There is, and I would like
to guarantee that very definitely, because
the hon. Minister is speaking of a large
number of people. There is a more active
518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
immigration policy in the Ontario govern-
ment, and when you are trying to attract
people to come to the country, you talk
about the benefits which they may have
under Ontario and your human betterment
programme. I would hope that this is not
always going to be a practice, when the
hon. Minister is saying that it becomes effec-
tive after three months, just because you had
that under the hospital insurance programme.
I would hope that immigrants would be
given equal opportunity with anyone else
immediately after they arrive.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want
to come back to a point that my colleague,
the hon. member for Woodbine, made to
the hon. Minister and ask him if he would
hold this over and let his law officers take
a look at it, because with respect, if I may
repeat this and draw it to his attention,
section 28 does not have reference only to
the schedule. When section 28 spells out
with regard to regulations, and in subsection
(k) says, "prescribed limitations on benefits
under standard contracts," that applies
throughout the whole bill.
If you come back to the section that we
are now dealing with, and if you strike out
section 3 (a) which now says "a standard
contract issued under this section shall not
provide any waiting period or any limitation
of benefits with respect to any pre-existing
physical or mental infirmity or condition,"
and you leave subsection (k) of the regula-
tions, then under this bill it is possible to
put limitations on in this way.
I do not think the hon. Minister wants
that; he told us that this is not the case. But
I submit to you that under the bill, legally it
can be done. I repeat, let us have the law
officers have a look at it and see whether
they concur and we can vote on it tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I am
deeply saddened that my hon. friend has
suspicions of me at this late hour. However,
I will bow to his wish and I will have the
law officers look at this.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of the whole rise and
report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report progress
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will commence the
Budget debate and we have a night session
tomorrow night. When the two financial
critics have spoken, we will revert to Bill
No. 6 in committee.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.40 o'clock, p.m.
No. 19
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Beiateg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
Second report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 521
Assessment Act, biH to amend, Mr. Davison, first reading 521
Resumption of the debate on the Budget, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bryden 524
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. White, agreed to 549
Recess, 6 o'clock 549
521
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome, as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery, Lawrence
Heights junior high school, Downsview, and
in the west gallery, Bramalea secondary
school, Bramalea and Don Mills junior high
school, Don Mills.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South) from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's second report which
was read as follows and adopted:
Bill No. Pr2, An Act respecting the Kenora
Rink Company Limited.
Bill No. Pr9, An Act respecting the city of
Port Arthur.
Your committee begs to report the following
bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr5, An Act respecting the Toronto
aged men's and women's homes.
Bill No. Pr8, An Act respecting the Strath-
roy Middlesex general hospital.
Bill No. Prl4, An Act to establish the
Guelph district board of education.
Bill No. Prl6, An Act respecting l'lnstitut
Canadien Frangais de la cite d'Ottawa.
Your committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties and the actual cost of
printing be remitted on Bill No. Pr5, An Act
respecting the Toronto aged men's and
women's homes.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Assessment Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan). Now I am
nonplussed for I notice he is not here.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member to
hold his question. If the Provincial Treasurer
comes in before the end of question period
he may ask it; if not, the Provincial Treasurer
can take it as notice for tomorrow.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree), a copy
of which has been submitted to him.
In view of the strike in the building con-
struction trades in the city of Windsor, what
efforts are being made by the hon. Minister
to bring about a settlement?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, the department is in close touch
with the . situation in Windsor and is seeking
to create an early favourable opportunity for
the parties to come together to resolve their
dispute.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett) notice of which has been given
him.
Would the hon. Minister tell the House
whether any convictions have been obtained
under section 27 subsection 1, of The On-
tario Water Resources Commission Act within
the last 12 months? If convictions were
obtained, would the hon. Minister name the
municipalities or persons involved?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry I am unable to give the hon. mem-
ber an answer to his question today. The
senior solicitor for the Ontario water re-
sources commission was out of his office this
morning, appearing before the standing com-
mittee on government commissions.
I will be pleased to give the hon. member
an answer tomorrow, sir.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld).
522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Is the hon. Minister alarmed about the effect
of press reports of pollution in three small
areas in Muskoka being detrimental to the
whole Muskoka area this coming tourist
season? As a supplementary: Are steps being
taken to correct this impression left by this
reporting, in view of the subsequent state-
ments in the OWRC report that the quality
of surface waters in the Muskoka lakes is
entirely suitable for recreational uses?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, I think
my hon. friend's supplementary question
answered his first question. Actually, I pre-
sume he is referring to a story which is in
this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail. On
reading the story it appeared to me that the
head on the story was to be the problem
rather than the story itself.
Of course, the Ontario water resources com-
mission is under the jurisdiction of the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment. I obtained a copy of the press release
this morning which the commission produced
last week when the survey was made public
and I would like to read the first paragraph
of it:
The bacteriological quality of the main
bodies of water in the Muskoka lakes
district of Ontario is excellent, it is stated
in a report "Water Quality and Pollution
Control in the Muskoka Lakes" just issued
by the Ontario water resources commission.
I understand that this press release was
distributed around the province and was used
as the basis of stories around the province
and so I think that the report in this morn-
ing's paper was more alarming to those who
only read the head than it was to those who
read the body of the report.
Mr. Paterson: Supplementary to that, has
the hon. Minister read the actual report of
the OWRC on this matter?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I have the same problem
as the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Mangement. Everybody from the Ontario
water resources commission was at the stand-
ing committee this morning so I have not
had an opportunity to get the report.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett). Is the hon. Minister
taking any steps with regard to the exhaust
control systems on 1966 automobiles?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, all 1966 cars— indeed, all regis-
tered motor vehicles— are required under The
Highway Traffic Act to have exhaust control
systems as defined by section 42 (1) et seq.
42 (1). Every motor vehicle shall be
equipped with a muffler in good working
order and in constant operation to prevent
excessive or unusual noise and excessive
smoke and no person shall use a muffler
cutout, by-pass or similar device upon a
motor vehicle.
Subsection 2. The engine and power
mechanism of every motor vehicle shall
be so equipped and adjusted as to prevent
the escape of excessive fumes or smoke.
If the hon. member has reference to means
for reducing the emission of air pollutants
such as unsaturated hydrocarbons in 1966
cars, the answer is no.
Mr. Sargent: Is the hon. Minister aware
that 1966 cars in California have them on
them now? And what is he planning to do
about it?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the sit-
uation existing in California, especially in
the city of Los Angeles, is very different
from what we have here. If the hon. member
had been present yesterday and heard my
answer when I was replying to both the
primary and supplementary questions of his
colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville, he would have heard what we
are doing and what we hope will be done.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart). Has, or is, the government consid-
ering taking steps to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act, to require all trust
and loan companies to have deposit insurance
to guarantee and provide insurance on all
deposits?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, a bill to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act will be placed before
this House for consideration at this session.
Some of the provisions— most of the pro-
visions—in that legislation will relate to the
financial aspects of loan and trust companies.
It is not our present intention to require
insurance of deposits. That area, I believe
you will find, will be dealt with by the re-
quirements as to reserves, which will be set
forth in the legislation.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I have a ques-
tion to ask the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond). Will the hon. Minister advise this
House the annual salary and annual allowable
travelling expenses of the hon. member of
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
523
the legislative assembly serving on the
Ontario hospital services commission?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that question should
have been either a written question for the
notice paper or, more properly perhaps,
a notice of motion for return. If the hon.
member would like to do this I will get the
particulars and submit them as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I have looked
all through the public accounts of last year
and I am unable to find this. Surely for a
senior man such as the hon. member of the
Legislature representing the Ontario hospital
services commission, surely you can give the
answer to that question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I will get the informa-
tion for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, there
is no question about that.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Tourism and
Information. Would the hon. Minister advise
this House the annual salary and annual
allowable travelling expenses of the hon.
members of the legislative assembly serving
on the St. Lawrence parks commission?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think prob-
ably my answer would be the same as that
of the hon. Minister of Health. Although I
do not have the public accounts in front of
me, I know when I was a member of that
commission, the amount was shown in the
public accounts.
Mr. Whicher: Well, it is not there and
that is the reason I am asking the question.
Not one of them is there.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, if this could
be a motion for return, I will endeavour to
have the information for the hon. member.
Mr. Whicher: I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement. Will the hon. Minister advise this
House the annual salary and annual allow-
able travelling expenses of the hon. members
of the legislative assembly serving on the
following commissions: The Ontario North-
land transportation commission, the hydro-
electric power commission, the Ontario water
resources commission—
An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hydro, that
will be a good one.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, as I did
not get notice of these questions until 12:30
today and to get the information that the
hon. member wants I would have to get in
touch with North Bay, with the Hydro office
and with the OWRC-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Now the
member has asked a question and I may say
that in response to all of these questions I
ask that they be placed on the order paper.
I understand the member wished to
have this information to make a speech on
the Budget and being unable to find the an-
swers anywhere I allowed the question to be
asked directly to the Minister.
If the Minister has stated that he will get
the information for the member and make a
return on the notice paper, that is his
prerogative.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, you can always
try again. I have a question of the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko). Will the
hon. Provincial Secretary advise this House
the annual salary and annual allowable travel-
ling expenses of the hon. member of the
legislative assembly serving on the liquor con-
trol board of Ontario?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): I
think that the reasoning followed by my hon.
colleagues is quite proper. This type of ques-
tion I think should form the basis of an order
of return and I would take the same as such.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): If this
is made in the form of a notice for return, I
will undertake that the information will be
here in time for the hon. member to use it
in the Budget debate if that is what he
wishes. We will get it and we will put it on
the order paper.
Mr. Whicher: I have one more. Will the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) advise
this House the annual salary and annual
allowable travelling expenses for the hon.
members of the legislative assembly on the
following board and commission: the board
of pensions and the racing commission?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I would advise the hon. member
first of all that there are no Ministers on those
commissions—
Mr. Whicher: I did not say Ministers, I>
said members of the Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Allan: The question I have here
says "Ministers." However, I am happy to
take this as notice. . :4 .' ' ..
524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to say-
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the member can-
not make a statement.
Mr. MacDonald: There are a lot of things
I would like to say, too, but I will not try to
say them at this point.
My question is to the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer. Has the government granted a tempor-
ary exemption on payment of sales tax to
trucking companies involved in the labour-
management dispute when they transfer their
vehicles to another operator?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I say in
answer to the hon. member's question that it
has been brought to my attention that there
has been a substantial number of transfers of
vehicles reported to the retail sales tax
branch by The Department of Transport.
These transfers are being investigated by the
retail sales tax branch and tax will be col-
lected as has been our practice in the past.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Second order. Resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the motion that
Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and that
the House resolve itself into committee of
ways and means.
ON THE BUDGET
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): I would like to start first of all by
saying to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) that I appreciate the fact that he
had wanted my reply to the Budget to be on
Monday— traditionally I think it is on a Tues-
day, but I appreciated the arrangement to
have it on Tuesday. I had some personal
reasons as well which made it very helpful
for me.
Last week, sir, the people in three Cana-
dian provinces got the idea of what was going
to be in store for them in the coming fiscal
year. In British Columbia, Premier Bennett
brought down a sunshine budget; he lifted
the 5 per cent sales tax from meals, from
magazines, confections, school supplies and
children's clothing and he increased grants
to homeowners from $100 to $110. And he
eliminated some property taxes.
Mr. Bennett's budget, it is interesting to
note, called for a surplus of $2.5 million,
compared to our deficit Budget.
In Saskatchewan, in the Speech from the
Throne there were indications that the prov-
ince's rural and urban homeowners would
get an annual $50 grant from the province.
There have been promises that the province
intends to reduce provincial income tax by
about one per cent in its 1966-67 budget
later this month.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all of this seems very
normal. The times are good. The United
States is already savouring the delight of a
number of tax cuts.
And what is happening in Ontario-
Ontario, which is Canada's wealthiest prov-
ince, the so-called province of opportunity?
The government hits us with the largest
wholesale increase in taxation in the prov-
ince's history. And it set off a shock around
this province. The hon. Prime Minister— and
he suggests that it is a fad that is taking
place— he gets pickets. There were pickets
last night in front of this Legislature, of
people who are angry and annoyed. Not
only have their rights been pushed around,
but they are getting their pocketbooks
pushed around as well.
The genial Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)
raised the sales tax and for the first time I
think this is significant, he has applied
it to service industries. He raised the sales
tax on the gasoline tax, cigarette tax, the land
transfer tax, the highway diesel fuel tax,
and then for good measure, he threw in the
price of spirits and wine.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer smiled occa-
sionally when he presented this Budget, Mr.
Speaker, and we would like to smile back,
but in smiling back he stole some of our gold
fillings while he was at it.
Not including liquor, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer jumped his tax revenues in this
Budget almost 15 per cent. The hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer has warned us that he is
not even going to be satisfied with this 15
per cent. If Ottawa does not increase its
abatement, he said the province is going to
increase its income tax rate to produce an
additional yield of four percentage points.
This implied threats. I suggest it is not
based on threats. He has tax committees
which are yet to report and which never
bothered this government, Mr. Speaker— you
and I both know that. We heard the hon.
Prime Minister— it was not too many months
ago, when he was having a test in inter-
national relations, a blackout throughout the
whole of the province— come out with a
statement. He would move away from the
international grid system. Because he had
not got his facts, he had to find out later
that Ontario was responsible for this.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
525
I suggest the kind of implied threat by
the hon. Provincial Treasurer also should
only come after he has looked at the full
facts. The federal Minister of Finance has
indicated the provinces cannot expect
Ottawa to keep reducing its share of in-
come taxes to make it less painful for the
provinces to increase theirs. Let me say
that you cannot talk out of both sides of
your mouth. We have this situation of say-
ing that a strong central government is
wanted. It seems pretty hard to maintain
a strong central government when you get
the kind of talk that we are getting from the
hon. Provincial Treasurer.
For the moment, it would appear our
people can look forward to a jump in pro-
vincial income tax next year. The question
that we are all asking, Mr. Speaker, is why
this sudden scramble for money? This is the
question that the people of the province are
asking. And their confusion about this is
perfectly understandable. All that they have
heard and all that we have heard in this
Legislature over the years is that the prov-
ince is booming.
The hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment (Mr. Randall)— who appears to be
not here— is a man who only modestly blows
his moose horn, but he is always telling us
that Ontario is booming as never before.
You may have noticed this, Mr. Speaker, his
department took up half-page newspaper
ads. It happened to be during the federal
election, but I am sure that was just co-
incidence and there was no particular reason
for it. They were, of course, of a non-
political nature, but they were saying how
good things are in this province. Do you
know what they said actually, in effect? That
Canada is the number one boy of Ontario.
The hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Ward-
rope)— and unfortunately he is not here
either— I look on as the nightingale of the
north, because he is always singing the
happy song about how well things are doing
in the mining industry. Sometimes, Mr.
Speaker, he sings it a little prematurely, but
I do not want to go into that. Anyway, he
gives the picture that everything is booming.
The hon. Minister of Tourism and Infor-
mation (Mr. Auld) would have us believe
that tourists are flooding in here, banging
at the pearly gates of this Conservative
heaven. We are going to have that looked
into by our critic on tourism, which will
show that we have lost many opportunities
for revenue for this province by not having
an aggressive, forward approach through the
years.
The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Roberts), who sounds like Paul Bunyan,
introduces his estimates with the same
flourish; all of them saying, Mr. Speaker,
that everything is rosy and wonderful.
And of course the Provincial Treasurers,
over the years, are the ones who did this
best. They are the genial gentlemen who
seem to have the sun on a string. They
could pull it down with every Budget day,
Mr. Speaker. In good years and in bad years,
they would always tell us there was a
surplus. This was established in the days
of Mr. Leslie Frost, and although the book-
keeping has always left much to be desired,
they always did show a little bit of surplus.
Budget day, as far as the government
went, was like a Broadway opening. The
hon. Provincial Treasurer stood up— I sat
and listened to the hon. Provincial Treasurer
year after year, with that kindly smile on his
face, standing up— and he verbally clothed
our citizens in tuxedos, and in the finale he
rang down the curtain amidst a shower of
surplus cash.
But this year, a very funny thing has
happened. On the hon. Provincial Treasurer's
way to the bank he seems to have taken some
side road and he seems to be ending up at
Ottawa's almshouse. And why? That is
what the people are asking. Why is he dis-
playing now such a beggarly attitude, as
though he had a tin cup in his hand?
My answer, sir, is going to detail this 15
per cent hike. As far as I am concerned, it
is the cost which we, the people of Ontario
are having to pay for mismanagement, for
inept management, for lack of planning on
the part of this government every year. Let
me perhaps establish my main point by a
text which I think the hon. Provincial Trea-
surer will understand: "They have sown the
wind; they shall reap the whirlwind."
And for the hon. member— he may be a
Minister one day taking over from the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond); he should,
he gets more at the crux of the thing, in my
opinion— who thought he would like another
kind of quote, I would say:
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old time is still a-flying,
And that same sun which shines today,
Tomorrow may be dying.
For the sunshine Treasurer, I would say that
the sun is not shining very much over there.
If I could have afforded to buy a black suit,
I would have. But with the way the sales
tax is going up on clothing, I did not make
that investment.
526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Sir, I want to take the first example of
bad planning, and it is education. I do not
want to go through the list of those who
have been Ministers of Education, but I
think they will know themselves. There are
few things in government that are easier
to predict than the costs of education. Chil-
dren are born— we know how many— and they
have to be educated. And this means schools.
The shelves of this government are piled high
with reports warning the government to start
building more schools— technical schools,
community colleges and universities— and I do
not mean just yesterday, I mean year after
year as we go back.
In the last 15 years we can count the num-
ber of university presidents who have tried
to sound alarm bells in graduation day
speeches; the number of schoolboard chair-
men who have stressed the same theme in
inaugural day addresses; the number of
newspaper editorials. I could quote from the
speeches of the former leader of the
Opposition as he tried to plead with the gov-
ernment to start recognizing that it has to
look ahead through the years, by seeing the
children moving up through grade school and
moving on in the hope that they can get into
technical schools and into universities, if
they want.
I am glad, sir, that from a previous plea
I made last year, the government has now
decided it will have a bureau of statistics,
because that is something that is badly
needed.
For too long, this government has resisted.
It was wedded to an old-fashioned "three-
R" approach to education. It turns its back
on the challenges and changes of the future
and with a single-minded— or simple-minded
—devotion to the past, it has defended the
little red schoolhouse to all comers.
I noticed recently in one newspaper— you
may have seen this, Mr. Speaker, for there
was a picture of one of these schoolhouses—
I thought it was most appropriate that the
name of the school was "Drew." It could
have been "Frost" or "Robarts"-it still would
have applied.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thompson: And that schoolhouse
should be preserved as a monument to show
the inactivity and ineptitude of the govern-
ment over the years. And this old "three-
R's" mentality has cost us and our children
dearly, and I do not mean just in the massive
increase in taxes this year. You and I both,
Mr. Speaker, read the hon. Provincial Trea-
surer's Budget statement and I am quoting
from it:
Ontario could have achieved greater
growth if a larger supply of qualified
labour had been available. The limiting
factor to Ontario's rate of growth in 1965
was not capital, but qualified managerial,
professional and skilled labour.
What caused this was government's old
fixation with the "three-R's". The hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer's message is simple; this
province did not supply the necessary educa-
tional facilities for children it knew would
need them, and as a result we have a short-
age of skilled man-power and this shortage
has cut the efficiency of our economy and the
province has had to increase taxes to get the
necessary revenue.
The result of a Conservative philosophy
of financing education— pay now and go later
—and this short-sighted government has
not spread the costs of education over a
number of years. I repeat, and I will repeat
it again and again, it knew the number of
children that would have to be educated and
so now we have a crash programme. In the
hon. Privincial Treasurer's own words: "The
government has supported accelerated pro-
grammes to upgrade existing and potential
labour supplies."
Crash programmes mean that the govern-
ment is mismanaging the affairs of this prov-
ince; they are having to move in because of
bad planning. Crash programmes cost money;
they cost more money than currently planned
expansion. Crash programmes cost more be-
cause of the hurry and the overtime involved.
Just this morning, we see where there is
going to be another crash programme; an-
other exposure of government inefficiency in
the lack of libraries. The hon. member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer) has fought hard and
continually about the libraries and had these
kind of smooth answers in reply— and sud-
denly with the very able report that has
come out from Mr. Francis R. St. John, we
now realize that nothing has been done in
six years on this.
What caused this "three-R" mentality of
the government? Crash programmes at the
present time are costing more because of
interest rates and labour costs which have
risen since the 1950's and early 1960's. The
construction industry is booming now, so
much so that Ottawa has announced a cut-
back in public works, but in the 1950's and
1960's there were times when men were
unemployed and were desperate for a job.
I can remember standing up in that back
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
527
bench, sir, during a period of tough un-
employment for many people in my riding
and trying to fight to get some kind of
activity from the government, some kind of
public works programme going for them.
The government, in the 1960's, when men
needed jobs, the government did not employ
them building the schools, and yet it knew
that schools were needed; it left the un-
employed to languish on welfare during that
time and with the fiscal indecisiveness of a
true conservative, it hugged its money like a
crotchety old man in these bad years and
announced budget surpluses. Every year a
budget surplus, but what we really needed
was to give some impetus to the economy
through public works.
What price, in human suffering, these
budget surpluses? I will give you some
examples: The hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis) proudly announced last Friday a
$27 million expansion at Ryerson institute—
this is going to be the first part of a five-year
project which should be completed by Sep-
tember 1868-
An hon. member: 1968.
Mr. Thompson: 1968— they should have
started about 1868. This whole project will
double the size of the campus from 7 to 14
acres and it will increase enrolment from the
present 4,200 to 10,000. "Another glory of
the Robarts government" said public relations
men— and there are enough of them. We are
trying to find the answers to some of those
questions as well, after we have found out
how many of these men over there are what
we call "moonlighting."
I was talking to a taxi driver about that,
Mr. Speaker. He was horrified to think that
they are getting two salaries for different
jobs— but that is away from what I am
questioning at the moment.
It was a glory that was late in coming—
this Ryerson extension— but two years ago
you and I both know that there were 1,000
students who could not get into Ryerson be-
cause there was not enough room. Where
are these students right now? Some of them
are unskilled or else they have moved away
and they are spoiling the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's boom.
What about the cost now to make this
expansion of Ryerson? Construction experts
estimate that Ryerson will cost about 12
per cent more in material and wages now
than it would have in January 1963, and think
of the employment a Ryerson expansion could
have given men in the difficult years of the
1950's and 1960's.
Let me quote from a leading Conservative
on this: "It is widely acknowledged that the
pace of our economic progress depends to a
large extent upon the provision of these
services." Here he is referring to education,
to health, and to job training, and he goes
on: "Economic expansion depends on these
and the availability of an educated and well
trained labour force."
That quote is from the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's Budget statement. What he was
saying then, I only wish he had said in the
'50's and '60's, when the province should have
been making some of those educational in-
vestments.
Look at the thousands of students who
took the four-year high school course and
now they have nowhere to go, because we
have not got community colleges.
Once again, when they could have been
planning these over a period, we are going
to hear from across there of a crash pro-
gramme to put these community colleges out,
that they are going to keep their word to
the young people of this province. Another
crash programme!
What is the government doing for these
children, for example, who are going to com-
munity colleges next year? What was it
doing when they first started school in 1953?
They complacently ran a surplus that year of
more than a million. And what about the
government's much publicized on-the-job
training and revamped apprenticeship courses?
It is another crash programme.
For years this government was content to
leave the apprenticeship programme time-
locked in the 1920's. I sat on a manpower
committee. The Apprenticeship Act, I think
was 1926, it had not even been looked at
until a few years ago. And even in the
1963 report of the select committee on man-
power training, even when that report came
out and showed the need for specialized
training skills for men, there has been little
done by this government. The hon. member
for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) was
talking about tool and die makers. That
came up in 1963, a desperation on the part
of industries to get qualified trained people.
As yet, we have not had an answer from
the government to this kind of qualified
training.
Finally, in 1966, we are just beginning to
get programmes that should have been started
years ago, and the cost of this complacency
is inflation, for one thing. A shortage of
labour has bid up its cost. Public works
programmes should be easy to spot in the
right place and at the right time. Ottawa has
528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
got a shelf of them and it is ready to go when
the economy takes a down-turn.
But Ontario, Mr. Speaker, does things a
little differently. It started the $50 million
Queen's Park expansion when the economy
was nearly at full employment. What price
this poor planning?
The three-volume report of the Ontario
health survey committee was available to this
government in 1951 and made specific recom-
mendations with respect to hospital facilities
and services, mental facilities and services,
private nursing homes, dental facilities and
the supply of doctors. I want to just re-
emphasize that— the supply of doctors. It
said such things as this:
If Ontario is to maintain its position of
leadership in the field of mental health,
action has to be taken to avert the present
downward trend in the provision of mental
health facilities.
That was almost a couple of decades ago.
It laid down, for example, how many beds
should have been provided in Toronto, and
yet the government did not get around to
providing low-cost loans until 1964. I can
remember the fight that we had in the House
to get the hon. Minister of Health even to
recognize that there was a shortage of hospital
beds.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): May
I ask my hon. friend from what he is quoting,
and its date?
Mr. Thompson: I am not quoting from
anything, I am just talking. You mean about
the health survey?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I under-
stood my hon. friend to say that he was
quoting from some report that had a date.
Mr. Thompson: Oh, I am sorry.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I could not understand;
I could not get the date.
Mr. Thompson: It is the Ontario health
survey committee which was made by the
government in 1951, and I quoted there that
they had pointed out the need for— I will not
repeat it— but it went into the need for doc-
tors and so on. I would like to emphasize to
the hon. Prime Minister it was 1951.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The year I came into
this House; almost back in Hepburn's day.
Mr. Thompson: Perhaps I could just talk
of that, since the hon. Prime Minister wants
to know what I was quoting from. It struck
me as odd, sir, that the hon. Prime Minister
told us he moved into a crash programme
on medical schools, dental schools, and some
other things, after the Hall report, and this,
of course, is the tragedy of this government.
It had these reports, pointing out the need
for action, such as this 1951 health survey,
and it was only because the Hall report
created such an interest all across the nation
and people recognized that there was a crisis
in health and that we had to do something,
that then, only after a crisis, we got some
action from the government. But it is not
aware of these surveys that have been done.
The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Haskett) is an excellent example on that one.
The select committee has been studying
automobile insurance year after year, but I
do not know how long he will be here before
he will sort of cackle out on considering it.
One may say that perhaps in the past they
did not have enough money to plan these,
and it is only now they have got some
money. May I say this, sir, that in the years
between 1963 and 1968 this government's
revenues will double from $1 billion to $2
billion. And the doubling of revenue in five
years is a record that is hard to match in any
part of this country. Yet the government
demands more.
It demands more because it has to, because
of poor planning that meant crash pro-
grammes. Poor planning has meant higher
interest rates and construction costs. Poor
planning has meant unemployment to some
during the 1950's and 1960's and poor plan-
ning today has meant that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer has had to get up and tell us that
what we need to have expansion in, in this
province, is managerial, professional and
skilled help, and it is because of his poor
planning that he had to make that excuse.
Let me get at what planning was involved
with the present tax increases. The govern-
ment, with a great deal of fanfare, Mr.
Speaker, had appointed a taxation study com-
mittee. The committee has not reported. The
excuse, I assume, is that it is waiting for the
Ottawa tax study report. Of course, this is
nonsense. If the government had wanted its
committee to comment on the Ottawa pro-
posals, it could have reconstituted at a later
date. The Ontario committee was supposed
to seek ways to make provincial taxation more
equitable, and this 15 per cent jump in tax
revenues makes the report, when it does
come in, largely academic. It will be put on
the shelf with so many other reports, to
gather dust, with all the rest of them. The
government, without that report, has drasti-
cally changed taxes and made massive taxes
obviously while it was flying blind.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
529
Yet you can look at other provinces. The
New Brunswick Royal commission on financ-
ing municipal taxation reported in early 1964.
Several of its recommendations are being car-
ried out by the government. The Manitoba
Royal commission on local government and
finance reported in mid-1964. The Saskatche-
wan Royal commission on taxation reported
in the fall of 1964, and the Belanger report
in Quebec came in about three weeks ago.
But this government just put on these mas-
sive taxes, without even hearing from the tax
committee group that had been set up.
The committee remains silent and the pub-
lic is unable to judge the real impact of this
huge tax increase. We know some of the
impact all the same Mr. Speaker. One that is
obvious to all of us is that the tax increase
comes on April 1, April Fool's Day, and it is
very appropriate because this government
over the years with its Budget speech has
tried to fool the people and it is not suc-
ceeding.
Why the delay to April 1, before the taxes
are going to be implemented? Whom does
the delay benefit? It does not benefit the
wage earner and the farmer; I do not see the
average citizen of Ontario being able to go
out before the taxes come in and stockpile
clothes for himself, being able to buy new
cars and get a stockpile before the taxes take
effect. The only people who are going to be
able to do that as far as I am concerned are
those who are wealthy, and it seems to me
that the kindly hon. Provincial Treasurer has
always done this, letting the wealthy stock-
pile the good things in life. He is hoping,
perhaps, that will not make them quite as
angry.
Every one of those new taxes is a con-
sumption tax, and yet it is well known that
consumption taxes hit those with incomes of
less than $4,000 to $4,500 a year harder than
they would have been hit if we had had an
income tax. The economic council of Canada
recently estimated that 71 per cent of Cana-
dians earn $4,000 a year or less and the per-
centage would not be much different in
Ontario. The hon. Provincial Treasurer has
raised all this new revenue in areas which hit
the vast majority of people hardest. His
Budget hits the wage earner and the farmer
a whopping sock in the belly.
I wonder if the hon. Provincial Treasurer
hears the same stories as I do about this
Budget. I am just going to quote some to
him. It seems to me we are more closely
in touch with the people than some of the
government.
Here is a man on Asquith avenue, he is
a hard-working truck driver with three
children, his take-home pay is $71 a week.
An hon. member: What is his name?
Mr. Thompson: Ed Duggan. His take-
home pay is $71 a week, but a disability
pension helps make up the difference be-
tween that and his $115 a week expenses.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Any
garnishees?
Mr. Thompson: That is the hard sort of
remark you get, "Any garnishees?" That
kind of smug remark about the working
people of this province. Who was that?
An hon. member: The hon. member for
London South.
Another hon. member: Very typical of him.
Mr. Thompson: May I say, sir, that Ed
Duggan is very typical of many of the people
throughout Ontario and they are getting fed
up with snide remarks made by complacent
government spokesmen.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a
point of order?
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the last time we
were given an illustration like this, it turned
out that the person concerned had a half
dozen garnishees, which reduced his net in-
come.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Will the member
please be seated. If the member has a point
of order he may rise or he may rise to ask
the leader of the Opposition if he will answer
a question, but otherwise he cannot make
any statement while the member speaking
has the floor.
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.
leader of the Opposition tell us why the
man's gross income is $115 and the net in-
come is $71?
Mr. Thompson: I said his take-home pay
is $71 a week, but a disability pension makes
up the difference between that and his $115
a week expenses.
He figures the extra taxes will take $1 a
week from his purchasing power. Now, that
does not sound like much to the hon. mem-
bers on the other side but it is about all the
$30
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
money that Mr. Duggan had set aside for
holidays and entertainment and the hon.
Provincial Treasurer has in effect taken
away his holiday and entertainment money.
And I could go on. Oh, the hon. Minister
can say little things.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): This is a little thick, I said.
Mr. Thompson: I got a call the other day
from an elderly lady. She and her husband
are trying to keep a house on a small pen-
sion—it is a little thick on them— and they
are proud people, they do not want hand-
outs. When she called, she called me about
the increased tax and I assure you that her
voice was filled with anxiety and concern.
Now take a family, the Adams family, one
of the poverty families interviewed in Lanark
county. They are not yet middle-aged and
they have two young children. Their home
is an eight-room log house about 100 years
old and in poor condition. It is heated by a
box stove and a wood-burning kitchen stove.
Water is obtained, according to the report,
from an outdoor hand pump. There are no
indoor toilet facilities. There is electricity
and telephone and the family has a car. The
high school is 20 miles away as are the
doctor and the hospital.
He needs a car to get to work. The in-
come of the family is $35 per person per
month. And this family is going to have to
pay for clothing as much as Mr. Millionaire
will in an increase. It is going to be hitting
him as hard as it will be hitting someone
living up in Bayview. It is an indiscrimin-
ate kind of tax and the government, of
course, is not concerned, it says it is a little
thing. It is a mighty big thing to take an
interest in the people of Ontario.
There are nearly a million people in this
province, or nearly a million people, who do
not earn enough to pay income tax and there
is nearly another million that have taxable
incomes under $1,000. And these people
are trying to fight their way out of poverty.
This Budget makes you wonder which side
of the fight in the war on poverty the gov-
ernment is on.
I could go further with many other ex-
amples. I know a widow in Toronto in a
small rooming house and she is wondering—
the government may laugh at these things-
she is wondering about the cost of shoes.
She is having a tough time in getting by.
In the hon. Provincial Treasurer's own
riding— this is why I thought he would be
sensitive— in the hon. Provincial Treasurer's
own riding he has been blind to the fact of
the condition of many of his constituents.
His riding was shown up as having one
of the worst poverty conditions in this prov-
ince and surely you would think when he
brought in a budget, even for the sake of his
constituents, he would be aware of the harsh-
ness of the effect of this kind of budget on
the poor as well as the rich. It is an indis-
criminate kind of approach that is being
taken.
The hon. Prime Minister tried to excuse
himself to the working man and the farmers
by saying that the big boost in taxation will
help their children go to school and univer-
sity. And to date generally it is the children
of the more wealthy who go to university
after finishing high school. It has been
estimated by one educator that about 80 per
cent of the teenage education leavers in
Toronto in 1963-64 were from the low in-
come group, primarily the poverty class.
And is the hon. Prime Minister going to tell
Mr. Duggan and these other people: "You
are going to have the advantages of higher
education"?
In most of the cases where these people
are in poverty circumstances, or very low
income circumstances, in many cases their
children are not going to finish high school
because their parents cannot afford it. And
the 15 per cent interest in tax revenues, all
based on consumption taxes, is certainly not
going to help those people.
The hon. Prime Minister may talk about
the colleges of applied arts and technology-
it was in the Throne speech— but you know
you get a little nervous just because some-
thing is in the Throne speech. We learned
something two days ago, or was it yesterday,
on Medicare. Because it was written in the
Throne speech, he was quite legitimately
allowed to say "done." The people are
getting concerned that it is just words and
not action on the part of the government.
But I come back to this again: whv the
crash programming and the inequality in
getting the revenue?
Metro Toronto Chairman William Allen
pointed out that the land tax, which again is
regressive, is going to hit this municipality
of Metro Toronto as well as many other
municipalities. Yet we heard from the hon.
Provincial Treasurer that the municipalities
must be getting greater help.
Then we go to look at the figures and we
see that as a percentage of the total expendi-
ture, the municipalities despite the increased
costs are getting less than the previous year.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
531
In 1965 there was a brief from the associa-
tion of mayors and reeves and it said-and
I quote this, sir:
Our difficulty to a large extent has been
that the financial capacity of the munici-
pality has not been expanded to keep pace
with our increase in responsibility.
Government in a vague way finally says what
it is going to do with the funds in the
Canada pension plan. Quebec long ago ex-
plained what they were going to do and
the private sector there was able to adjust
knowing what they were going to do.
We have heard that some of the Ontario
funds will be used in such a way as to make
it easier for the municipality to borrow. The
interest rates are not made clear, neither are
the premiums for the medical insurance plan,
but this is the practice of the government
here.
I would be surprised, sir, if many of the
large municipalities realized the substantial
savings on interest rates. It must be noted
that this is only helping some municipalities
with some of their debts. It does not take
the squeeze off them for current expenditures.
The tax that is typical of the backward
thinking of this government is the increase
in this land transfer tax. Toronto, according
to the latest bureau of statistics figures— and
I need not add that this would apply to
places other than Toronto; it is just easier
for me to get the figures from Toronto— has
the highest consumer price index of any
regional city in Canada. The comparison
sought to measure food, housing, clothing,
transportation, health and personal care,
recreation and reading, tobacco and alcohol.
This made up the index. In all these Toronto
was tops in two categories— in housing and
recreation— but the city was so far above on
these two categories that it was tops over all
the other regional areas throughout the
province.
It shows, therefore, that the cost of housing
is extremely high in Toronto and Ontario.
In a survey by the Toronto real estate
board, 1,000 new homes sold recently in
Metro indicate an average price of $23,800.
A year ago new houses were going for
$21,914, and two years ago $21,312. The
average price—
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
That was because of the federal sales tax.
Mr. Thompson: The average price of
15,000 existing houses sold recently was
$18,883. The point I am getting at-I do
not care whether it is because of, I think the
hon. Provincial Treasurer said, the federal
building tax figure—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Federal sales tax.
Mr. Thompson: All right. I would suggest
that when the government had this land
transfer tax it should have realized that it
is getting very tough for the average working
man to buy a home. I would suggest that
the hon. Provincial Treasurer should have had
an exemption from the total tax for the per-
son buying a private home that was valued at
less than $20,000. This would have put
the tax on the land speculator and also on
the higher income homeowner and that is
where it belongs.
I think the hon. Provincial Treasurer owes
us an explanation, Mr. Speaker, on another
count. He told us in the House last year that
the reason for the change in the method of
collecting the tobacco tax was— I want to be
very careful and therefore I am going to
quote him— as of last year "surely an admin-
istrative point." This was in reply to a ques-
tion by the hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixon) who had asked whether the govern-
ment was considering a future increase in the
tobacco taxes. Well, the tobacco tax has gone
up and I think that the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer should tell us what he meant by admin-
istrative changes. They seem to be very
expensive.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Drove the
price up two cents a package.
Mr. Thompson: Another point that I would
like to ask is that the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer should tell us whether or not—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the members to
refrain making many interjections while the
member is speaking; I would like to see a
little more co-operation in that regard.
Mr. Thompson: I will make this a rhetori-
cal question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer
in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I
would like to know from the hon. Provincial
Treasurer whether or not Ontario should still
collect its own succession duties. It must be
cheaper and more efficient to let Ottawa do
the job and repay our share to us. It is again
of the little person that I am thinking. One
can argue that the federal tax on an estate
is more equable. I wonder if the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer has ever thought of the poor
532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
widow who has to fight two sets of tax col-
lectors. It can be a long-drawn-out business
for people who do not have adequate funds
to hire a high-powered lawyer.
Since I am asking the hon. Provincial
Treasurer a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask him this: When is he
going to start— and I am not sure what his
future plans are— reporting to the Legislature
in a suitable fashion? Every year the Finan-
cial Post runs a competition for the best
annual report, and this Budget and the pre-
sentation of the hon. Provincial Treasurer—
if he had the gumption to put it in and I do
not think he would— might just squeeze in
ahead of Atlantic Acceptance.
In 1965-66, 53 per cent of capital expendi-
tures came from current revenue and then—
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, it did not.
Mr. Thompson: And then, lo and behold we
have this little parlour trick each year— in
1966-67, by some magic it became 61 per
cent. The province, as you know well, Mr.
Speaker, starts with the assumption that it
has been politically attractive to have a
surplus and then it has changed this surplus
by varying amounts of current revenue used
to finance capital expenditures. I call this
cooking the books. It means that no one can
predict with any accuracy what the province
will have to borrow, and this causes some
dismay, I may say, in the bond markets of
the nation.
The book juggling by the master juggler—
I understand he is going to be another kind
of master in a little while, but the master
juggler is perhaps what fits him right now—
means that the hon. Provincial Treasurer,
when he feels like it, can come along with
his nice little surplus, a meaningless surplus.
For some years, Mr. Speaker, the chartered
banks have been criticized for wasting money
in and out of inner reserves. The result of
this money shuffling gives the bank a steady
growth and profit. It does not allow the
shareholders to know what the exact financial
status of a chartered bank is. The province
is doing somewhat the same thing. It hopes
to make the people of this province think that
things are better than they are, but this year's
tax boost is going to shake the people's faith
in the province's books.
Looking at the Budget, Mr. Speaker, you
would never suspect Ontario Hydro exists.
It was never mentioned as far as borrowing
is concerned. One of the big moves, Mr.
Speaker, in the financial field this year is to
get companies to include in their annual
reports the operations of subsidiaries.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Like Loblaw's.
Mr. Thompson: Most good companies have
gone along with this idea, but the province
and the hon. Provincial Treasurer are above
all that.
In the estimate book, and we have this this
year, there are no comparative figures, a very
routine measure which most annual reports
except those of any mines would include. The
hon. Provincial Treasurer in his Budget has
a habit of underestimating revenues. He did
it again last year in his Budget. This year's
actual figures show that he underestimated
revenues in 1965-66 by $56 million.
Mr. Whicher: How could he make that
big a mistake?
Mr. Thompson: This is revenue from taxes
and liquor and it takes into account federal
government tax rebates during the course of
the year.
Let me say as well as underestimating, Mr.
Speaker, he has the propensity for over-
estimating. Government overestimates spend-
ing by about eight per cent according to
Professor Schindler, and I am hoping that
the hon. Prime Minister has been able to get
his books because they will be well worth
reading. Certainly as far as I am concerned
it would be well worthwhile. I will even buy
a copy for him if he will read it, because
it is good reading for the government.
As far as forecasting goes, Mr. Speaker-
underestimating, overestimating— this govern-
ment appears to be run by a ouija board.
The public accounts do not come in soon
enough; we asked about this last year. The
accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1965, are dated November, 1965, and for the
same fiscal year British Columbia got its
public accounts in July. Alberta, as I pointed
out last year, also gets them three months
ahead.
And then we come to the provincial
auditor's reports, and let me just read this
from the provincial auditor's report on page
20:
Few critical observations concerning ex-
penditures are made in the annual report
of the provincial auditor, for the reason
any accounts questioned in the course of
the pre-audit are directed to the attention
of the responsible departmental offices with
the result that the transactions in question
are adjusted and corrected before the
accounts are closed for the year.
Well, I have two comments to make on that,
Mr. Speaker. First, the provincial auditor's
involvement in the pre-audit makes him a
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
533
servant of the government, not a servant of
the Legislature. The pre-audit is like man-
agement's internal audit. The shareholders
should be entitled to know if something is
going wrong with management and the share-
holders of the company demand something
more than just a management man in there.
They want an independent outside audit,
and the citizens of this province should
demand the same.
Secondly, it is not good enough for the
auditor to say that adjustment had been
made; that is not his job, it is the job of the
Legislature. The auditor-general in Ottawa
conducts an independent audit, his report
contains more than just a few critical observa-
tions. I was looking at his report yesterday;
it is a report that shows that they are on
the job of a full scrutiny of what is going on
in the government. But this government does
everything behind closed doors.
It interested me to see one hon. member
get up and ask questions of how much a
member in some particular mission gets, and
I saw the hon. Minister of Energy and
Resources Management (Mr. Simonett) sitting
right next to the man who could have told
him how much he got, and yet we have this
kind of a lonesome approach. Hide it from the
Opposition; hide it from the public. This is
what is wrong with this government.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I do not really think I can allow
that to pass. I know the hon. leader of the
Opposition is trying to demonstrate that we
hide everything but I stood at the time and
said that this information would be placed on
the order paper in the form of a return, so
I hardly think it is fair to say that we keep
the information from him or from anyone else.
Mr. Thompson: I would say, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. Prime Minister has assured us
we will get the answer. But it struck me as
passing odd that a Minister could not
answer the question himself when he is right
next to the member who is on the board.
And another thing that struck me— the whole
of the Crown companies, the whole of them,
we cannot find which Minister is responsible.
Yesterday we saw what I think is a denial
of responsibility on the part of government.
We asked about the Niagara parks com-
mission, and the hon. Provincial Treasurer
looked puzzled, as though he felt how dare
we ask about the Niagara parks commission.
He did not even tell us which Minister was
responsible for this.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, there was no question about the
Niagara parks commission put to me yester-
day. That was a question about the em-
ployees of the Niagara parks commission
negotiating, which has nothing to do with
this.
Mr. Thompson: He is only making his case
look worse by saying there was no question
about the Niagara parks commission, he said
it was about the employees of the Niagara
parks commission. It is a crucial point with
us, sir, the Opposition and the people of this
province are not told enough about the
operation of the government.
There is a great irony in the hon. Attorney
General's (Mr. Wishart's) plea to companies
to report more adequately to shareholders
while for years this government has sought to
bamboozle the electorate with either no in-
formation, a little information, or misinforma-
tion. I have seen them announce projects
three or four times.
The government should take a stiff dose of
the medicine that it is recommending for
investor-owned companies. This province is
run by what amounts to an invisible govern-
ment, a government of closed meetings, a
government of the civil service.
I would like to give an example— I could
give many— of how this government muddies
policy statements. I want to state that in
connection with education here is the reply
which we get and I am quoting:
On the recommendation of the com-
mittee on university affairs it has been
decided that the amount required by the
universities and colleges of Ontario from
the federal government and this govern-
ment together for 1966-67 is $122 million.
The portion of this being provided by our
estimates is $91.4 million, an increase of
$26.8 million or 41 per cent over the
present year.
This is the hon. Provincial Treasurer making
this statement, and that is about all the hon.
Provincial Treasurer says on this point. He
does not explain how the province arrived
at the $91.4 million.
Well, for the information of this House it
is done this way, Mr. Speaker. The federal
government gives Ontario a $5 per capita
grant for universities and on a population
of 6.8 million this works out to $54 million.
It is estimated that 10 per cent of the federal
money will go to non-provincially assisted
universities, and that leaves $30.6 million for
the universities which are provincially assisted.
Then the government simply subtracts $30.6
million from $122 million and it arrives at
$91.4 million.
534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, it uses the federal funds
to offset its own contribution to universities,
and as the hon. Provincial Treasurer must
know there has been some agitation for the
province to consider the Ottawa money as
extra money. Educators and newspapers
have argued that the province should not
decrease its grants for 1966-67 by amounts
received from Ottawa, and the Minister talked
of the Deutsch report, and says, and
emphasizes—
Hon. Mr. Allan: What do you say?
Mr. Thompson: The Minister talks of
the Deutch report and emphasizes that edu-
cation is an investment, and these people,
the educators and also the newspapers and
others, are arguing that universities are so
strapped for funds that they need the extra
Ottawa money.
I am going to clarify the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's position for them. He is not go-
ing along with their requests. I have indi-
cated how with government bookkeeping
and secrecy they make it difficult for the
people to know how the government is
managing its domestic affairs.
I would like to turn to another area where
the water is even muddier. I am thinking of
the important field of economic nationalism—
and again statements by a Minister to con-
fuse.
The hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin
(Mr. Farquhar) on February 8, asked the
hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment: "Will the Minister table the so-called
secret report by his department concerning
U.S. action on guidelines with respect to Un-
controlled companies in Ontario?" And a
second question: "What steps does the Min-
ister propose to take as a result of this
report?"
I think the reply of the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development is a classic of
subterfuge for all of this government. He
replied, Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon.
member's question: "A report will not be
tabled. I note that the hon. member referred
to the so-called secret report concerning U.S.
guidelines policies, which does not exist.
Therefore no action is contemplated at this
time."
Mr. Speaker, there is a report, it is called
"Forecasts for 1966" and it is 11 pages long.
I do not want to get involved in semantics
with the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development. I think he objects to the word
"secret." The report has been shown to
four or five people in his department, so he
no longer considers it secret. It bothers him
not a whit that the people have not seen
this report on this important topic. He has
seen it, several civil servants have seen it,
and that is enough. The public be damned!
He has seen it and some civil servants, and I
demand that he table that report.
Several hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thompson: I do not know what is in
the report. I would imagine from its title it
takes into account a number of factors affect-
ing the health of the economy in 1966. I
know it says something about the U.S. guide-
lines and its effect on investments in Ontario.
It is about time that the government started
taking the people of this province into its
confidence.
I asked the hon. Provincial Treasurer
what he thought about the U.S. guidelines.
And his reply was, in effect: "I have faith
in Ottawa." Well, he sings a different tune
in his Budget when he is talking about the
Ottawa agreement, and I quote on this
occasion:
The free trade agreement with the
United States concerning motor vehicles
and parts was a welcome development,
but Ontario manpower policy appropriate
to the new development could have been
initiated at a much earlier stage through
collaboration in the general lines of the
agreement.
Hon. Mr. Allan: We want to co-operate.
Mr. Thompson: Surely no agreement got
more advance notice. You had the Bladen
report coming out, the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development and the hon.
Provincial Treasurer must have been two of
the very few who did not know what was
going on.
I do not think it is any excuse to come
out and say; "No one asked us about the
agreement." Ontario should have demanded
—you should have demanded— to know!
On the question of guidelines, we have
heard from Ottawa and we have heard from
Quebec, we have heard nothing from On-
tario. And why does not Ontario take the
initiative and hold discussions with Quebec
and Ottawa?
At the discussions this province could sug-
gest that the three governments amend their
various companies Acts to ensure that Un-
controlled firms act as good Canadian citi-
zens. I am thinking particularity of the
exporting policy and the buying policies of
U.S. -controlled firms in Canada. I wonder if
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
535
the hon. Provincial Treasurer, or the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development, has
a secret report on it. I wonder if the hon.
Provincial Treasurer knows that U.S.-con-
trolled companies are now raising large capital
funds right in Ontario.
Let me explain this. The voluntary guide-
lines put limits on the amounts that U.S.
companies can raise within the States for
investments in foreign countries. As a result,
at least 20 large U.S. companies have set up
new subsidiaries to raise money outside the
United States in U.S. dollars for their oper-
ations in Europe.
These companies include General Electric,
Amoco Oil, Philips Petroleum, B.F. Good-
rich, Monsanto Chemical, General Foods,
Bristol-Myers, Warner-Lambert and some
international oil companies. Total borrowings
for the past five months come to at least
U.S. $300 million, much of it raised in
Ontario.
This borrowing has put pressure on our
bond market, raising our interest rates. It
has taken dollars out of the country at a
time when we need them desperately for our
own development. This borrowing makes our
dependence on U.S. funds the greater be-
cause big corporations are siphoning off U.S.
funds from this country to Europe.
I would like to know from the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer how much is being taken
out of the provincial economy in this way.
The hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment must get his nose into that $9,000 book
he has got-Ontario 1966-
An hon. member: $90,000.
Mr. Thompson: $90,000. I would like to
see him start telling us some of the facts.
The people of Ontario can face facts if they
are told them, and we need to have a govern-
ment that has respect for the people and tell
them what the facts are. The hon. Provincial
Treasurer of this province must tell us what
steps he is taking to protect this province
from the bad side-effects of the voluntary
U.S. guidelines.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
a few words about the subject of government
efficiency, a crucial topic considering the
large tax increases this year.
The chambers of commerce have suggested
a Royal commission into government effici-
ency. Our civil service has grown 433 per
cent in 20 years between 1944 and 1964.
The government is the second largest em-
ployer in the province but I do not think it is
as concerned with efficiency as it should be.
Why have we not more of the recommend-
ations of the Gordon commission on gov-
ernment organization of 1959? Why have
not more of those recommendations been
implemented? Surely, even this government
has studied that report long enough. Spe-
cifically, I am thinking of the commission's
suggestion that a number of government de-
partments should be reduced. Why has not
the hon. Provincial Treasurer learned more
about the Glassco Royal commission? I wonder
if he has even read the Glassco commission
report? What about the massive report of the
Royal commission of the Saskatchewan gov-
ernment tabled in 1965? It is a very, very
heavy report, I am intending to read it— I
have a copy at home and I have looked
through it but I wondered if you had—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary): I
can get you a copy of it.
Mr. Thompson: —you are honest when you
say you have not read it yet because it is
an extremely heavy document. But if you do
not read it, get someone in your government
to start reading those efficiency reports.
That report is recommending that provin-
cial government should have a manage-
ment adviser responsible for the continuous
assessment of the management process.
The report says that this management
adviser should also try to stimulate in-
novations—and he would have a tough job
with this government on that. It suggests
government motor pools, a central informa-
tion agency for smaller departments and com-
missions, central buying, improved methods of
inventory control and a compact records
centre for government documents.
There is much we could learn from every
one of these reports— these commissions
studying government. I am concerned that
there is a lot of flabbiness in this great growth
of bureaucracy that is taking place and I
would like to see a Royal commission doing
a study on it.
I notice a new item in the civil service
estimates this year for a trainee programme.
How much did this nearly $2 billion organiz-
ation sst aside for a new trainee programme?
A puny $75,000. What this government
needs, Mr. Speaker, and we will do this when
we become the government, is to have a
10 BX programme for the whole outfit.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thompson: In 1964 the government
spent more than $300,000 getting legal aid
from just 22 Toronto legal firms and our hon.
536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members have talked on this, time after time.
This is our calculation based on questions
asked by the hon. member for Downsview
last year. The government does not hand
out this information voluntarily.
Mr. Sopha: He was in the courts himself
recently with a downtown firm.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Thompson: The government does not
hand out this information. When we tried
to find out, for example, what were the
■expenses permitted for members of Par-
liament who were on Crown corporations, I
had my executive assistant telephoning the
auditor's department and a number of other
places and he was told that he would have
to go to each individual department to get
this information.
We have studied the estimates— it is hidden
inside them carefully. In fact, let me just
mention about the estimates themselves. The
estimates of each department are broken
down much more thoroughly when they come
before the government for its analysis, but
then quickly they are blanketed over again
and covered up. We do not get the same
analysis of estimates and breakdown of esti-
mates in this Legislature as the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer gets in making his judgment.
And so, sir, with this $300,000 fee, natur-
ally we have to dig this out ourselves and
work it out, but surely it might be more
efficient to expand the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral's staff rather than to have to hire so
many outside legal counsel.
I will go into a whole number of fields:
Our municipal governments are not as effici-
ent as they should be and the government
adamantly refuses to take the necessary
action. We have 2,000 expropriating authori-
ties in the province— a red tape mess that is
costing our citizens dearly. Our mental health
agencies are being called a disjointed, en-
tangled jungle; our hospitals have been
criticized for wasting manpower and high
staff turnovers.
I suggested just previously that a Royal
commission might be the answer to shake
the government up, to give it some guide-
lines so that it can work efficiently and
properly, and so that the people can feel
that instead of aspiring to carry on from day
to day this government might look up a bit
and ask for some kind of excellence now and
again.
I said, sir, that a Royal commission might
be the answer. I do not think it is. I think
that the government is overweight; it is
overweight and it has to start peeling off
layers of fat and the people will peel it off
when it comes to an election.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there has
been a lack of planning. The government has
permitted situations to develop into crises and
then we have crash programmes. Because of
this, sir, at this time, after coming to us
year after year blandly, with smiles, once
again we have a crash programme. A day of
reckoning has come in this Budget and the
government has had to put in a crash pro-
gramme in getting taxes, as it has done with
the police bill and as it has done with the
Canada pension plan. We have one Min-
ister arguing with the hon. Prime Minister
about which policy they will take. As it has
done with those, it is doing in this case, not
thinking of the effect that it is having on the
little people. We have a massive tax approach
which is affecting the wealthy just on the
same basis as it is going to affect those
widows and others and the average working
man.
It is for these reasons that I move, sec-
onded by the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver) that the motion that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House re-
solve itself into the committee of ways and
means be amended by adding thereto the
following words
But this House regrets
1. That the government by its many
years of neglect, inefficiency, misleading
accounting and lack of plans has brought
Ontario to the position where further
taxation has been forced upon it.
2. Further regrets the decision of the
government to levy oppressive unplanned
taxation that will greatly increase the
heavy burden already carried by the wage
earner and farmer.
3. Further regrets that the government
has failed to include action on the re-
alignment of municipal taxing obligation
in order to relieve the already over-
burdened homeowner from oppressive and
inequitable and increasing local taxes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thompson moves, sec-
onded by the member for Grey South that
the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the chair and the House resolve itself into
the committee of ways and means be
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
537
amended by adding thereto the following
Avords:
But this House regrets
1. That the government by its many
years of neglect, inefficiency, misleading
accounting and lack of plans has brought
Ontario to the position where further tax-
ation has been forced upon it.
2. Further regrets the decision of the
government to levy oppressive unplanned
taxation that will greatly increase the
heavy burden already carried by the wage
earner and farmer.
3. Further regrets that the government
has failed to include action on the realign-
ment of municipal taxing obligation in
order to relieve the already overburdened
homeowner from oppressive and inequit-
able and increasing local taxes.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
although this is the first time I have partici-
pated in a general debate this year, I am not
going to indulge in the usual pleasantries
about yourself, the Deputy Speaker or the
newly elected members and sundry others.
This is not because I lack respect or goodwill
for the hon. gentlemen concerned, but be-
cause in my opinion the whole routine is a
lot of twaddle— a meaningless ritual we have
all permitted ourselves to fall into.
I assure you, however, of my enduring
•esteem, Mr. Speaker.
Before I make my usual friendly remarks
about the Budget— characterized as they are
i>y generosity severely tempered by honesty
—I would like to make a brief reference to
two other matters.
First, I would like to pay my respects to
the mandarins of the national hockey league
who exercise a stranglehold on Canada's
national game to the point where our inter-
national teams are deprived of players they
"badly need and where a distinguished former
player like Carl Brewer cannot now associate
himself with organized hockey in any capac-
ity at any level without the permission of the
ruling Toronto mandarin.
I regret that this clique of monopolists
have decreed that the flourishing and highly
sports-minded Canadian city of Vancouver is
not fit for inclusion in their league, an
opinion shared by very few outside its august
circle. It has been said in their defence that
they are businessmen, motivated by business
considerations, and I suppose that is true in
a sense, Mr. Speaker, in somewhat the same
sense as the slave traders of old could be
described as businessmen.
I think it is high time that their monopoly
was investigated, with particular reference to
its effect on hockey as a sport and on the
many players they hold in a form of peonage
from a quite early age. This, however, is
probably a federal rather than a provincial
matter, and I will not deal with it further,
for the present at any rate.
The second preliminary matter I would like
to refer to is the recent poll of the Canadian
institute of public opinion, popularly called
the Gallup poll, which was alleged by its
sponsors to indicate Canadian public opinion
on so-called voluntary versus so-called com-
pulsory Medicare. It should be stated that
CIPO is a private business organization and
not an independent research agency as the
term "institute" might suggest. Its Medicare
poll casts serious doubt on its scientific
integrity.
Its procedure is to ask one or two questions
on the matter on which it conducts its poll.
This procedure can conceivably be satisfac-
tory when the issue is simple, clear-cut, easily
defined and readily understood. Thus it
should be possible by this method to produce
reliable results on a straightforward question,
such as one relating to voter intentions. The
CIPO's poor performance in the recent fed-
eral election raises considerable doubt as to
the adequacy of its sampling procedure even
for this relatively simple type of poll. Its
entire methodology is manifestly inadequate
for anything more complex, and if it had any
integrity at all, it would not even attempt a
more complex type of survey, much less pub-
lish the results.
It need hardly be said, Mr. Speaker, after
the hours of debate we have had in this
House, that Medicare is an exceedingly com-
plex issue. It may be possible to arrive at
meaningful results even on so complex an
issue, but only if a series of painstakingly
framed questions are asked by well-trained
interviewers of a carefully selected sample
of respondents.
What did the CIPO people do on their
Medicare poll? After a preliminary question
to sift out people who admitted to no knowl-
edge of the issue at all, the CIPO asked one
question only as follows:
Do you think the Medicare programme
should be a compulsory one in which
every Canadian would have to join, or do
you think it should be a voluntary plan,
in which Canadians themselves could de-
cide whether or not to join?
Mr. Speaker, this was a loaded question.
"Voluntary" and "compulsory" are emotion-
ally charged words. I have no doubt at all,
538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that other things being equal, the over-
whelming majority of Canadians will always
plump for voluntary as opposed to compul-
sory, but on complex issues other things are
never equal.
On Medicare many other questions are
relevant, as for example: "Should equals
receive equal treatment, should everyone be
covered, should costs be as low as possible?"
and so on. I have no doubt that if any of
these questions had been asked singly, the
result would have been quite different from
that produced by CIPO.
My point, however, is that no single ques-
tion can produce reliable results on a com-
plex issue. A great many questions would
have to be asked before any attempt could
be made to assess public opinion accurately.
The most remarkable thing about the CIPO
poll was that so many Canadians resisted
the seductive word "voluntary," and opted in
favour of what the CIPO decided could be
adequately described as compulsory Medi-
care—41 per cent in the country as a whole,
40 per cent in Ontario and 47 per cent in
Quebec. And in that province, that was one
per cent more than supported the so-called
voluntary type of approach.
These people were more sophisticated
than the CIPO bargained for. Notwithstand-
ing the concerted campaign of obfuscation
of the ho.!. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), sundry
other T lies, the Social Credit Party, the in-
surance companies, the medical profession
and now the CIPO, a remnrkablv larg3 per-
centage of the people of Canada and On-
tario see dearly that it is invxssible to
provide medical care insurance for all the
people at costs they can afford, except
through ;i compulsory plan.
The hon. Prime Minister suggested the
other day that I attacked the poll simply
because I did not like its results. I have too
much respect for his intelligence to think
that he re illy meant that. Unless I have
gravely overestimated his capacity, he knows
as well as I do that that poll was deliberately
biased. It was an attempt not to arrive at
objective facts, but to promote a point of
view.
Apparently the CIPO, which is under the
dire of i well-kn iwn Conservative, has
decided to cast its lot with the forces of re-
action in the great Medic are debate that is
now taking place in Canada. It differs from
other participants in the debate, however,
in that it does not honestly proclaim its parti-
sanship. Instead, it tries to hide behind a
disgu'se of phony scientific objectivity. It
attempts to win its point by trickery rather
than by honest argument.
With those preliminary remarks, Mr^
Speaker, I now wish to turn to the Budget,
but before I get to the essence of the
Budget itself, I want to refer to a little inci-
dent that occurred just before its presenta-
tion.
The hon. Prime Minister, I have a recol-
lection, has been described in this House as
arbitrary and dictatorial, but I must say that
from my point of view I have found him
very easy to get along with in many respects,
not necessarily in trying to persuade him
how wrong he is on Medicare, but in many
other respects.
I find him very courteous in providing
advance copies of important documents to
the Opposition. There was a time, you know,
when we would not know a thing about what
was in the Budget until we heard it in this
House and after all—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We
are proud of our Budget so we are happy
to give it to you.
Mr. Bryden: I see. Well, I take it your
predecessors were not proud of theirs.
But anyway, I do not want to inject any
sour notes here. I personally appreciate this
form of courtesy we receive from the hon.
Prime Minister. It is difficult to absorb a
complicated document like that, simply by
listening to it, and since the press comes to
us almost immediately to comment on it, I
am happy-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): If not
before.
Mr. Bryden: If not before, my hon. leader
says. I am happy to be at least on a par
with them, with having the same chance as
they have had to read it. And I want to
make that clear before I go on to the rest
of what I have to say at this point.
Now, there was a little difficulty in this
connection in rcl ition to the current Budget.
I understand that it arose because tax
changes were contemplated in the Budget, a
matter about which I will have something
further to say a little later. The hon. Prime
Minister, however, intervened and arranged
that we, and I have no doubt the Liberal
Party, or the hon. leader thereof (Mr. Thomp-
son), would get the Budget first thing on the
morning of the day on which it was presented.
I was a little amused, however, at the way
in which it was delivered to us. It was
brought to us by the hon. Prime Minister's
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
539
representative, and I am not going to men-
tion his name, because I am sure what
happened was not his responsibility.
He insisted that it had to be placed per-
sonally by him in the hands of the leader of
the New Democratic Party, no one else could
deliver it to him. In fact, if it had not been
for the rather decrepit condition of the floors
on the third floor of this building, I might
even have expected that he would have
brought it along in a Brinks express truck.
So secret was this document.
My hon. leader— I hope he did not violate
a confidence, but he let me look at it in his
office.
But what did we discover? All these tax
changes that required such heavy security
measures were not going to come into effect
until April Fool's Day anyway, almost two
months later. Indeed, I do not think the
security was very good because I read in
several papers the day before the Budget was
presented a forecast of the tax changes that
turned out to be remarkably accurate. They
certainly hit all the important ones right on
the nose.
Now, this is not a matter that is of any sig-
nificance one way or the other except in this
respect, that the hon. Provincial Treasurer by
announcing important changes in consumption
taxes that will not be in effect for roughly
six weeks yet, produced two undesirable con-
sequences, in my opinion.
First of all, he created a situation whereby
those with funds at their disposal can stock
up in durable consumer goods and thereby
escape the tax, whereas the poor fellow who
is living from hand to mouth will feel the
full impact of the tax from the very begin-
ning. That is the first undesirable conse-
quence.
Mr. MacDonald: Legalized profiteering.
Mr. Bryden: The second undesirable conse-
quence is that this method of procedure
skews the curve of retail sales in a quite
undesirable way. I happened to have occa-
sion, apropos of nothing in particular, to look
at the figures for retail sales in Ontario back
at the time when the original sales tax was
introduced. It was introduced in much the
same manner as the recent increase is being
introduced, and it was remarkable to look at
those figures. Retail sales shot up inordin-
ately in the six weeks preceding the effective
date of the sales tax, then they plummeted
away below the regular level and slowly
picked up again. Now I suggest-well, I
looked at a graph of it just the other day; if
I am wrong the hon. Provincial Treasurer no
doubt will correct me some other day—
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
We had expected that but it did not happen.
Mr. Bryden: It did, though.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, it did not.
Mr. Bryden: Is the hon. Provincial Treas-
urer telling me that the—
Hon. Mr. Allan: It went up.
Mr. Bryden: And then it went down.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It went down some.
Mr. Bryden: If you put it on a graph, it
went down below the general line of retail
sales; it certainly did. And I am suggesting
to the hon. Provincial Treasurer that that sort
of thing is something that should be avoided.
It is not a desirable way to juggle with the
economy, and I suggest to him that he has
created a grave danger that something similar
or even worse will happen once again.
Even if he is right and I am wrong that
there was merely an upward bulge and not a
downward bulge, he certainly has no firm
reason to believe that there will not be the
full impact of an upward bulge and then a
downward bulge this year. Frankly, I would
suggest to him that he should not play with
the economy in that way. However, I am not
going to belabour the point. This was purely
a preliminary remark.
I would now like to approach the meat of
the Budget, unappetizing as it may be. I
think its most notable feature is that once
again it fails to disclose any willingness on the
part of the government to plan, or even any
comprehension that planning and foresight
are necessary. Oh, I know the hon. Provincial
Treasurer keeps talking about planning but
my statement was not that he did not talk
about planning— I am not sure if he did this
year or not, but he usually does— all I said
was that he failed to disclose any willingness
to plan or any comprehension that planning
and foresight are necessary.
This is a problem I have dealt with at con-
siderable length in speeches in the Budget
debates of previous years. I was never so
optimistic as to think that I would convince
the slow learners on the Conservative back
benches of the need for planning. But I had
hoped that the government would be con-
vinced—if not by my words, then at least by
the clear needs of the situation.
This year's Budget shows how forlorn that
hope was. I will not go into the question in
540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
detail now, since I have dealt with it so
extensively in the past. I will merely refer
anyone who might happen to be interested,
to my speeches of previous years and to
speeches of other members of this group
in previous years. I will content myself here
with quoting one paragraph from my speech
in the Budget debate of last year:
The government does not plan; it simply
reacts to stimuli like Pavlov's dogs. A bell
rings, signalling an acute social emergency,
and it jumps. In view of the frequency with
which emergencies arise in this era of
rapid change when foresight is not exer-
cised, it jumps with about the same rapidity
and about the same sense of purpose as
a Mexican jumping bean. A crisis in higher
education develops, which was foreseeable
for years in advance, and the government
jumps to provide additional facilities— not
enough to meet the need but enough to
prevent the whole system from collapsing.
I then went on to discuss a number of other
important areas where lack of foresight had
produced similar acute emergencies. I will
not take time to deal with them now but I
would like to refer briefly to one emergency
which has perhaps not received adequate
attention in this House in recent years. It used
to be debated at great length some years
ago but it has not been dealt with nearly as
extensively in recent years. And that is the
emergency in municipal finance.
In his Budget statement of this year the
hon. Provincial Treasurer said piously: "We
will continue to revise and expand our aid
to local authorities in keeping with the
growing responsibilities and financial needs of
our municipalities and local boards."
That did not produce much response when
the hon. Provincial Treasurer said it, and I
could not get any response to it either. I
used to make a habit of quoting from the
hon. Provincial Treasurer's Budget and try-
ing to get a little applause for it. When he
gives it himself, his own backbenchers go
sound asleep and I always like to take some
of his bon mots and see if I cannot stir up a
little enthusiasm for them. However, I take
it the backbenchers on the government side
are as unenthusiastic about that misleading
statement as I am.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Well, as one hon. gentleman
said, very few of them are here to find out
about it, but I never believe in berating the
people who are present for the absence of the
others, and those who do not wish to hear
me are perfectly welcome to stay away as
far as I am concerned.
At any rate, if this statement which I have
just quoted represented the policy of the gov-
ernment, it would undoubtedly be a new
department. But in actual fact nothing has
been revised and expansion has not been the
result of conscious policy.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer has not in-
dicated any changes at all in the formulas
under which grants are paid to the munici-
palities. Even worse, the government is ap-
parently still unwilling to rationalize its
confusing mish-mash of grants programmes
which take a thick volume to describe— and
I mean thick. There is it, Mr. Speaker, and
that is two years out of date, it is probably
even thicker now.
Worst of all, the government clearly has no
intention of facing up to the real problem,
which is to reconsider the whole basis of
municipal responsibilities and resources and
the relationship of one to the other.
True, the amount paid in grants to local'
authorities will increase quite dramatically
in the coming year, if the hon. Provincial
Treasurer's estimates are correct. This, how-
ever, does not arise out of deliberate policy
but from inadvertence.
Our grants programmes are so structured
in most cases that grants go up when local
expenditures go up. That is about all that is
involved in it; the grants go up this year
because local expenditures are going up.
Local expenditures are now shooting up like
a rocket and the hon. Provincial Treasurer
being firmly hooked to the tail of the rocket
is shooting up, too.
This, he would have us believe, is evidence
of his high aspirations. Actually it is merely
evidence of the endemic disinclinaton of the
government to deal with problems before they
reach crisis proportions. There is a crisis in
public services today and the municipalities
are bearing the brunt of it. Some of the
most costly programmes which modern com-
munities demand are still left wholly or partly
in their lap. Yet with their narrow tax base
and limited borrowing powers, they are the
government least able to meet these demands.
As a result, the pressure on the essentially
regressive property tax has passed the point
of being merely acute.
The day is long since past when it is
adequate merely to tinker with this problem.
No one would deny that the multitude of
grants programmes which the government has
devised, revised, reformulated and generally
fiddled around with over the last decade or
two have offset some of the pressure on the
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
541
municipalities. At least they have prevented
total collapse, but they have not tackled the
problem at its roots.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer said, by im-
plication at least, in his Budget address
that the federal government is going to have
to take a more realistic attitude to the financial
pressures on the province than it has in the
past, and I agree with him in that. What is
sauce for the goose is also sauce for the
gander. The province, for its part, is also
going to have to take a more realistic attitude
towards the pressures on the municipalities.
Municipal responsibilities and resources
must be brought into greater balance. Either
the municipalities should be relieved of some
of the responsibilities that are now over-
whelming them or else their revenue sources
should be broadened— one or the other or
both. Intimately related to this essentially
financial problem is the whole problem of
the reorganization of the structure of muni-
cipal government. The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs is beginning to approach this
problem, but in the manner of a porcupine
making love— very cautiously.
Unfortunately that department is probably
the weakest in the government from a policy
point of view.
Mr. MacDonald: I never saw the hon.
Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett) look so
startled before.
Mr. Bryden: I mean no offence to porcu-
pines.
Unfortunately, as I was saying, the depart-
ment is probably the weakest in the govern-
ment from a policy point of view. One could
readily name half a dozen departments that
play a more dynamic role than it in relation
to the municipalities. That is not as it
should be, Mr. Speaker.
Pious platitudes, such as the statement of
the hon. Provincial Treasurer in the Budget
speech this year that the municipalities "have
an important contribution to make to our
economic and social progress" are simply not
good enough. The need is for major muni-
cipal reorganization and major reallocation
of provincial-municipal responsibilities and
resources. Unfortunately neither the govern-
ment nor The Department of Municipal
Affairs has today shown any real capacity
to meet this challenge.
In past years, Mr. Speaker, I have always
been able to say, without fear of contra-
diction, that the budget of the year was
really just a rehash of the budget of the
previous year, with some upward revision
of figures. In fact, I was easily able to
demonstrate that the budgets of the hon.
Provincial Treasurer of the 1960's were
really just warmed-over versions of Mr.
Frost's budgets of the 1950's. Such com-
ments always seemed to irritate the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, notwithstanding their
manifest truth, and he will be happy to know
that I am not going to make them again this
year.
Why? Because, though there is much of
the same old sameness in this year's budget
there is also a strikingly new feature. I can
give a hint as to the nature of this new
feature by reading one sentence only from
the Budget statement of last year and I now
quote these immortal words of the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer from the antiquity of 1965:
"I am pleased, therefore, to announce that
there will be no increase in taxation."
A prize is offered to the Conservative back-
bencher who, with the help of that clue, can
identify the new feature of this Budget.
The prize will be a slightly used set of false
teeth, last year awarded to the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer.
The jumping bean has jumped out of its
skin and it wants to take the people's skin
too. It is hard to conceive of our benign
Provincial Treasurer saying to his Cabinet
colleagues as he hones his knife, "Let us skin
them good this year so that they will have
got used to it by the time we call an elec-
tion." Yet, clearly, Mr. Speaker, something
like that must have happened.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer has lunged
out in all directions: sales tax and related
tobacco tax up by 67 per cent; land transfer
tax doubled; liquor prices up seven per cent;
gasoline and diesel fuel taxes up by about
the same percentage. And to complete the
carnage, property taxes too will probably
increase sharply, notwithstanding the claims
of the hon. Provincial Treasurer of enduring
benevolence to the municipalities.
Only the rich have escaped with their
hides; two of the three main progressive
taxes are unchanged, and the third, the suc-
cession duty, is actually being decreased.
Year after year in the past the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer has blithely waved aside warn-
ings of growing crises in many fields. Now,
suddenly, he has panicked and he has pro-
duced a panic budget. He has attempted to
communicate his own sense of panic to the
public by sternly predicting that without in-
creased taxes, the shortfall in revenue in the
coming fiscal year would be $281 million,
meaning that expenditures for all purposes
would exceed revenues by that amount.
542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This, no doubt, was a very sobering
thought to the uninitiated, but those of us
who are familiar with the little tricks of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer cannot help but
remember that he has an engaging habit of
underestimating his revenues and thus of
overestimating his shortfalls. Let us take
the last two fiscal years as examples.
On February 12, 1964, he presented his
budget for the 1964-65 fiscal year and in it
he estimated that his shortfall would be
$104.9 million, for practical purposes $105
million. Actually, it turned out to be $20.6
million, or practically nothing at all in a
budget of well over $1 billion. Moreover, in
that year the government overspent its
original budget by over $40 million.
If the hon. Provincial Treasurer had kept
his colleagues within the appropriations voted
to them by this House on which he based
his estimate of a shortfall of $104.9 million,
there would have been the reverse of a short-
fall. That is the fiscal year before the one
which is just coming to a close now.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at his
record as a shortfall predicter in the current
fiscal year.
On February 10, 1965, he forecast a short-
fall of $141.1 million in presenting his
budget for the 1965-66 fiscal year. He now
says on the basis of eight months' experience
and forecasts for four months that it will be
only $98.8 million. When the final figures
are in it will probably be substantially less
even than that, because past experience indi-
cates that the hon. Provincial Treasurer has
a penchant for overestimating his shortfall
even when he has eight months' experience
to go on; I refer him to his statement based
on the eight months' actual that he made
with regard to the 1964-65 fiscal year, the
last one for which we have complete figures.
Moreover, he has advised us that once
again the government will be overspending
its Budget, apparently by about $35 million,
although I am not completely sure of that.
It is impossible to arrive at precise figures on
the basis of the information now available
but it is more than likely that when the hon.
Provincial Treasurer forecast a shortfall of
$141 million on the basis of the expenditures
he then had in mind a year ago, he would
have been much closer to the truth if he
had said $40 million.
So why the panic, Mr. Speaker? If the
hon. Provincial Treasurer is no better as a
forecaster this year than he has been in the
past and if the government for once stayed
within the appropriations voted to it, it is
probable that the estimated shortfall of $281
million, which the hon. Provincial Treasurer
said would arise without increased taxes,
would be more like $100 million without in-
creased taxes.
What is wrong with that? Our net capital
debt at present is about equal to one year's
revenue, give or take a few dollars. We can
easily absorb an increase in it of around $100
million. Indeed, I believe we could readily
absorb a considerably greater increase if the
government was willing to undertake the
programmes needed in the measure in which
they are needed.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): I thought
you were a Keynesian. That is about 25 per
cent.
Mr. Bryden: If the hon. member is talking
about counter-cyclical budgeting— well, I be-
lieved in that when I was a student at
Oxford about 30 years ago and I have since
learned that it is not too applicable.
Mr. White: The hon. member does not
believe in contracyclical budgeting, then?
Mr. Bryden: No, I do not, so I am glad
that little point is settled, but do not get me
off on that, or you will regret it.
Mr. White: I think not.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Provincial Treas-
urer should cure himself of his fixation, and
it is getting to be a fixation. He used not
to suffer from this but he now has developed
a real fixation about shortfalls and the net
debt, really the same thing.
His real objectives should be to maintain
growth at a high rate and to provide in ade-
quate measure the facilities the province
needs— and I emphasize "in adequate meas-
ure"—educational facilities, houses, hospitals,
highways, and so on.
These two objectives are closely inter-
related. Provision of the facilities we need
will stimulate a high rate of growth. A high
rate of growth in turn will provide the gov-
ernment with higher revenues and thus make
it easier to provide the facilities we need.
Indeed, the main reason the hon. Provincial
Treasurer has been so far off the mark in his
recent forecasts of the shortfall— and I think
he will agree with me on this if nothing else
—is that growth has been rapid in recent
years.
As a result, revenues have exceeded all ex-
pectations, and this is true not only in Ontario
but in every province of Canada and at the
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
543-
federal level, so that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer has been able to spend consider-
ably more money than he estimated and still
experience a much smaller increase in the
net debt than he anticipated.
One might have hoped that that would
have indicated to him the vital importance
of maintaining growth above all else. As
long as growth is rapid, we will not have to
worry about increases in the net debt. For
one thing, we will probably be pleasantly
surprised to discover, as we have been in
the past two or three years, that such in-
creases will not be as great as expected. In
any case, as long as our revenues are buoy-
ant, we will have no difficulty servicing the
debt.
Any business firm that is growing and
wants to continue to grow expects its debt
to increase more or less in proportion to its
growth.
Any province with the same expectation
should expect the same thing. What, after
all, does the net debt represent but invest-
ment in the province's future? I do not think
that we should suffer from the extreme Tory
timidity which has overcome the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer. I think that we should be
prepared to invest quite heavily, quite as
much as the need requires, in the future of
this province. I am sure that the investment
will be returned to us manifold and that a
policy like that will ensure that Provincial
Treasurers will have few problems in the
future except problems of adding machines.
We will encounter real problems in our
public finance only if growth slows down
seriously. Yet the hon. Provincial Treasurer
has presented a budget that is bound to
militate against growth. His massive tax in-
creases are mainly taxes on consumption.
They will thus tend to restrict demand, and
restricted demand will mean restricted
growth.
Some people, admittedly, are now crying
the blues about inflation but I think that the
most competent authorities, including the
economic council of Canada, still see growth
as the No. 1 problem.
I submit that the hon. Provincial Treasurer
has not made out a case, on the basis of any
expenditure programmes he now has in mind,
for his panic-stricken increases in taxation.
He could well have waited to see what
light might be thrown on the whole vexed
problem of taxation by both the federal and
Ontario Royal commissions on taxation, as
well as the tax structure committee. He could
also have waited to see what results the
forthcoming round of federal-provincial fiscal
negotiations might bring.
There is no desperate panic or emergency
such as he talked about. He referred to these
items I have just mentioned. He said he
cannot wait, he is in a panic, he has got to
jack the taxes up right now. He has got his
knife sharp so he is really going to wield it.
Instead of taking a sober look at the whole
situation, he has panicked, and as usually
happens in a panic, the weak are going to
suffer most. This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to-
my main criticism of the Budget.
For many years now, Canadians have been
subjected to a mounting barrage of propa-
ganda—from the Canadian manufacturers
association, the Canadian chamber of com-
merce, bank presidents, the domesticated
economists on the payrolls of corporations
and other voices of the big business establish-
ment—that taxes on the rich, both corpora-
tions and individuals, be reduced. I see that
the other day Mr. George Hees added his
voice to the clamour, as many other Tories
have, Tories in both the Liberal and Con-
servative parties.
The argument on which this claim is based
may be paraphrased as follows. The unfor-
tunate, harried rich are having their incentive
squeezed out of them by a crushing burden
of taxation, while the poor are waxing fat on
the avails of the welfare state. This unseemly
state of affairs, it is argued, must be changed.
Accumulation of fat should be made the
exclusive prerogative of the rich and the
poor should be restored to a wizened condi-
tion that more properly befits their status.
This is, shall we say, a free paraphrase of the
type of argument that constantly appears in
the financial press and on financial pages of
the daily papers and sometimes finds its way
even on to the front pages.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): I must catch
up on my reading.
Mr. Bryden: It would be a very good idea.
I will try to fill the vacuum in the meantime.
So it is suggested that relief of the rich
can be accomplished in two ways. First there
should be decreasing reliance on progressive
taxes, that is, on taxes scaled according to
ability to pay. Has my hon. friend never
heard that suggestion before? If he has not,
I suggest he look at the paper of yesterday
or the day before and he will see that is what
Mr. George Hees is advocating.
Taxes scaled according to ability to pay
should be reduced and the notable examples
of these, of course, are personal income,
544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
corporation income and estates taxes. There
are some others but they are of no great
consequence.
Second, the decline in revenue that would
result from this should be offset by a reduc-
tion in welfare expenditures— that was in
today's paper, from the Canadian exporters
association— and by increasing reliance on
regressive and proportionate taxes, which bear
more heavily on the poor than on the rich.
Now this is the proposal that day in and
day out is hammered at the people to the
point where I think some poor people are
beginning to believe it. But what is it?
It is actually, Mr. Speaker, the posture of
greed in all its naked ugliness. Greed has
always existed in varying degrees among men
and I suppose it always will, but only in this
society has it been exalted into a major virtue.
There was a time when it was regarded as
one of the seven deadly sins.
The plain fact is that the rich, far from
being oppressed or harried or crushed by
taxation, have never had it so good. Even
after allowing for all their taxes, the net in-
come of both corporations and fortunately
situated individuals, such as managerial per-
sonnel, professional people and the like, are
immeasurably higher than they were even a
generation ago. Why do organizations and
individuals of such abundant wealth begrudge
the poor the few morsels they are now receiv-
ing from the table of affluence? It is a ques-
tion I am unable to answer, Mr. Speaker, and
I suspect that many of these people do not
begrudge what is being done for the poor.
But their spokesmen of the business world
invariably preach the unvarnished gospel of
greed. Moreover, it is a greed that does not
even make sense.
These corporations and individuals have
achieved their present unprecedented state
of affluence because of the general high rate
of growth which was engendered by World
War II and which, notwithstanding numerous
interruptions, has continued ever since. Some
elementary income, inadequate as it might
be, has been guaranteed to most of the poor,
and since there are so many poor, this has
been an important factor, in fact I would
say a critical factor, in stimulating and main-
taining demand and thus in stimulating and
maintaining growth.
The effect of restricting welfare pro-
grammes and/or of shifting the burden of
taxation from the rich to the poor can only
be to restrict demand and thereby to restrict
growth. The rich will then suffer a
restriction of total income far greater than
any tax concessions they might gain. The
greed attributed to them by their business
spokesmen is in the same category as the
greed of the man who killed the goose that
laid the golden egg.
Yet their propaganda is having an alarm-
ing effect on governments all across Canada.
Admittedly, welfare programmes are not be-
ing cut back, that would be political suicide;
although they are not being developed as
much as they should, they certainly are not
being cut back. But more and more the
trend in Canada is away from progressive
taxes, based on ability to pay, towards pro-
portionate and regressive taxes.
In some provinces, as in all municipalities,
this trend is inevitable, given the present
intergovernmental distribution of respon-
sibilities and revenue resources. Such prov-
inces and municipalities have very limited
taxation possibilities, in fact that is true of
most of the provinces of Canada. In view
of their present responsibilities, they have to
exploit to the full such limited possibilities as
they have.
The same, however, is not true of Ontario,
which because of the luck of geography, is
naturally the industrial centre of Canada,
and therefore the most favourably situated
province in Canada. Here we have alterna-
tive possibilities. We can choose among tax
sources. It is therefore not good enough,
Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Provincial Trea-
surer to justify his savage tax increases of
this year by saying that Ontario's sales tax
will still be no higher than that of most
other provinces, or that the gasoline tax will
be no higher than in the Atlantic provinces,
with their much more limited resources.
I have already argued that the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer has not made out a case
for any substantial increase in taxation at all
for the present, but even if increases should
be necessary, either now or later, I submit
that we should first of all exploit to the full
the progressive tax fields in which we still
have considerable scope for action. The hon.
Provincial Treasurer's insistence on increas-
ing taxes on consumption makes him the
leader, along with the government of
Canada, of the current movement to soak
the poor.
Ironically, the very welfare programmes
which are designed in the main to help the
poor are now being used in some cases as an
excuse for shifting the burden of taxation
from the rich to the poor and to the rela-
tively poor.
There was a time when poll taxes were
widely used in Canada. They were quite
properly decried and few vestiges of the old
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
545
poll taxes remain. Now, however, new poll
taxes are being devised on a scale never
thought of before. Naturally, they are not
called poll taxes. That term can never be
restored to respectability. So instead, they
are being given the semantically favourable
name of premiums or contributions for social
insurance. They are poll taxes nevertheless,
and as such about the most regressive taxes
devised by man, on a par with the salt tax
•of colonial India.
We in this group do not object to some use
of premiums in financing social security
programmes. We believe, however, that they
should be small, even nominal, in the nature
■of registration fees. The main burden of
financing social security should be borne by
the progressive taxes. Otherwise social
security programmes are self-defeating to
an important degree. One of the major
justifications of state intervention in this
field is to effect some measure of redistribu-
tion of income from the rich to the poor.
To the extent that the programmes are
financed by regressive and proportionate
taxes, that purpose is defeated. There is then
no redistribution of income, merely a re-
distribution of poverty. Money is taken from
some poor people to be given to others. That
does not effect any useful or socially desir-
able redistribution of income.
The outstanding example of a new regres-
sive tax is provided— and a new poll tax I
may say— by the Canada pension plan, which
came into effect on January 1 of this year.
That programme is financed by payroll taxes.
Individual wage and salary earners are re-
quired to contribute 1.8 per cent of their in-
come between $600 and $5,000 per year.
Last year I demonstrated to this House in
some detail the iniquitous effect of this pro-
vision. The matter is of sufficient importance,
in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that I would
like to repeat now the main highlight of my
analysis of last year. I will not go into the
whole thing, but I would like to call atten-
tion to what I think was the main point in it.
For purposes of illustration, I will compare
the case of a married man with two de-
pendent children with a salary of $5,000 a
year with that of a man with the same family
situation and a salary of $20,000 a year-
four times the salary, but the same family
situation. Under the Canada pension plan
as it is now in force, they will pay identical
contributions, $79 per year, though the man
making $20,000 a year clearly has a far
greater capacity to pay than the man mak-
ing $5,000 a year. And that, I regret to
say, is not the whole story.
These contributions are deductible for in-
come tax purposes and the deduction that the
$20,000-a-year man will be able to claim
will be $32.50 a year, as compared with
$11.90 for the $5,000-a-year man, almost
three times as much. As a result, the net
contribution of the former, that is of the
$20,000-a-year man, will be more than $20
a year less than that of the latter— $46.50 for
the $20,000-a-year man as compared with
$67.10 for the $5,000-a-year man. And yet
they will both qualify for precisely the same
amount of pension.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member had
better pause on that and let it sink into the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement (Mr. Simonett). He is trying to
absorb it.
Mr. Bryden: I would doubt it. I noticed
that he did not raise any objections with the
federal government about it, even though he
heard it and I believe he absorbed it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: A brief was submitted.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, but I do not think it
dealt with that point at all, although I
believe that one of the government's
economists on his own responsibility made a
supplementary statement, which did not
carry the government's authority with it, in
which this type of point was extremely well
made, if I can judge from press reports. I
congratulate the government on having given
that freedom of action to one of its civil
servants. I think that shows a desirable atti-
tude on the part of the government but I
would have been much happier—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: He said the civil
servants run the government.
Mr. Bryden: I will take responsibility for
my words and let other people take responsi-
bility for theirs. But I regret that these very
sound ideas that the economist from The
Department of Economics and Development
presented on his own responsibility were not
presented on the responsibility of the govern-
ment; I think that is most regrettable. At
any rate, as I said, Mr. Speaker— the hon.
Prime Minister said I said it last year, and
that is quite true, and I am saying it again
and I will probably say it quite a few more
times yet because I think it is an abomin-
able state of affairs—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say that I am really quite interested.
I enjoyed the hon. member's remarks in this
area last year and I am enjoying them this
546
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year. I do not want him to think that I
necessarily agree with the federal govern-
ment on the Canada pension plan, because
we had many areas of disagreement.
Mr. Bryden: I will recognize that fact.
I read the government's brief and I thought
it was right in at least some of the points,
in fact on most of the points in which it
disagreed with the federal government, but
it did not disagree on enough things.
This business of charging a $20,000-a-year
man more than $20 a year less than a $5,000-
a-year man for exactly the same pension will
obviously not, Mr. Speaker— at least it will
be obvious to you and me— will not produce
any redistribution of income from the rich
to the poor.
On the contrary, what is happening is that
a relatively poor man is being taxed to help
to provide a pension for a relatively rich
man. Now, that is precisely what is hap-
pening in Canada today. And what is almost
as bad, the relatively poor man is being taxed
to provide investment funds for the provinces
and municipalities.
Under the partial funding of the Canada
pension plan, contributions will exceed bene-
fits for a number of years. The surpluses so
accumulated are being divided up among the
provinces for investment purposes in propor-
tion to the total contributions made by their
residents. The hon. Provincial Treasurer has
said that over the next ten years the amount
received by Ontario will average $267 million
a year, and I will take his figure, I am sure
it is as accurate as anyone can make it at
this stage.
He said further that the money so obtained
will be lent to universities and municipalities,
on the most favourable terms possible, for
their capital expansion programmes.
Heaven knows, Mr. Speaker, I am in
favor of assisting universities and municipali-
ties in every way possible in meeting their
urgent capital needs. I think, however, that
we have reached the ultimate in intellectual
and moral bankruptcy when we extract
money from the pockets of the poor and rela-
tively poor for that purpose. I am not
directing these barbs at the hon. Provincial
Treasurer, he is going to get this money in
his hands and he is making the best use he
can of it within the terms under which it
is given to him. As he knows, I hardly ever
criticize him and I do not want him to think
I am criticizing him now.
An hon. member: What government
dreamed up that programme?
Mr. Bryden: Apparently, the current official
thinking— and perhaps I should again just
say exactly what I am talking about, I am
now referring to the current official thinking
in the Liberal stratosphere in Ottawa— on
how to fight the war on poverty is to make
the poor poorer and the rich richer.
An hon. member: Where is the evidence
for that?
Mr. Bryden: There is lots of it.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Give it to us.
Mr. Bryden: I have just been giving itr
you should have been listening.
Mr. Sopha: We have been listening.
Mr. Bryden: You have not been listening,
you have been—
Mr. Sopha: Listening with one ear.
Mr. MacDonald: Your own tete-a-tete
there, obviously you needed both ears to-
grasp it. It was beyond your grasp.
Mr. Bryden: I will not bother to try te
explain it to the hon. member. Either his
ear is defective or that which is behind his
ear is defective.
It is not a war on poverty at all but a war
on the poor and the relatively poor.
Naturally, and I say this again— I have
this in the text so I have to read it— I do not
hold the hon. Provincial Treasurer respon-
sible for the mysterious ways of the Liberal
bureaucrats at Ottawa. I am sure that the
hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Yaremko) is
going to applaud also my next statement.
I claim, however, that he has it within his
power to offset to an extent the deleterious
effects of their taxation policy— that is
Ottawa's taxation policy— designed as it is
to shift the burden of taxation from the rich
to the poor. The hon. Provincial Treasurer
cannot overcome that entirely but he could
offset it to some degree. Not only has he
not exercised this power, but on the contrary,
he himself has joined with gusto in the war
on the poor. And on that ground alone, Mr.
Speaker, his Budget stands condemned.
Mr. MacDonald: Tories in Ottawa as well
as here—
An hon. member: Two Tory governments.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, even the Liberals
know that Sharp is a Tory. They will not
say it publicly.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
547
Mr. Sopha: The same as Douglas Fisher is
a Tory.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Well— you
.are not too sure about that.
An hon. member: That is pretty weak.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before bringing
my remarks on this debate to a close, I
-would like to comment on the recent strike
•of newspaper staff in Oshawa, and I think I
can just nicely get it in before 6 o'clock.
An hon. member: Why do you not let
your hon. leader tell about it? He was on the
picket line.
Mr. Bryden: Though less than 50 em-
ployees were involved, this strike evoked
•more than usual interest, as was evidenced
"by the attention given to it on the front
pages. And why? I think the reason is
pretty obvious. It brought into focus some
of the major problems of labour relations in
Ontario today.
I will preface my remarks with a famous
quotation from Junius which the Toronto
<Globe and Mail daily publishes across the
top of its editorial page, but which the Globe
editorial and other opinion writers have
apparently never read. It is as follows, and I
<juote: "The subject who is truly loyal to the
chief magistrate will neither advise nor sub-
mit to arbitrary measures."
The history of the struggle for human
freedom could be aptly described as a history
of resistance by brave men and women to
arbitrary and unjust measures. The trade
xmion movement of the western world has
played an important part of the general
struggle for freedom and its history could be
aptly described as a history of resistance to
arbitrary and unjust measures from the days
when trade unions were held by the courts
to be criminal conspiracies and those who
liad the temerity to take part in their
activities were subjected by the courts to
savage penalties normally reserved for
felons.
I only regret that the hon. Attorney
General (Mr. Wishart) is not here at the
moment. Perhaps we could enlighten him
to the degree that we would not again hear
the pious platitudes that we heard from him
the other day in answer to a question from
the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick),
most of which were out of order in any case.
This struggle of working people for free-
dom, like the whole struggle for freedom,
has sometimes been marred by violence.
Rarely, however, has violence been initiated
by the working people. Most often-and the
history of the trade union movement bears
this out 100 per cent for those who want
to take the trouble to study it-violence
where it has occurred has been provoked by
employers who saw in it an opportunity to
smash the aspirations of their workers for
freedom.
An hon. member: Do you agree with
White's story?
Mr. Bryden: In the past, employers have
often resorted to direct violence— that is in
the past, they do not do that now. In more
recent times they have shown a preference
for a more subtle device. Their favourite
method now is to enlist the coercive powers
of the state, which in themselves represent
force, on their side against their workers;
that is their method now.
Now let us consider the recent events in
Oshawa against this background. Here a
small group of grossly underpaid workers
exercised their rights as free men and women
to form a trade union for their mutual bene-
fit. As it happened, they were employed in a
newspaper owned by one of the world's great
press magnates, Lord Thomson of Fleet, an
expatriate Canadian who, as my hon. leader
put it, went to England to buy a title and
now wants to treat the Canadians who stayed
here as colonials.
These workers observed the law to the
letter. They organized, their union was certi-
fied under the law, and they tried to nego-
tiate an agreement in accordance with the
law. Their employer, however, did not show
the same respect for at least the spirit of the
law. The Labour Relations Act of Ontario
clearly implies that an employer must nego-
tiate in good faith with a certified union of
his employ with a view to concluding a
collective agreement or contract, as it is
called.
Mr. Sopha: It says it.
Mr. Bryden: Well, my friend, the hon.
member for Sudbury, says, "It says it." Okay,
we will take his formulation. Then we will
go on to the next point which is the vital
one.
There is no way of enforcing this vital
provision of the Act, absolutely no way at
all. An employer who wants to ignore it can
thumb his nose with impunity at both the
Act and the trade union. Fortunately, there
are not too many such employers in Ontario,
but there are a few, and after all, laws
usually have to be made for the few.
548
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This was the course that Lord Thomson's
representatives chose. They made no serious
effort to arrive at an agreement. The em-
ployees had no option but to go on strike,
and they did this, after having met the
requirements of the law to the letter— un-
reasonable requirements, in my opinion, but
I will not go into that now.
At this point, the standard technique of
employers who do not want to accept the
clear intent of The Labour Relations Act
was brought into play. Lord Thomson's
cohorts rushed into court in order to bring
the coercive powers of state into play on
their side in what had until then been a
purely private civil matter. An injunction was
directed to the union and its members, limit-
ing them to a total of ten pickets at the
premises of the Oshawa Times.
Mr. White: By agreement.
Mr. Bryden: The workers observed this
injunction to the letter. Never at any time
did they have more than 10 pickets at the
newspaper plant.
Lord Thomson, however, had chosen the
wrong ground on which to force the issue. In
the fine city of Oshawa, there are thousands
of people, I am glad to say, who are fully
conscious of the need to defend the rights
which workers have acquired at much cost
over many years. The matter was no longer
purely a labour dispute, it had become a
struggle for civil liberties. Was a small group
of workers to be deprived of its right of free
association merely because an arbitrary arro-
gant baron did not see fit to grant it to them?
The people of Oshawa said "no," and in
doing so they struck a great blow for the
civil rights of all working people.
Mr. Sopha: Besides, Lord Thomson is a
Tory.
Mr. Bryden: The pattern of propaganda
that followed was characteristic of such situa-
tions. Everything possible was done to create
an atmosphere of hysteria, to convince the
public that Oshawa was teetering almost on
the brink of civil war. Actually, there was no
serious threat to public order. My investiga-
tions lead me to the conclusion that the one
incident that did occur was grossly exagger-
ated in the press. It was in any case a small
incident in a struggle of truly major signifi-
cance.
And what was the position of our friends
on the Liberal benches in this House? They
tried to adjourn the House on a matter of
urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker ruled
the motion out of order and it tended to be
lost in the confusion. It is well, however, to
note it and call to the attention of all hon.
members and all others who may be inter-
ested exactly what it said. I am now quoting;
it:
Moved by Mr. Thompson—
the hon. leader of the Opposition:
—seconded by Mr. Worton, that this House-
do now adjourn to discuss a definite matter
of urgent public importance in relation to
a grave measure of civil disobedience
and disrespect for the law in relation to
the strike now in progress of employees of
the Oshawa Times.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Whose
side are they on?
Mr. Bryden: Could anything be better
calculated to fan the flames of hysteria that
Lord Thomson and his cohorts were so
anxious to promote? What better support
could the Thomson cohorts have looked for,,
for their alarmist propaganda?
Mr. Sopha: What was Reid Scott doing in
Ottawa?
Mr. Bryden: I would suggest to the hon.
member that Scott's motion was not in that
form at all— it did not have this hysterical
reference to a grave matter of civil disobedi-
ence and disrespect for the law, which was
a complete misrepresentation of what was
going on, but an accurate representation of
what was going on in the minds of my hon.
Liberal friends.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that
one could expect nothing else from the suc-
cessors of the government of 29 years ago
that organized Hepburn's Hussars, in the
hope that violence could be precipitated and
used as an excuse to marshal the coercive
powers of the state to crush the first major
effort at industrial unionism in Ontario. It
provides the final refutation to the claim of
the Liberals that they are the friends of work-
ing people; friends indeed, who seek their
votes at election time and would join the
forces of reaction to crush them when the
chips are down.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I did not think they were that bad.
Mr. MacDonald: They are not only that
bad, they are just as bad as the govern-
ment is.
Interjections by hon. members.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
549
Mr. Bryden: Lord Thomson and his cohorts
made one final move. The assist given to
them by the Liberal Party actually turned out
to be of no assistance, but they did make
one final move. They applied to the supreme
court of Ontario for incredibly extreme meas-
ures which would have brought the full
power of the state down on the heads of the
workers like a ton of bricks— all 36 of these
poor struggling underpaid employees of the
Oshawa Times-Gazette.
Fortunately, the court did not have to rule
on this unbelievable application, because
Lord Thomson and his cohorts settled. They
entered into an agreement with their em-
ployees' union, as thousands of other em-
ployers have been doing for years. Does
anyone seriously suggest that they would have
settled if the small and struggling union at
the Times-Gazette had been left to stand or
fall on the basis of its own limited strength?
They thought they could break that little
union like a twig and cast the pieces aside.
What they failed to reckon with was the
power of an aroused public opinion— a public
opinion that was just as vital to civil liberty
in Ontario as the public opinion which pre-
vented the passage of section 99 or the ne-
farious police bill of a few years ago. I think
the two things are almost on all fours, Mr.
Speaker. They both represent a basic
struggle for liberty.
I think three lessons should be drawn from
this incident, two that are particularly rele-
vant to the government and this Legislature
and one-
Mr. White: Is he going to tell us about his
leader's glorious role?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: It is getting very close to six
o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I have nearly
finished.
I would say that I am proud to serve under
a leader who is willing to identify himself
with the struggle of working people for
liberty when other people in this province
wanted all the forces of the state brought
down on them to break their liberties. I will
state that on any platform in the country.
Mr. Speaker, in the next three minutes I
think I can conclude. I think three lessons
should be drawn from this incident, two that
are particularly relevant to the government
and this Legislature, and one that is particu-
larly relevant to the trade union movement.
First, injunctions have little, if any, legiti-
mate role in labour disputes and they are
now posing a serious threat to sound labour
relations. They are handed out like shirts in
a mail-order house on the basis of applica-
tions that disclose no danger that anyone is
going to suffer irreparable harm.
In this context, they are purely and
simply instruments for using the power of
the state to tip the scale in a private dispute
in favour of one party against the other. To
put it bluntly, they are used to smash trade
unions by those employers, fortunately few
in number, who want to smash trade unions.
Second, the day is long past when em-
ployers should be able to decide arbitrarily
on revolutionary technological changes with-
out any consultation with the representatives
of the workers whose livelihood is at stake.
This, I may say, was the most important
issue in the Oshawa Times-Gazette dispute,
apart from the initial and prolonged failure
of the employer to bargain in good faith at
all.
Mr. Justice Freedman recently declared, in
effect, that the traditional management's
rights provisions of collective agreements are
obsolete.
Technological change is now of such a
revolutionary character that they can no
longer be considered to be the exclusive
prerogative of management. The interests of
workers are vitally affected and, indeed, so
also is the public interest. The law of On-
tario should be changed to ensure that these
legitimate interests are adequately safe-
guarded.
Third, and finally Mr. Speaker, the labour
movement of Ontario and of Canada— and I
would say of the world, of the free world-
can no longer afford the luxury of particu-
larism and divisiveness within its ranks. The
day of the small, specialized union is almost
over. Can anything be more ridiculous, yet
tragic, than groups of workers of the same
employer being played off against one an-
other? One group of workers walking the
picket line while others carry on as usual.
The trade union movement must find the
maturity and wisdom to solve this problem,
otherwise it will be picked off, a section at
a time, until it is no longer an important
force in the community.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. White moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 20
ONTARIO
iegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, in committee, continued 553
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 585
553
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8.00 o'clock, p.m.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to speak to the House just for a
moment about a matter of urgent public inter-
est. Tonight on the CBC news was a
shocking-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
If the member wishes to speak on a matter
of urgent public importance, he has to give
me notice in writing to that effect, in order
that it be approved by the Speaker. This
must be done before the orders of the day.
Mr. Sargent: I admit that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: There is no time available to
do that.
Mr. Speaker: Well, that is the procedure.
I am afraid we cannot depart from the gen-
eral procedure at this time. However, if the
member wishes to submit his matter of urgent
public importance to me in the morning it
will be considered.
Clerk of the House: The third order, com-
mittee of the whole House, Mr. L. M. Reilly
in the chair.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill No. 6, An Act
to amend The Medical Services Insurance
Act, 1965.
On section 8:
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned last night
I had undertaken to ask the law officers to
look at a proposal made by the hon. member
for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and certain
concerns expressed by other hon. members of
the Opposition with respect to the proposal
under this section to delete subsection 3 (b)
of section 14 of the Act.
You will recall, sir, the fear expressed was
that the persons being admitted to this pro-
Tuesday, February 15, 1966
gramme might not be fully protected as to
any pre-existing physical infirmity or condi-
tion. I am assured now by the law officers
this is adequately provided for in section 5,
subsection 1, and I am also assured by the
law officers that (j) of section 28, or (k) rather
of section 28, has reference, as I suggested
last night, to Schedule A, since this is the only
place in the Act that the standard contract is
defined.
I give the House assurance that the law
officers tell me that the addition of the
amendment proposed would be redundant,
that adequate protection is built into the Act.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 stand as
part of the bill?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
is there an amendment from the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury before you?
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): It almost got
shuffled under.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): What does the
minister of Indian affairs say?
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment moved by Mr. Sopha, will please say
"aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment, will
please rise.
Those opposed to the amendment, will
please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 23, the "nays" 41.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and the section carried.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9:
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order. I am sorry
the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Connell) is not in his seat tonight, but I was
very distressed coming up the walk tonight to
note that the red light is not on. I think it is
a great shame that the citizenry of Toronto,
indeed of the province, do not know that
the House is sitting tonight and cannot come
in here and see the policy of deliberate ob-
structionism which is carried on by the
Opposition parties.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
red light is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview
(Mr. Young).
Mr. McKeough: May I be sure that this
will be drawn to the attention of the hon.
Minister?
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Tell him yourself.
Mr. McKeough: Thank you.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Evidently the
hon. member for Kent West regards our dis-
cussion of basic issues as obstructionism. We
have certain very strong feelings about the
Medicare issue, Mr. Chairman, and those
strong feelings must be expressed and the
people of this province must understand that
there is a fight going on for the kind of Medi-
care which the people of this province
actually want. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we
do not regard this in any sense as obstruc-
tionism. This is putting the issue squarely
before this House.
Mr. McKeough: On with the section! Come
on, get on with it.
Mr. Young: All right, Mr. Chairman. The
hon. member for Kent West was not on the
section-
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It could
have been a quiet evening without the hon.
member for Kent West.
Mr. Young: Without the hon. member for
Kent West turning on the red light. We did
not want that. We did not ask for it.
Mr. Chairman: Now we are going to carry
on with section 9 before us. The hon. member
for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, dealing with
section number 9, there is a very important
matter which is dealt with in the original
section 15 which I want to draw to the
attention of the House. This is the matter of
coverage of people whose contract may expire
on a certain date and making sure that those
contracts can be continued. The fact is, in the
case of the old bill, contracts under certain
carriers might have to be transferred to other
carriers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have already
pointed out one of the problems, and that
problem, I think, is one which we must face
up to, that there are people who will be
covered in group contracts and those con-
tracts may terminate at a certain time. There
is no open period and so they may have to
wait perhaps one, two, three, four months—
we are not sure yet because the hon. Minis-
ter has not definitely made up his mind
exactly how often these open periods may
come.
An hon. member: Three months.
Mr. Young: The hon. member has assured
us that there will be open periods every
three months. Well, we are glad to hear that.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): I have had a
few cases where they have left employment
and as a result of the employer or the
employee himself not sending that transfer
in they have been dropped, but I do not
think anybody can show where the hospital
services have not picked them up through
that omission.
Mr. Young: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman.
This is a question, and we are not talking
tonight about the hospital services, but we
thank the hon. member for Perth for his
intervention here, though we are not particu-
larly discussing this subject tonight, the On-
tario hospital services commission.
Mr. Edwards: You do not consider it—
that's for sure.
Mr. Young: In this case it is not obstruc-
tionism, this is good constructive criticism
and we thank the hon. member for it. But
in the matter we are discussing tonight there
is the problem of the overlap of contract.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If the hon. member
would permit me to advise him, I propose
to introduce an amendment to take out all
uncertainty with respect to this. Unfortunately
it comes in the next section, so either the
hon. member will have to be permitted to
have his say or take me at my word and
believe that amendment will be introduced in
the next section.
Mr. Young: Could we hear the amendment,
Mr. Chairman? I would be delighted to listen
to the amendment.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
555
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I think I would have
to have a ruling from you, sir, as to the
propriety of that. The amendment I am going
to propose is where a resident who is not a
dependant, or his dependent spouse ceases to
be covered under a group medical services
insurance contract after the expiration of an
open enrolment period, may make application
for a standard contract within 30 days of the
date of termination of his group medical serv-
ices contract, which standard contract be-
comes effective on the date on which the
application and payment of subscription is re-
ceived by medical services insurance division.
Mr. Young: Where does that come in, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The next section-
section 16.
Mr. Young: No. We are on section 10. I
would ask the hon. Minister about the 30-day
period that is mentioned here. Is it within
30 days of the termination of the contract,
or can he apply 30 days ahead so that it can
come into effect?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He can apply the very
next day, but the benefits will come into
force on the day that the payment is received
by the commission. He has 30 days' grace
if he wants to delay it for 30 days after his
contract ceases. I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, that my own people devised that.
Mr. Young: Well, Mr. Chairman, in view
of what the hon. Minister has just told us,
and in view of the fact that he will be
introducing this amendment, I think that
what I have to say is perhaps redundant
at this point. The amendment which I was
going to offer is a similar amendment to this
one. I think the point is now made and we
thank the hon. Minister.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I move that section
No. 10 be struck out and the following be
substituted therefor:
Subsection 2 of section 16 of The Medi-
cal Services Insurance Act, 1965, is re-
pealed and the following substituted
therefor: Where a resident who is not a
dependant or his dependent spouse ceases
to be covered under a group medical serv-
ices insurance contract after the expira-
tion of an open enrolment period, such
person may make application for a
standard contract within 30 days of the
date of termination of his group medical
services insurance contract, which standard
contract becomes effective on the date on
which the application and payment of
subscription is received by the medical
services insurance division.
Mr. Chairman: You have heard the
amendment by the Minister of Health, that
section 10 be struck out and the following be
substituted therefor:
Subsection 2 of section 16 of The Medi-
cal Services Insurance Act, 1965, is re-
pealed and the following substituted
therefor: Where a resident who is not a
dependant or his dependent spouse ceases
to be covered under a group medical serv-
ices insurance contract after the expiration
of an open enrolment period, such person
may make application for a standard
contract within 30 days of the date of
termination of his group medical services
insurance contract, which standard con-
tract becomes effective on the date on
which the application and payment of
subscription is received by the medical
services insurance division.
Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, where does the student who
is in the programme and listed under The
Medical Services Insurance Act, attending an
American university for eight months of the
year, fit in this programme? Is he covered by
the programme?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No. If he is attending
an American university he is not covered by
the programme because he ceases to be a
resident. This is a very difficult and sensitive
area that we are trying to work out. We
are trying to work it out with a reciprocal
agreement between the provinces of Canada,
but we can see no hope of working this out
in the case of foreign universities.
Mr. Newman: But, Mr. Chairman, suppos-
ing the student does come home on week-
ends, but resides at the university for the
balance of the week, would that make any
difference?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If he is essentially
living outside of the province he has ceased
to be a resident.
I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the great
majority of universities have group cover-
age for sickness and hospitalization of their
students and I understand— while I cannot
say that this is a fact at all universities— that
556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this is a very common procedure in Ameri-
can universities and it is quite often part of
the student fee structure.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I realize
that there are a lot of technicalities in
answers but I notice that some of the hon.
Minister's advisers look puzzled at this. His
definition of "resident" still concerns me.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is spelled out in the
Act. This is clear already and is, I under-
stand, the legal definition of a resident, is it
not?
My law officers advise me that this is a
legal definition of resident.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): May I have
at least one question on this, Mr. Chairman?
The trouble is that when you have a bill
that has been so chopped up-like Bill No.
136 is-it is awfully hard to follow the
amendments. But I want to point out this:
In section 16, subsection 1, which is not
amended, they refer to section 14 or 15. We
have repealed 15, and this will not really
apply to the new section 16. In other words
the reference should be removed. Would
you check this with your drafters?
Subsection 1 should also be amended, Mr.
Chairman, and this is why it is so hard to fol-
low. We are going to have a new section
15; so. as a result, section 16 just is not going
to make sense— like so much of the legislation
cf this government. This is just poor drafting.
You should take a look at it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We are quite agree-
able to removing 15, because 15 will not
apply-
An hon. member: You have an amend-
ment in there.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am advised by the
leg tl people— and again my hon. friend ought
to know that because he is a lawyer— I am
advised that it automatically disappears.
Mr. Trotter: It is still sitting there.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Because there is no
section 15.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Trotter: You can understand, Mr.
Chairm an, as a result of the way they are
redrafting this bill that was No. 136, that
quite a chopped up bit of legislation is going
to appear.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This has nothing to do
with the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Woodbine.
Mr. Bryden: This gets so complicated it
is very hard for a person to know where
we are at. We have a bill that chops up an
Act to a point where you can hardly recog-
nize either the bill or the Act, then we have
an amendment. I am just trying to figure
out where we stand. If the amendment car-
ries, then section 10 of the bill is still
open for further discussion, is it?
Mr. Chairman: If the amendment carries,
the section carries automatically with it.
Mr. Bryden: I thought it was the other
way around, if the amendment were defeated.
Surely, if an amendment carries, a section
does not automatically carry.
I would like to make a proposal to the
hon. Minister while he is in an amending
mood. Apparently he does not have to clean
up the words "or 15" which appear in sub-
section 1 or section 16, but I would suggest
to him that there is another part of subsec-
tion 1 of section 15 that he could give con-
sideration to. That is the provision under
which an applicant under this section will
have to wait— it says:
Where the application of a person en-
titled to apply under section 14 is not
made and the subscription therefor is not
paid within the period mentioned therein,
such person may apply for a standard
contract at any time and upon payment of
the subscription, a contract shall be issued
to such person, which shall become effec-
tive three months following the date of
such application and payment.
I am suggesting to the hon. Minister that
he can reasonably cut down this three-month
period. I would suggest to him that while
he is fixing up section 16, he could make
that one month. He has now recognized that
there was a big loophole in the bill, as he
brought it in, under which a person who had
been under a licensed carrier had no pro-
tection at all. He went under the three-
months clause too. He is changing that to
eliminate the waiting period altogether in
that case, and I think that is right.
I am now suggesting that in the other
case dealt with by subsection 1 he should
reduce the waiting period from the unreason-
ably long time of three months to one month.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: These are two entirely
different situations. The person who is to
benefit by the amendment which I have pro-
posed has already served his waiting period,
all his waiting periods, under his previous
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
557
contract, and it is to ensure that he shall not
fall out of benefits and have to go through
all this again. I believed, and I still believe,
there was within the Act power to do this.
However, to make absolutely certain, I am
proposing this amendment.
Subsection 1 of section 16 is to look after
the person who has not troubled to insure.
He has had the benefit of open enrolment
periods, and he has not bothered to insure.
I stated quite clearly, sir, and I think in
unmistakable terms yesterday, that it is just
so simple. If we do this, if we remove this
waiting period, then we simply have to in-
crease the price.
Mr. Trotter: On this matter of the waiting
period, I think that we should, once again,
under this section 16, or as it is in the
amended bill section 10, come to grips with
this matter, the waiting period. I know the
NDP previously had a motion asking that
this be reduced from a three-months waiting
period to a one-month waiting period. Now,
what is important in this type of legislation
is that we move as quickly and as closely as
we possibly can, under the restrictions of
these various sections, to see to it that people
have an almost immediate opportunity to be-
come a part of this plan. There are many
people who under this present enrolment
scheme, if they are thrown out of work and
want to join the plan, or if they come to
this province, there are many circumstances
where they want to reduce it down to a one-
month waiting period, and I think this should
be general throughout the plan.
The hon. member for Woodbine did not
move a formal motion in this case, and I
would like to put on record a formal motion
reducing the waiting period from three
months to one month.
Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment
before us now and I am going to deal with
this section of the amendment first.
Mr. Trotter: All right.
Mr. Bryden: Will the floor then be open
for discussion on the section as amended?
Mr. Chairman: We will leave it; the sec-
tion will not carry.
Mr. Bryden: I would like to advise you,
Mr. Chairman, that I propose to move an
amendment as soon as you have cleared out
the existing amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
amendment, please say "aye."
Those opposed to the amendment, please
say "nay."
The amendment carries and the section
is—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Was it carried unani-
mously?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Section 10 is open for dis-
cussion, as amended.
Mr. Bryden: I move that section 10 of Bill
No. 6 be further amended by renumbering
the present section, that is what you just
adopted, as subsection 2 and by adding the
following subsection:
1. Subsection 1 of section 16—
and that is what is in the Act now:
—is amended by striking out the word and
figures, "or 15"—
I am cleaning this up anyway while we are
dealing with it, even though the experts say
it is not necessary:
—in the second line, and by striking out the
words "three months" in the sixth and
seventh lines and substituting the words
"one month."
Mr. Chairman: The member for Woodbine
has moved that section 10 of Bill No. 6 be
further amended by renumbering the present
section as subsection 2 and by adding the fol-
lowing subsection:
1. Subsection 1 of section 16 is amended
by striking out the word and figures "or
15" in the second line and by striking
out the words "three months" in the sixth
and seventh lines and substituting the
words "one month."
All those in favour of the amendment?
Mr. Trotter: I was going to say in regard
to this, Mr. Chairman, we in this party had
a similar motion. We support what the hon.
member for Woodbine has said. Again I say
that the one-month waiting period is enough
and the closer we come to having this uni-
versal scheme, and open to all, the better
it is.
Mr. MacDonald: The only argument that
has been advanced by the hon. Minister is
that if this kind of tiling were done it would
raise the price— you would have to raise the
premium. Now, quite frankly the hon. Minis-
ter has made this generalization at least a half
a dozen times but he has come forth with no
real substantiation of the issue.
558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Let me say this— even if it does raise the
premium— if we are trying to provide cover-
age for people, why do you exclude them for
some peculiar financial reason in the mechan-
ics of the bill? The purpose of this bill, for
those who finally decide that they want to
seek coverage under the standard contract, is
that they should have coverage. Why should
they be excluded in this sort of mechanical
fashion?
I suggest to the hon. Minister that his
argument is really not a convincing one. In
view of the fact that we were co-operative a
moment ago, and voted for his amendment,
I was just hoping that perhaps he is in such
a mellow mood that he will co-operate and
vote for our amendment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am always in a mel-
low mood in respect to my friend, the hon.
member for York South, but I cannot hope
to convince him. I am not going to give up
trying, but I am despondent of any success.
But I do not pick these figures just out of
nowhere. The whole programme has been
based on the opinions of the economists and
the actuaries, and our subscription or pre-
mium structure has been based on these
computations.
To say that we are excluding anybody is
quite wrong, because we have tried every-
thing possible to make sure that every oppor-
tunity is given to people to come in. We have
established first of all a lengthy initial open
enrolment period, and we have made pro-
vision for the person who becomes of age
between open enrolment periods.
We have just now made the proposition so
kindly supported by this amendment, made
provision for the person who, between open
enrolment periods, must transfer from a group
contract to the standard contract. We have
made sure by this amendment there shall be
no loss of benefits.
Now, I think we have done just about
everything possible-
Mr. MacDonald: No! Not everything.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, just about. I
did qualify it by saying just about every-
thing possible. So I think that for the time
being I would ask the House to indulge us
in this regard, and recognize that we have
strained every effort to look after the people.
We are not deliberately excluding anyone
and I think it is quite wrong to leave that
impression.
Mr. Bryden: I suggest to the hon. Minister
that we see this from a somewhat different
point of view. He has come forward with
an amendment doing something that we
were quite exercised about last night— it was
either afternoon or evening, I cannot re-
member now— and he told us that this he
could not do.
But he has now eliminated one obvious
anomaly in the total problem we are talk-
ing about. He has plugged up a loophole.
We suggest now that he has come this far,
he might as well go a little further. His
difficulty, of course, is the basic inadequacy of
the bill to begin with. The open enrolment
periods, three-month waiting periods and
various exceptions, all arise because of the
lack of universality of the plan.
Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.
Mr. Bryden: What does the hon. member
mean, "nonsense"? That is exactly what the
government has arrived at. No universal
plan has any of this folderol in it. None of
it at all.
I am suggesting to the hon. Minister that
he is unduly impressed by the economists
and actuaries. I do not know which ones he
has consulted. I have no doubt they are
well qualified in their professions, they are
just like anybody else— they tend to get par-
ticular figures and then make them into
fetishes.
There is absolutely nothing sacred about
three months as a waiting period. It happens
that somebody at some remote time in the
past, in drawing up an insurance contract of
some kind, hit on the figure 3 and ever
since that has become sacred. Now the hon.
Minister tries to put it forward to us mere
mortals as something that could not possibly
be changed without the whole course of
the universe being changed.
Why? Because that is what his actuaries
and economists have told him. And why did
they tell him that? Because the actuaries
and economists from whom they learned told
them the same thing. If you get any of them
to get down to real brass tacks they could not
give you any reason; it is an arbitrary figure
that they have chosen. We suggest that we
should assist legislation; it should be patched
up as much as possible by taking out, or by
softening as much as possible, these arbitrary
types of provisions.
I am suggesting to the hon. Minister that
he has come a little way tonight. In relation
to the bill as a whole he has come quite a
little way from last year. I suggest that he
come a little further now and change three
to one. We will then be very satisfied with
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
559
this section, within the very inadequate bill
in which it exists.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I can only say in
closing, Mr. Chairman, that it is these per-
suasive tactics, which lead one to go a little
bit further and a little bit further, that lead
us into trouble. I do not want to get into
trouble.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour-
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if in fact
the cost of the plan will be so raised by
lowering the period from three months to
one month so that the hon. Minister thinks
he will have to increase the premium, then
let him inform this House precisely what the
economists and actuaries have said. What
percentage basis have they given? What
figures were they working on? What did they
estimate?
How can the hon. Minister simply come
and inform this House that the economists
and actuaries say three months instead of
one? I think this House is entitled to a more
precise definition of their terms. What did
they use? What facts did they put before
the hon. Minister that he can put before this
House through the Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member is
bound to know that they do not put facts
before me. They come to conclusions and
they tell me that this is their opinion, that
this is the advice that they give me, that
this is the sort of programme they recom-
mend to me on the basis of their study. I
would not know what they are talking about.
The hon. member for Scarborough West
probably would, but I would not. I do not
question them in respect of their own busi-
ness. Nor do I pose as an expert in all of
these things. These people are experts in
their field and I take their advice. Why, in
the name of common sense, would I waste
the public money seeking their advice if I
were not going to take some of it at least? I
have not got the information the hon. mem-
ber asks for, and I do not ask for the details.
I tell them to study this thing thoroughly, tell
them what we want, and ask them to recom-
mend the best possible programme on the
basis of their knowledge and study.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
for Scarbourough West, in connection with
this particular section, because the section
before us, number 10, was amended on
clause number 2, that we have now gone into
clause number 1 of section 16, which has
permitted some latitude. I was hoping that
through co-operation we could arrive at some
kind of an amicable settlement here.
Mr. S. Lewis: Well, I was amicable, Mr.
Chairman, and I want you to be assured of
that. I simply want to suggest to the hon.
Minister that it is perfectly within his com-
pass to ask his actuaries and economists
on what basis they arrived at their decision
—not simply to accept the decision as an
absolute truth, but to ask them on what basis.
Second, if in fact that basis has validity, it
should be possible, I suggest, sir, for a
Minister of the Crown to extend it to this
House; we are not, in fact, asking the im-
possible.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would draw to your
attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we
established yesterday, I think, that where no
amendment had been proposed to a section
or subsection it could not be altered at this
time without bringing in a bill to amend that
particular section or subsection.
Mr. Chairman: That is right. That is what
I was trying to tell the member a moment
ago, that actually it is out of order— but I
have allowed some flexibility in connection
with it.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In the opinion of the chair the amendment
is lost.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please rise.
All those opposed to the amendment will
please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 25, the "nays," 51.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and the section carried as amended.
The member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying
that there is evidence, that in the eight
months which have intervened since the
passage of Bill No. 136 and the introduction
of Bill No. 6, somebody in the department,
one of the advisers to the hon. Minister,
apparently read the debate.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What clause are we
on, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Section 11.
560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Because one can see, one can
readily see, that in subsection 1 of the
new proposed subsection 1 of section 17, the
words "as to a material fact" have been
added to the words "for misrepresentation
or fraud." My first inclination was to invite
the House to consider striking out paragraph
8, but on mature reflection I have decided
not to move that that paragraph be struck
out, for I might say I am hardly weathered
to the use of the word misrepresentation be-
cause I wonder whether it includes an
innocent misrepresentation as well as a
fraudulent misrepresentation. Of course the
layman will readily see, and the hon. Min-
ister of Health will readily see, that there is
a world of difference between the two.
It is perfectly possible that a subscriber
to the plan could make a misrepresentation
that goes to the root of the contract; perhaps,
if one starts to conjure up an example, it
will be a misrepresentation in respect of his
age, misrepresentation in respect of his marital
status, his relationship to the children within
his household, and so on. That might be
treated by the medical services insurance
division as being a misrepresentation that
goes to a material fact. However, one can
assume that the medical services insurance
division will exercise a goodly measure of
common sense. And it is to be hoped that that
division, before cancelling a contract, will
adopt a rule of thumb that a subscriber is
to be given the benefit of the doubt.
I am not entirely convinced that the
citizen who comes in conflict with, comes up
against, an agency, an emanation of govern-
ment, is always given the benefit of the
doubt. In the field of workmen's compensation
I am not convinced that the workman always
receives the benefit of the doubt. It is to be
hoped that the civil service— bureaucracy is
the word the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) likes to use — in interpreting this
section and applying it, will exercise a good
deal of latitude and broadmindedness, to the
benefit of the subscriber, keeping in mind the
policy of the legislation and the intention of
this House that we want to give the best
of medical care to the residents of this prov-
ince who avail themselves of the government
plan.
The subsection 3, the proposed subsection
3 as well as the present subsection 2 that is
not interfered with— but the two may be
read together— the new 3 refers to 2 as it
is presently in the bill. I made some remarks
last year which— whoever read the debates
last year was not as persuaded in regard to
this one as that person was persuaded in
respect to the misrepresentation or fraud.
Last year I involved the hon. Attorney
General (Mr. Wishart), himself, in the debate;
and, if I remember correctly, at this point he
made a contribution to the debate. He drew
upon his knowledge of such things to inform
the House about the considerations that apply
to appeals. What I said at that time was that
when the division has cancelled, has taken
the step of cancelling, the contract of the
subscriber and the individual, the subscriber
appeals to the council.
I am worried that the council might take
the position of saying: "The onus is upon
you, Mr. Subscriber, to show us that the
division acted unreasonably." That is in
accord with the jurisprudence in the courts.
Where there is this type of appeal from an
action of an administrative tribunal— a board,
commission, licence granting authority— often
the legislation is in this form. And when the
individual gets to the courts, at great ex-
pense and great anxiety, as anyone evinces
when being involved in litigation— the courts
being such fearsome institutions in all their
majesty and dignity— the court says: "You
will have to show me that the agency acted
unreasonably. You have the onus. You have
to show us where they went wrong, where
they went outside their jurisdiction, where
they took into consideration things they
ought not to have considered, where they
exhibited a bias." And so on.
Of course, the subscriber, the citizen, is
not within the four walls of where these
decisions were taken. He is not present.
He does not know what considerations were
applicable to reaching the decision and it is
virtually impossible for him, except in the
most rare cases, to show where it went
wrong.
What I prefer to see, and I hoped that it
would be written into this section, is that
where the subscriber has his contract can-
celled, the council may review the decision
on its merits. It was at this point that the
hon. Attorney General got into the debate
last year in which we discussed the differ-
ences in approach of an appellate tribunal,
for that is what the council is in this section.
It is an appellate tribunal in that sense, and
it ought to have the power to review the
action on its merits and substitute its judg-
ment for that of the division, if it is so called
upon, and the two are vastly different things.
In the second case, a subscriber gets a
new trial, so to speak, of the whole matter
before the council and that is the way I
feel it should be. He ought to be able to
come before the council and you will re-
member that early on in dealing with this
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
561
Act we advocated-the hon. leader of the
Opposition moved an amendment— that it
would require this council to meet in various
regions in the province.
This is the very type of thing they would
be dealing with. They meet in Port Arthur
and hear a subscriber from Geraldton who
has had his contract cancelled. He comes
and complains to them. They hear the thing
on its merits; they substitute their judgment
for that of the division. No question of
offending the civil service about it. They
would not be offended. Their pride would
not be hurt if the council said, in effect, that
they had acted a little too hastily here, and
to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt
and to reinstate him.
Now look at the flexibility, if you will, that
the hospital services commission exhibits.
Almost all of us here— certainly I have, and I
would venture to say that every hon. mem-
ber of the House has had— a constituent
come in and say he had forgotten to pay the
premium for the three-month period, and
had been in the hospital for a hernia opera-
tion, and was burdened with a bill of $700
which he could not pay. The commission
has shown a great deal of flexibility in cases
like these.
They have accepted the premium retro-
actively and paid the bill. Where it is inno-
cent, that is a good, flexible, broadminded
approach and totally in accord with the hon.
member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells),
who is not here tonight and who is an
authority in such matters. It is the approach
of the Good Samaritan.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is Good Samari-
tan legislation.
I do not mean to offend the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman) at all,
and I hope that I do not, but in that sense
it is Good Samaritan legislation. That is the
direction we are moving in. We are far
better Samaritans in 1966 than Macdonald
and Brown and Cartier and Langevin were
back in 1867. They tried, but they lived in
a predominantly rural economy where the
neighbours helped each other. Now we do
it through the state. We use the state.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: That is my point in regard to
that and I do not need to elaborate on it.
I do not think the way 2 or 3 are written
down are quite satisfactory, and they could
be improved.
I move that section 11 be amended by
adding thereto subsection 2 to read as
follows: "Sub-paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of
section 17 is repealed."
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
moves an amendment to Bill No. 6, section
11. The member moves that:
Section 11 be amended by adding there-
to subsection 2 to read as follows:
Sub-paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of
section 17 is repealed.
Mr. Bryden: Why should not subsection
(a) also be repealed?
Mr. Chairman: Do I understand that what
the member for Sudbury is attempting to do
here is to strike out sub-paragraph (d) of sub-
section 1 of section 17?
Mr. Sopha: That is right. The words:
"for misuse of services for which bene-
fits are provided."
I think the inclusion of this one is totally
inexcusable. I fail to comprehend— I may be
obtuse in this, which is a synonym for the
word "stupid"— but I am unable to see how
a subscriber to a medical care plan could
misuse services unilaterally. What services
could he misuse unilaterally on his motion?
I ask rhetorically. Certainly, to misuse serv-
ices, he would have to have either the active
connivance of a member of the medical
profession, or he would have so deluded and
misled the member of the medical profession
that the doctor was giving him services under
the honest belief that he was treating a con-
dition that did not exist.
Now that is the only hemisphere in which
I can see that a subscriber could misuse
services. The whole point is, of course, that
it is for the doctor to say whether services
are being misused. It is not for the medical
insurance division or the council to say so.
Surely, if those charged with the administra-
tion of the Act suspect that a patient is mis-
using services, then it is open to them to
write to the doctor— I understand that thous-
ands of letters a day go out of the Ontario
hospital services commission to doctors, ask-
ing them to justify treatment they have pre-
scribed.
The doctors tell me they are flooded with
requests for information and justification for
the number of days spent in hospitals. In-
deed, I am told, it goes so far that in cases
of parturition, delivery, that there is a fixed
number of days the woman should be in the
hospital. I do not know how many days it
it, but it is a fixed number of days and if
the woman is in the hospital one day more
than the fixed number of days, then the
562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
doctor gets a letter from the services com-
mission, saying: How do you justify the—
Mr. W. B. Lewis (Humber): May I be
permitted to tell the hon. member that he
is away off base. That does not happen.
Mr. Sopha: Would you wait until I am
finished? I am just fortunate that I saw such
a letter from the hospital services commission
addressed to a doctor, asking him to justify
the number of days, in case of a delivery.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes. The same thing applies
here. If they feel the patient is getting some
services he is not entitled to, obviously the
thing to do is write to the doctor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If only one doctor is
involved.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, if only one doctor is in-
volved. There is a limited number of doctors
one patient is going to see, only a limited
number, because in a small community—
maybe not in Metropolitan Toronto but in
the smaller communities -the word will get
around quickly to be wary of Joe McFunnel-
cover when he comes in, that there is noth-
ing really wrong with him; and he will get
short shrift. The same word gets around
among lawyers about certain types of indi-
viduals. But what I am merely saying— and
I do not want to get into a quibble with the
hon. Minister of Health— is that I think the
subsection is totally unnecessary.
The vice will not be that great; the great
majority of our citizens have common sense
enough to use the services provided moder-
ately and responsibly. For the small minority
that might be so hypochondriac, if that is
the word, to believe that there is something
wrong with them that they have to rush to
doctors— if that become such a problem then
we can pass something to apply to medicine
like The Vexatious Proceedings Act applies
to litigants, which is very rarely used.
I am told that when that statute was passed
by this Legislature a number of years ago,
it was passed for one person in the province,
one person out of five million. So for that
reason, because the medical profession in the
final analysis is the guardian of the use of the
services, it is strange to me. Let me just say
that it seems anomalous to me that the hon.
Minister of Health should single out in his
statute, point to the subscriber who might
misuse the services provided, and impose
upon him a severe penalty in the section,
and the Act is absolutely silent about the
medical profession misusing it. There is not
a word in the statute about any possible
misuse by the medical profession.
An hon. member: Professional courtesy.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, it might be, somebody
said, the professional courtesy of one doctor
to another. But if I were to reflect on it a
priori, I would think the dangers would be
far greater of a misuse of the services by the
medical profession than they would by the
subscriber. I do not know, but common
sense seems to tell me that that is so.
For those reasons I invite the hon. Min-
ister of Health— we have not had much suc-
cess this year in getting him to adopt our
amendments, we had more success last year
than our efforts have had this year.
Mr. Edwards: What does the hon. member
for Sudbury call success? How do you define
success?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Sud-
bury stay with section 11?
An hon. member: The question was in
order; I will ask it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I would rather the member
for Sudbury stayed with section 11.
Mr. Sopha: Thanks.
An hon. member: Was the hon. member
for Perth out of order?
Mr. Sopha: This temptation was great. I
was not going to invite the hon. member for
Perth to take his shoes off and get comfort-
able while I answered him; it might take
me an hour or so. I have said at that point
all that I want to say. I just hope that,
before some of these sink in, we do not have
to wait for another eight months for another
statute. I just want to say this: The quality
of exultation, I say to the hon. Minister of
Health, does not permit nor does it in any
way compliment, an individual. It is not in
a spirit of exultation that I remind him, in
respect of many proposals that we have put
forward since we started the committee stage
of this bill, that I was one that stood in my
place last year and said, "I predict that be-
fore this bill goes into law there are going to
be many changes."
How much change? Sixty per cent of the
statute has been amended.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
563
An hon. member: Every section but five.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What clause are we
on, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Section 11.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. So in regard to—
An hon. member: That is one of the 60
per cent that is being amended.
Mr. Sopha: So in regard to this, we are
entitled to say to the hon. Minister that
amendments such as this, when it is put for-
ward in entire good faith and with the in-
tention of trying to get out of his meat
grinder here— if I may call it that, the best
kind of sausage that we can-
Mr. Thompson: We do not want ham-
burger.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, my hon. leader says, we
do not want hamburger; we want a product
we can be proud of.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the silence
of the last five seconds is my comment on
that intervention. I think it is a most ap-
propriate one.
If I may come to the hon. member for
Sudbury— about 20 minutes ago I think he
made a point, and I thought at that point I
agreed with him. Then he has poured such
a Niagara of words upon me that I have
swum madly to keep at the top. I still think
I agree with the amendment that he has
made. Indeed, upon serious reflection, Mr.
Chairman, I really agree with him, and I
want to support it in the hope that we might
be able to persuade the hon. Minister.
Unfortunately, I wish he had gone a bit
further. Before I sit down I would like to
indicate where I wish he had gone a bit
further. But let us deal with what he has
dealt with in his amendment.
Subsection 1 (d), for misuse of services for
which benefits are provided: Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member for Sudbury has made
most of the points that need to be made in
connection with this section. I think the
hon. Minister is being very sweeping in the
use of a great penalty by which he is going
to deprive a person of his coverage and,
indeed, his family of the coverage, for a
misuse of the service.
Conceivably an individual can misuse this
service; but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the
hon. Minister, that if an individual is going
to misuse the service, in 999 cases out of
1,000 he cannot do it without being in
collusion with the doctor. I find it passing
strange that the government should bring in
an amendment which is going to penalize the
subscriber and, as the hon. member for Sud-
bury has said, say nothing at all about mis-
use of it by the doctor himself.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, my second
point is that if there is misuse of the service,
then this comes pretty close to a fraud. I
suggest to you that you have got, under the
Criminal Code today, the necessary action
to deal with fraudulent moves on the part of
a person.
But my third and most important point is
this: By using this rather drastic penalty,
you cut off the service altogether. You are
not only going to penalize the person who
presumably is guilty of the misuse, who may
be one individual, and he may or may not
have been in collusion with a doctor. How
you are going to prove this in many instances,
with any great degree of certainty, I do not
know. But when you cut his service off, you
cut his family's service off, so that the rest
of his family have not got coverage too. I
suggest to the hon. Minister that if he were
as full of the milk of human kindness, as he
suggests to us on some occasions that he is,
he would not be bringing in that particular
kind of section in an Act. He would not be
saying he is trying to give as much coverage
to everybody as possible.
This is almost in the category of the fine
print in private insurance contracts that we
have had to deal with for years. Then, Mr.
Chairman, the thing that I regret, that the
hon. member for Sudbury did not include in
his amendment— and unfortunately the rules
do not permit us to include it, because I
presume since he dealt with it and then dis-
missed it that he will not be willing volun-
tarily to include it— is back to section (a) for
misrepresentation or fraud to a material fact.
Mr. Chairman, surely if a person is guilty
of misrepresentation or fraud, he is guilty
of an offence under the Criminal Code;
therefore charge him and take him before
the courts under the Criminal Code. But
you penalize not only him once again, but
his whole family, by cancelling the insur-
ance. This is an unnecessarily harsh penalty,
for which the innocent are going to have to
suffer along with the guilty. You have got
your courts now. You have got your Crim-
inal Code now. If there is fraud, and I
suggest to you that this is misrepresentation
or fraud, this is where you should deal with
it, and not use this as an excuse for cancelling
coverage.
564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not know whether I have persuaded
the hon. member for Sudbury to include a
repeal of section (a) as well as (b), but I
think both of them are in the same category.
In both instances it is fraud. You can take
it to the courts and settle it, and you can
deal with the person who is responsible for
the misrepresentation or the fraud, without
penalizing others.
Therefore, I would hope that the hon.
member for Sudbury would be willing to
include a repeal of section (a) along with
section (b).
Mr. Sopha: May I gladsomely show how
broadminded I am? I will incorporate the
repeal of sub-paragraph (a) and (b) of sub-
section 1 of 17.
Mr. MacDonald: I can give you a copy
which would incorporate both of them.
Mr. Chairman: Moved by the member for
Sudbury, now seconded. The member for
York South has incorporated both (a) and
(b) of subsection 1.
All those in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Gisborn: I think this section in this
bill is a very important one and an awful lot
depends on the administration of the prin-
ciple implied in this section 17, that is—
keeping people covered and finding ways to
keep the plan rolling with the premiums
coming in as they are due.
I would not be in favour of leaving any
of the sections in there, excepting (c), which
is logical. I do not even feel that I can
agree with (d), for non-payment of sub-
scriptions, unless we could have some indi-
cation from the hon. Minister as to what the
attitude will be in the procedure for de-
linquency of payments.
I think we should have some understand-
ing of how it is going to be administered. Is
there going to be some sort of demerit system
—or a notice of delinquency of payment of
subscription? Would they be given a month
to pick it up or would they be cut off from
coverage immediately that the subscription
is not paid on the due date? Because I think
you will find this type of a plan, where the
insured is responsible for getting his pay-
ments into the department by cheque, or
money order, whichever way it is devised, is
going to raise many problems in this area.
I would like to hear from the hon. Min-
ister, and maybe if we had some indication
of how the department plans on handling
these problems, it might give us an insight
as to whether or not we should vote for
the sections implied in the bill.
Certainly, it might even come to the point
where the administration of the plan would
have to attach wages to get premiums to pay
for the coverage for the family. We could
cite several cases of where the moneys will
not be forwarded to the department to pay
for the premium.
We might have a case of the husband who
is responsible for sending in the premiums.
He might have it in his pocket today, then
he decides to have some beer and forget
about it. We might have the wife of the
breadwinner responsible for making sure the
premiums are sent in when they are due,
and she may be applying the money to the
horses.
I do not think we can just say that the
family is cut off from their doctor coverage
for these reasons. I think we have to have
more knowledge of just how the department
plans; what is their thinking in this area.
It is an important one and I think the success
of the plan is going to depend a lot on the
continued coverage of the family in regard
to having a prepaid doctors plan.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot begin to
answer the questions the hon. member who
just spoke posed, because this is quite apart
from this section entirely.
Surely, in the name of common sense, this
House does not think that the govern-
ment is bringing in a bill for the sake of
ensuring that people are not insured. The
purpose of this bill is to see that as many
of our people as possible, and as many as
need it, will be insured and will be kept
in benefits.
Again I repeat what I said last year— that
the hon. members of the Opposition cannot
see evil, or do not see evil, in everything a
government does. We are interested in what
this is providing for the people, despite the
fact that my hon. friends in the socialist
benches do not think we are going far enough.
We are not going far enough to suit them.
As I have already stated, we are going far
enough. And there is protection, I would
point out to my hon. friend for Sudbury,
for the subscriber in subsection 2, which he
wanted to amend. A contract cannot be
cancelled without (a) the subscriber being
notified and being advised that he has an
appeal to the council, and that his benefits
will remain in force until the council has
given a decision and the council's decision
shall be final and binding upon this adminis-
tration.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
565
If these things are not going to be needed,
why worry about them? Let us leave them in,
in the event they might be needed. We'
know that there are occasions when they
are needed.
This I am told— and I am quite certain my
hon. friend from Sudbury, who is certainly
not obtuse, recognizes it— is standard inclusion
in every contract, not only insurance con-
tracts. I am advised that this is a standard
insert in all contracts.
If it is not going to be needed, it will never
be used. So why worry about it? We are
not going out of our way to find ways and
means-
Mr. Bryden: What an incredible argument.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Of course it is not an
incredible argument. It is not nearly as in-
credible as the stuff that is coming from
your hon. colleagues behind you.
If people do not abuse the contract, they
are in no danger of it being taken from
them. I would point out that as we go
further along in the amendments, there is
the same safeguard put against over-service
by the doctors.
My hon. friend has said that misuse calls
for collusion. This is ridiculous. There can
be misuse if there is collusion, but then we
are more inclined to think that is over-service
and lay the blame upon the doctor, because
he knows whether he is giving too much
service, or whether the patient is demanding
too much service.
If they are demanding too much service,
then it is the doctor's responsibility to see
that it is stopped. If it is not necessary, the
responsibility would then be placed upon him.
But it is quite conceivable that a patient
can consult many, many doctors and of
course each one would have to go through
some preliminary type of examination to
ensure that the patient was not complaining
without foundation.
There can be many cases of misuse pre-
sented to you or demonstrated to you. But
again I repeat if they are not there, if there
is not evidence of misuse, this section of the
Act will not be used. We believe that this is
good business and I am advised it is good
business, and I see no reason for it being
deleted.
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the member for
Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: The hon. Minister said that
this is good business. These clauses that
have to do with misrepresentation or fraud
or misuse are hangovers from the private
carriers' insurance policies.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would have to dis-
agree with that. I am told that this is even
in the Saskatchewan contract.
Mr. Trotter: This type of wording is
usually in the small lines of the private
carriers that make the cash register ring.
This is where an insurance company can get
off the hook under many circumstances. I
think a prime example is one we used last
year. A man who is crippled and could not
move lost the rights under his policy because
he was moved out of his house in a wheel-
chair. Instead of staying in his house he
was moved around the block in a wheel-
chair.
This was a type of wording that the in-
surance companies would use to get out of
the responsibilities of their contract. Private
insurance companies are old hands at this.
This is why I do not want to see private
insurance companies in the health field what-
soever, and I do not like seeing the govern-
ment using the type of clause that the private
insurance companies use.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions is all up on the
private insurance companies, like the hon.
member for High Park (Mr. Cowling). It
no doubt breaks his heart to see any type
of government plan in force here, but again
I say, Mr. Chairman, that I support what
the hon. member for Sudbury and the hon.
member for York South have said. But
basically this clause, this section, has no place
in government insurance. It is strictly a hang-
over from the private insurance companies
and we should remove the clause completely.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
of course, the hon. member for Parkdale
is perfectly right about what he says as to
the origin of this language. It is applicable
only to applications for insurance. This is
the language you find, not in the insurance
contract that you receive but in the applica-
tion form. Over a long period of time they
developed this language, which has a very
technical and obscure legal meaning for most
people, to provide that if you make an appli-
cation for insurance and in the application
make a misrepresentation or commit a fraud
as to a material fact that will vitiate the
contract; but of course, this section does not
say that. This refers to the contract itself,
therefore there must be some limitation re-
lating this to the actual contract which has
been issued to the person who subscribes
566
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for it. If the hon. Minister— and I will leave
it to one side— in fact is talking about the
application, and in the application for the
insurance there is misrepresentataion or fraud
as to a material fact, then I think the bill
should clearly so state.
Leaving that to one side, because it does
not now so state, if the proposition which the
hon. Minister has tried to put before us is
that the contract itself, when you have be-
come a subscriber, is liable to termination
because of misrepresentation or fraud, and
if he has been advised that it is common in a
contractual arrangement to put in a provision
that the contract will be terminated for mis-
representation or fraud, I would suggest that
he consult again because it is not usual to
put such a provision in a contract. The usual
recourse for a person who is a party to a
contract and has been defrauded, whether it
has been a misrepresentation or misuse of
service, is simply to take his normal contract-
ual remedies to the courts.
As the hon. Attorney General is well aware,
there is provision in the courts— where there
are two parties to a contract and one of them
thinks there has been a breach of that con-
tract in some way— to apply to the courts.
And the courts, over many years, have devel-
oped fairly effective methods of providing for
damages in cases of breach of contract of one
kind or another. It is not absolutely neces-
sary that it be a criminal offence, simply a
breach under a contract which gives one
party to it the right to apply in the court.
It would seem to me that if the medical
services insurance division of The Depart-
ment of Health is one party to the contract,
that is no reason why they should not exer-
cise whatever rights they think they have in
the courts of this province. And if they ex-
ercise them I am quite content to let the
courts of the province come to a decision
as to whether there has been a misuse of
services or whether there has been some
kind of misrepresentation or fraud under the
contract; but I am certainly not satisfied and,
regardless of whether this section is passed
or not, I will continue unsatisfied. To sug-
gest that the medical council which is set
up under this Act for an entirely different
purpose would be in any sense a way in
which a decision could be made on such
questions as to misrepresentation or fraud as
to a material fact— I would invite any lawyer
in this House to suggest that the medical
council could possibly make that kind of a
determination.
It seems to me quite shocking that the
government, on its own volition, would ex-
clude the courts of the province in a matter
related to the civil rights, which arise under
a contract the government is going to issue
to a person who made application for it. It
would seem to me the government should
very well consider withdrawing the provision
about the appeal to the council. This, of
course, is the sort of specious way that the
government now, every time it sets up a
board, sets up some internal appeal pro-
cedure.
But this is not so in this case; and this
should not be so because, if a person has
in fact misused services— and we all agree as
a result of this debate this evening, this is
a very difficult question and may very well
not occur— then I would simply suggest that
in those circumstances the medical services
insurance division should have its recourse
to the courts for whatever damages may have
been suffered by that division. But the gov-
ernment should not reserve to itself the guil-
lotine decision that it is going to cancel that
contract, or leave it to a body which in a
very real sense is its own creature and is
unqualified to make the determination on
very difficult legal grounds as to whether or
not the cancellation should finally become
effective.
I would strongly urge the hon. Minister
that he should consider seriously deleting
these two provisions and, if necessary, seri-
ously consider deleting the provision which
suggests that the medical council is in any
way competent to deal with this kind of
question. And I would invite the hon.
Attorney General to comment on what I have
said.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, with
all due respect, I do not think we need the
hon. Attorney General in this at all. First
of all, I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that
I have ever listened to such a specious argu-
ment coming from a lawyer. Would not the
medical services insurance commission have
a real heyday throwing this open to the
courts. Boy, the lawyers would really make
a killing out of it. This is why we did it
this way, to keep the law out of it and to
keep these people out of the courts.
We are not interested in bringing people
to court. We recognize that if they make
mistakes they are usually made in relative
innocence, they are not made with malice
aforethought, and we are not interested in
bringing them to court; and of course, Mr.
Chairman, the council is a sensible way— just
as the hon. member for Sudbury so well
pointed out, the sensible and prompt and
satisfactory way in which complaints are
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
567
dealt with by the hospital services commis-
sion. A committee of the commission would
take the place of a committee of council
here, and they deal with these things on
their merits and they deal with them in com-
passion. Of course, we are not going to
bring these things to court. This would be
the worst possible thing that we could un-
dertake. I still can see no validity or no
worthwhile elements in this amendment, sir.
Mr. Renwick: I think that is an absolutely
astounding proposition to come from a Min-
ister of this government-to say that if the
government in fact is a party to a contract
they have no use whatsoever for the civil
courts to determine a question of breach of
contract.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member is
putting words in my mouth. I never said
any such thing. I said this legislation was
never brought before this House, or brought
to apply to the people of Ontario, with a
hope of making a heyday in our courts for
anybody. There is no intention, under any
circumstances, to take matters of this kind
to court. This is the sensible way of doing
it. My goodness, cases could go on for
months and months, and years, if I know
anything about courts of law. Of course, I
am not calling the courts in disrepute; it is
ridiculous to think that we bring cases of
this kind into courts.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will be
astounded now if the hon. Attorney General
does not intervene in this debate, because
what the hon. Minister of Health is saying
is that this government is going to reserve to
itself the right to cancel a contract which it
has made with a citizen of this province and
to leave him, as his sole recourse in a diffi-
cult legal question, to a medical council
which is not competent to deal with it.
• Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in
getting into this kind of a legal argument
but the points can be made backwards and
forwards, in any way the hon. Minister of
Health wants to make them; but if he is
suggesting that the civil court procedure be
entirely scrapped because of the delay which
lawyers cause then I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with the administration
of justice in the province, and that is another
question.
This evening, all I am saying is that the
medical council is not qualified and not
competent to deal with questions such as the
misuse of the benefits of this contract, or for
misrepresentation or fraud, any more than
the Ontario college of physicians and sur-
geons is today competent to deal with the
question of exclusion of medical doctors who
apply for registration in this province.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: May I say to this pro-
posed amendment, relative to clause (a) and
(d), whether we work too long hours or
whether we should not have evening sessions,
I think people are stopping being people, we
are losing our grasp of things. Now I can
tell you—
An hon. member: Speak for yourself.
Mr. W. B. Lewis: I can speak for myself
and I hope hon. members think I am speak-
ing for myself. The Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission— if you take the Act and
read from the front to the back, you will find
there are clauses equally as restrictive, and
maybe more so in many cases. But in the
whole life of the Ontario hospital insurance
commission never once has clause (a) or
clause (d), in reference to hospital insur-
ance, been exerted. I think we have to have
a little more faith in people.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: I must say that the comments
—I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the
hon. member for Kent East wants to go
home, he should go home, and those of us
who are interested in the business of the
province will stay here and conduct it.
The comments of the hon. Minister of
Health lead me to the conclusion that the
hon. member for Sudbury and the hon. mem-
ber for York South still have not gone far
enough in their amendment. I think they
should strike the whole section out. His
justification of it is the most appalling state-
ment I have ever- heard. What he is saying,
in effect, is that he is going to reserve to his
division the right to arbitrarily cancel con-
tracts. He tries to tell us that this is an
improvement over a situation where his
division would have to go to a court, would
have to take the initiative in going to a court,
to get the court to cancel.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I never said any such
thing. The retention of the section and the
appeal to the council does not preclude a
subscriber taking action in the court.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, but the onus is all on
the subscriber now, whereas in my opinion it
should be the other way around. If you want
to cancel a contract, the onus should be on
you. You should have to take the first step.
You should have to go to court.
568
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
You cannot scare us with all this nonsense
about cluttering up the courts with these
cases, unless you intend to cancel them in
great droves. If, as you say, cancellation
will be a most unusual procedure— and I
hope it will be— then there probably would
not be more than one case go to the courts
in three or four years. But I would say to
you that it should be on the basis that the
onus to obtain cancellation should be on you;
the onus should be on you to prove that
there are grounds for cancellation. It should
not be on the subscriber to act, after you
have arbitrarily cancelled his contract even
without a hearing, as I read this bill.
I do not care if this provision is in a
thousand different statutes in this country
and throughout the world. As the hon.
Minister has explained it, it now becomes
more and more clear it has no place at all. I
imagine the only reason there have not been
great protests about sections of this kind is
that they have not been used much, or per-
haps those against whom they have been
used have not been too well aware of their
rights so as to protest.
The section leaves an arbitrary power that
I do not think the medical services insurance
division should have. Just because it is in
another statute means absolutely nothing. One
of the features of this type of legislation is
that some provisions are carried over from
statute to statute, from contract to contract,
and heaven knows where some of them ever
started.
They are carried over by the people pre-
paring the next round just because they were
in the previous round. The hon. Minister
says that such a provision is also in the
Saskatchewan Act. It could very well be. I
had no connection whatsoever with the draft-
ing of that Act but I suspect that the section
went in out of force of habit— because that
is the sort of thing that was in insurance
contracts elsewhere.
The hon. Minister was putting forward a
proposition of "Let the experts decide"—
a thoroughly undemocratic proposition— with
regard to an earlier section. He said the
experts have told him that we, the mere
representatives of the people, should not
question the experts. Well, he heard an
expert speak on this section, but he has some
other experts, though, who will not open
up to us. He will not tell us who they are,
who he is relying on; but I suggest that his
experts in this case have feet of clay. They
have not given any more thought to this
section than he has. They have simply
carried over-
Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the mem-
ber to stay with the section.
Mr. Bryden: I am dealing right with the
section and I am suggesting it is ill founded
and has not been thought out. It has simply
been carried over from some other bill with-
out any thought at all and I think some of
the dangers in it are now quite apparent.
The greatest dangers, I submit, Mr. Chair-
man, are the dangers that the hon. Min-
ister himself inadvertently disclosed in his
lame, ill-conceived efforts to justify what is
a thoroughly unjustifiable provision.
I would suggest to him, Mr. Chairman, that
he should have another thought about this.
He should ask his experts just what is the
justification. Why should the insured be put
in the position where his contract can be
arbitrarily cancelled and then the onus is on
him? If you want to cancel, then why not
leave the onus on the medical services in-
surance division? I will support the amend-
ment, but I am beginning to wonder if we
should not have gone further and have struck
out the whole thing. That might be a better
way of doing it.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I am struck by
the strange ambivalence of our hon. friends
to the left here, with whom we join forces
in trying to seek the best statutes we can
have. But if I understood them correctly,
that they would see an appeal right through
to the courts-
Mr. Bryden: We suggest the onus should
be on them if the need-
Mr. Sopha: That is what I said, and I
was frightfully disappointed that the hon.
Minister did not answer that; he did not deal
with it at all. I tried to put it, in as simple
language as I could, that there is a world of
difference where the subscriber has the onus
in his appeal and where there is a second
trial and the matter is dealt with on the
merits. Certainly, surely, the law officers of
the Crown who are advising the hon. Min-
ister must have considered these things before
drafting this amendment. We raised it last
year and I referred to the fact that the hon.
Attorney General himself got into the debate
last year.
Mr. Thompson: Maybe he wants to again
this year.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps he wants to intervene
again this year. And these are not in any way
unreasonable proposals that we make.
Let me give you an example, and it is only
for the purposes of illustration that I use it,
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
569
not seeking to criticize any agency of govern-
ment: The workmen's compensation board in
recent years set up an appellate tribunal; and
formerly we were able to write to the chair-
man and often obtain justice from the chair-
man, to obtain through his offices a review
of the decision. A remarkable number of times
the chairman used to change the decision.
All that went by the board. Now they
have an appellate tribunal. One wonders
really sometimes why they went to the
expense of setting it up, because the attitude
appears to be that, when a series of decisions
have been made, the appellant must show
that there was an error somewhere along
the way. It is not really a review on the
merits. He must show that somebody erred.
Now if you show— if you have that onus to
show— that somebody erred, then you are in
danger of hurting that person's feelings. He
does not like to have it demonstrated that
he was wrong and have his decision reversed
by a superior tribunal.
We do not know how close this council and
the medical services division will be. Maybe
they will be hand in glove. Maybe they will
be buddies, palsy-walsies, go out to lunch
together, have adjacent offices, belong to the
same club, play golf. We do not know
that. And the attitude might very well be that
the appeal to the council from the decision
of the division might be a very ephemeral
thing, a very fleeting rite.
Mr. MacDonald: An appeal to your golfing
partner.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, yes indeed. And, the way
the section is written now, the council might
say to the subscriber in effect, "Do not take
up our time; do not bother us with this.
Show us where somebody down the hall
erred and if you cannot do that then we are
not going to reverse the decision." On the
other hand, if you worded it in such a way
that it would be an appeal on the merits
of the cancellation, then the onus would shift
to the medical services insurance division.
They would have to show cause.
Really that it what it is, to show cause.
They would have to show cause why the
subscription should have to be cancelled.
This is a very valuable right the individual
has. It is equivalent to a licence and surely
before you take away his right, the right of
an individual who perhaps is unable to
obtain medical care insurance from any
private carrier, that is the type. He cannot
get it anywhere else. You take away his
right here to get coverage. Where is he go-
ing to get it?
Furthermore, after his subscription is can-
celled, do you expect that individual to go
and retain a lawyer? No, of course he will
not. The person he will retain, and I use
that word in a very loose sense, the person
he will seek counsel and guidance from, will
be the member, will be us.
We will be ombudsmen, as we are in so
many areas of governmental activity. If we
are going to be that, I would be pleased on
behalf of any constituent who has his cover-
age cancelled, to appear before this tribunal.
But I would want to know what the ground
rules are, and what the burden is that I
would have to discharge on behalf of this con-
stituent. I would want to know whether I had
to dig into the matter to the extent that I had
to show that the medical services division
acted unreasonably. I would like to know—
I have said this four or five times now, and I
promise you I am not going to say it again
—whether when we go before the tribunal,
the onus is on the person who cancelled.
Let him come forward and show the
reason, submit himself to cross-examination.
Then have the council, the appellate tribunal,
decide it on the merits, according to simple,
ordinary horse sense. That is what justice
is, in the final analysis. Ordinary common
sense; a commodity that all men have a
measure of. That is fine, if that is the inten-
tion. But let us not get involved in legalistic
language in these matters, in the way this
thing speaks.
May I appeal to the council as provided
in the regulations, to spell it out? Put it in
the statute. You know an appeal is a
statutory right. At common law in the King's
courts as they developed, there was no
appeal unless it was given by statute. That
is the place for appeals— in the statute, not in
the regulations. ' Can the hon. Attorney
General-I say this rhetorically, and I am
speaking on subsection 2— show any place
else in the statutes of this province, I can-
not think of one, where an appeal is pre-
scribed in the regulations?
This is a new venture, precedent making.
I cannot think of one where there is any
form of appeal prescribed by regulations, be-
cause an appeal is usually a right granted
by this Legislature to the individual and the
terms of his appeal are usually spelled out.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is what we are
doing in the Act, granting an appeal to the
person. This Legislature.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, as provided in the regu-
lations. That is some appeal, I must say.
570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: If there are no regulations,
there is no appeal.
Mr. Sopha: We do not even know what
the regulations are. We will not know per-
haps for several months, we will not even
know. What is it? Government by regula-
tion?
Mr. Thompson: A very good point.
Mr. Sopha: Is that what you intend? You
see, your draftsmen did not even recognize
the glaring deficiency there. Had that been
drafted in the hon. Attorney General's de-
partment, by the hon. Attorney General's
draftsman, that phrase would never have
occurred in this statute, because they know
that appeals are not granted by the regula-
tions. They are not governed by the regula-
tions. They are in the statutes.
Look at almost every statute where there
is a decision-making power to them. Toward
the end you always come across the appellate
provision of it, and the ground rules are
spelled out in it. On all sides of the Opposi-
tion here it has been put to you 65 different
ways-
Mr. Bryden: We still have got the other
35 to do yet.
Mr. Sopha: —a reasonable proposition to
rephrase this thing, the way that you took
some advice and rephrased the first sub-
section. I am in entire agreement with the
hon. member for Riverdale, and let me say
this for the record.
When the hon. member for Riverdale
speaks about insurance matters, he knows
whereof he speaks. You are listening to an
expert when he speaks, because he is
thoroughly schooled in it and he is too well
aware, having dealt in the subject, of the fine
print in the statutory conditions in insurance
contracts in this province.
If you have not got 20-20 vision or a good
set of glasses, you will not get glasses from
this legislation.
You are not aware of your rights, because
in very fine print in contract— and it ill-
behooves the government to use devices of
insurance companies in a public statute such
as this, and I do not care what you call this.
Names do not mean anything.
You call this The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act. It is not insurance at all. It is
a misnomer. But I will go along with the
misnomer, if you want to put the name on
it. It is not insurance any more than un-
employment insurance is insurance. It is
not based on insurance principles. Insurance
has an actuarial base. This is a public
statute, designed to promote the ameloria-
tion of the people of this province. It is a
social welfare piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury,
I would ask him to stay on the section.
Mr. Sopha: All right. I am right back to
it. It ill-behooves the hon. Minister of
Health to put that phrase in for misrepresen-
tation or fraud as a material fact. I am not
going to lecture my hon. friend from York
South. He made a very valid point, he just
did not have the nicety of being well
rounded legally. The hon. Attorney General
and I know, and the hon. member for
Downsview knows, and my hon. friend from
Etobicoke (Mr. Braithwaite) knows, and the
hon. member for Riverdale knows, that you
cannot put people in court for misrepresenta-
tion or fraud in all cases. You cannot do it.
The Criminal Code, thank heavens, is not
that wide in its terms, or else none of us
would be free. Everybody has been guilty
of some misrepresentation, however inno-
cent, at some time, in his life; innocent mis-
representation.
That word misrepresentation seems to in-
clude the innocent variety, the mere mistaken
answer and when we get down to section-
Mr. Bryden: Are you suggesting that un-
der this clause there could be cancellation
for innocent misrepresentation?
Mr. Sopha: Yes. If it goes to a material
fact. The misrepresentation could be per-
fectly innocent in its commission, that is with-
out culpability, but it could be such a
misrepresentation as to go to the very root
of the contract.
Mr. Bryden: Well, but this is surely—
Mr. Sopha: Yes, it could. What it should
say— the word fraud should be taken out
as a noun and changed into an adjective,
and it should say, for fraudulent misrepresen-
tation as to a material fact.
Mr. Bryden: Well then, is that not cov-
ered by the Criminal Code?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, that is covered.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the mem-
ber for Woodbine to go through the chair,
please.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed. I do not be-
lieve in these private conversations.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
571
My final plea is this. As we come down
to section 17, that is 17 of the old bill, the
one that is being amended, on the home
stretch, then let us not get any hardness, any
strictness into the legislation. There is a vast
difference, I point out by way of contrast,
between section 5 and I am not going to
read section 5, which is a very broad expres-
sion of social policy that does us all honour.
It compliments us all, to have those words in
section 5. When you get down to section
17, let us not import into it the strictness of
a legalistic interpretation that would deprive
the individual of that which is justly due
him.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment will please say "aye." All those op-
posed to the amendment, will please say
"nay."
In the opinion of the chair, the "nays"
have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment will
please rise.
All those opposed to the amendment will
please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 26, the "nays" 53.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and the section carried.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13:
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, in regard
to this section, there is one extreme objection
that we have to this and that deals in partic-
ular with those people who are subsidized
under the plan. There is no limit to what a
doctor might charge. It is understood that a
doctor is to receive 90 per cent of the OMA
schedule under this scheme, especially apply-
ing to someone who is subsidized under the
scheme. Anyone who is subsidized under the
scheme as we understand it, is either an in-
dividual or more particularly a family where
the breadwinner has an income of under
$3,600. But suppose a person or a family
that is subsidized under this scheme have 90
per cent of the bill paid, there is nothing to
prevent the doctor from charging them not
only 100 per cent of the OMA schedule but
considerably more.
There should be some protection. We
have no intention here of trying to interfere
with the doctor-patient relationship, nor do
we have any intention of trying to interfere
with the amount a doctor charges providing
a person is not subsidized. But where there
is subsidization, where the doctor is receiving
public moneys, there should be some limit
as to what the doctor should charge. Other-
wise, the person who needs the help has little
or no protection under this Act.
I know that the vast majority of doctors
would co-operate; it is very seldom you
come upon any situation where a doctor does
try to overcharge. But there have been some
indications that make some of us worry-
when, for example, recently the Ontario
medical association sent out a letter under
dateline of January 26, 1966, to all the
doctors in the province of Ontario, trying to
get them to do certain things.
If the doctors in Ontario ever try to follow
the Ontario medical association you could
see where we, as a government, would run
into a lot of trouble. For example, the On-
tario medical association urged the doctors
as follows:
That the government subsidizing or
purchasing the standard contract for the
needy is a social responsibility, and that
the financing of it should have no bearing
on the formation of our fee schedule.
And again they say:
That our fee schedule developed by a
responsible and autonomous profession is
not open to negotiation or proration with
any body or group except where the
profession itself wishes to make some
special arrangements.
Fortunately for the public of Ontario, I cite
as an example the doctors in the Ottawa area.
I think only about three of 65 were in favour
of following the line that the Ontario medical
association attempted to set down.
But if this particular group— and I am
one who believes that the Ontario medical
association is not a true representative of the
doctors in this province. I think that the
OMA has been extremely narrow. It is one
of the groups, along with the insurance com-
panies, that have tried to get a viselike hold
on any medical scheme that would be or
could be instituted in the province of Ontario.
But this letter of January 25 of this year
is certainly a strong indication of how some
of the leading men in the Ontario medical
association feel, and it is my hope and this
party's hope, and indications are that that
hope will be fulfilled, that the doctors as a
body will not follow their advice. But, at
the same time, if a small narrow group so
desires, under this Act it can accept the 90
572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
per cent of its fee schedule even on our sub-
sidized patients, and then go after as much
as it likes. There is nothing to stop a doctor
from suing a patient.
Mind you, it has been my experience in
the last few years that doctors are suing
patients far more than they used to. At one
time a doctor considered it unprofessional
to put his bills in the hands of a person to
go out and collect them, or to sue people in
court. But today they are doing it more and
more. Yet, despite the fact that this scheme
is bound to be subsidized with the taxpayers'
money, we hope that the people, the so-
called poor people or the unfortunate people,
are going to get at least some protection
under this Act. There is this loophole.
Therefore, I am going to ask this com-
mittee to consider, in section 13, to add in
subsection 6; and it should read as follows:
6. In all cases where the covered per-
son is subsidized in whole or in part by the
medical services insurance division, pay-
ment for services rendered to the covered
person by the medical services insurance
division shall be deemed to be payment
in full for the said services.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale
moves an amendment to Bill No. 6, section
13:
I move that section 13 be amended by
adding thereto subsection 6 to read as
follows:
In all cases where the covered person
is subsidized in whole or in part by the
medical services insurance division, pay-
ment for services rendered to the covered
person by the medical services insurance
division shall be deemed to be payment in
full for the said services.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the
tone and spirit of this amendment is very
good, and I can assure the hon. member that
this has been given a great deal of careful
thought. The reason we decided against it
was because I have contended from the start
that there should be no division of our popu-
lation into classes. If a person needs to be
subsidized, either in whole or in part, that
is nobody's business but the person's and the
person or the party subsidizing them— in this
case, the state.
I am quite certain that we could get
agreement on this, but we would have to
identify these people. We would have to
mark them out as particular people and this,
to me, is far more odious than a means test.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we did not
write this sort of thing into the Act. A
section very much in this kind of language
was thoroughly considered and rejected.
On every count it is our intention to use, as
our identification number, the person's social
security number— social insurance number—
and we shall urge every subscriber, if they
do not have one to begin with when they
enrol first, to get a "sin" number; and it, we
hope, will be used not only in our pro-
gramme but ultimately in the hospital serv-
ices insurance programme so that this will
be the only identification used. I do not
think it is the doctor's business, or anybody
else's business, that the person is being sub-
sidized. I feel very strongly about this. I
could not agree to the identification of
people, and the pointing out and setting
them apart, just because they are receiving
assistance.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, could I just
answer this argument, please?
First of all, I would agree with the hon.
Minister that people should not be divided
into classes but the only way you have any
possibility of wiping out classes is to have a
universal, overall scheme. And as far as
trying to keep it a secret—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is no guarantee
that they would not be charged extra billing.
Mr. Trotter: At least you could put a
limit on it; but at the same time, as for the
doctor not knowing what a person can afford
or subsidize, the only person that knows
more about an individual he is dealing with
than a lawyer, is a doctor. And how can a
doctor, in many cases, prescribe drugs for
patients when sometimes the drugs are so
expensive that they cannot afford them?
Certainly the doctor needs to know these
things; and as it is here, you have left the
patient— be he rich or poor— and the taxpayer
utterly and completely at the mercy of a
particular small group of the medical pro-
fession that would like to give this plan
trouble. I do not think you are dealing very
fairly with the patient— or, particularly, the
taxpayer— by leaving this gaping hole in this
section.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I must say
that the section which the hon. gentleman
wants to amend stands in urgent need of a
great deal more amendment than he is
proposing. In fact, I am not sure that the
amendment, as he proposes, is any great
improvement on the section. I think there
are much more urgent matters that ought to
be dealt with. However, his amendment
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
573
blocks out any other formal efforts at change.
It does not, of course, block out informal
efforts.
I do not think that there should be any
extra billing at all, although I am not sure
that there is any effective way of preventing
it. I would suspect that the people whom
the medical profession would be most likely
to extra-bill would not likely be the ones who
are in the subsidized groups. They are more
likely to be somebody who, they thought, had
a little more money than those people.
I suppose that we will support the amend-
ment. There are other features of this section
to which we would attach a much higher
priority for change and I would like to
enumerate some of them, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, with regard to the proposal
now before us, that the payments under this
Act will be on the basis of 90 per cent of the
fee schedule of the Ontario medical associa-
tion in effect on the day that the Act comes
into effect, or on which this section comes
into force— I do not know that it is envisaged
that it will come into force on a different day
than the rest of the Act, but it is proposed
now that they should receive 90 per cent
of the OMA schedule of fees. This, I will
concede, is an improvement over last year.
Last year the hon. Minister held out stub-
bornly for 100 per cent and would not con-
sider any representations that we on this
side of the House made in relation to that
point. We are happy that at least he has
Drought the amount down to 90 per cent,
but I would like to call to his attention the
fact that, under the medical care insurance
programme in Saskatchewan, the payment is
on the basis of 85 per cent of the schedule
of fees in that province— which is a lower
schedule of fees than in this province— and
the doctors of Saskatchewan are making more
money than they ever made in their lives
before. When they have an absolute guarantee
that they will get 85 per cent of their
schedule of fees in all cases, without any col-
lection costs or anything else, it can be
extremely lucrative to them. I suggest there
is still a lot of water in the payments to the
doctors when we leave the matter as high as
90 per cent.
I know the hon. Minister will heap scorn
on my proposal that he should change 90
per cent to 85 per cent, just as last year
be heaped scorn on the idea that it should
be anything less than 100 per cent; but I am
suggesting to him that here, as in many other
aspects of this section I will come to, he is
really offering a big bonanza to the doctors
which they do not need— and which is more
than should be considered for them.
Continuing with subsection 1 of section 20,
Mr. Chairman, I note another change from
last year which, in my opinion, is a retrograde
step. The legislation we had last year envis-
aged that the schedule of fees— it was then
100 per cent— would stay in effect as a basis
of payment under this Act for two years which
is reasonable enough. The doctors have cer-
tainly gotten it up high enough, high enough
to make themselves the highest paid group
in the community.
It is envisaged that the schedule is not
necessarily for two years. If they put enough
heat on the hon. Minister behind the scenes,
then the thing can be reopened, even within
the two-year period. And it really does not
say what is going to happen at all after the
end of the two-year period— unless I have
missed something I do not think it does. But
even within that two-year period they can get
the thing reopened.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that the
section as it stands provides— and in this
respect it is similar to the previous section
—that the schedule of fees used for the pur-
poses of this section will be the schedule in
force on the date on which the section comes
into force.
We do not know when the section is going
to come into force, but I suggest to the hon.
Minister that could very well be an open
invitation to the medical profession to jack
up its schedule of fees. I would suggest that,
in his own interest, the Minister should put
in a date that has already passed so that he
will not be in the position of having the fee
schedule suddenly jacked up and his whole
cost structure thrown out by some action on
the part of the Ontario medical association,
which has a complete carte blanche to set
whatever fee schedule it wants. There is no-
body in the world they have to negotiate
with. The government is putting itself in the
position where it is very much at the mercy
of this group which has certainly not shown
any high sense of responsibility in the arbi-
trary way in which it has jacked up its
schedule of fees in the past.
A further point that I think should be
raised with the hon. Minister, is one that I
alluded to briefly, namely: What happens
after the two-year period? Is the medical asso-
ciation then right back where it started from,
able to arbitrarily determine the schedule of
fees in any way it sees fit? And is the hon.
Minister then in a position where he simply
has to accept whatever they do? As far as
I can see, under the proposed section, that is
the position he is in.
He did freeze the thing for two years. He
has now permitted a thaw there. The doctors
574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
can get negotiations opened up within the
two years. After the two years are over he
cannot open up any negotiations with the
doctors, as far as I can see in the bill. I
would suggest to him that he should have
some protection for himself. He should pro-
vide in this Act— I do not care if he keeps
a two-year freeze or not— that there cannot
be any changes in the schedule of fees, as
far as they affect payments under this Act.
What they do outside the Act is a different
matter, but as far as payments under this
Act are affected there should not be any
change except by negotiation between the
medical services insurance division and the
Ontario medical association, as ultimately
confirmed by order-in-council. If the hon.
Minister is not willing to do that, then I
would submit to him that he is leaving him-
self wide open to being stuck with paying
quite inordinate fees at a later date.
Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the
doctors are getting a tremendous bonanza
under this Act as it stands now. The people
in the subsidized group, the people who
are automatically covered, who do not have
to apply, the people under various assistance
legislation and certain people receiving old
age security, are already covered now quite
apart from this Act. They already have full
medical services.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, no.
Mr. Bryden: The people receiving general
welfare assistance and so on? They most
certainly have. They have had medical wel-
fare for 30 years, I believe.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is not so.
Mr. Bryden: It certainly gives them a
pretty wide range of medical services.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh, no, no!
Mr. Bryden: You mean you have been tell-
ing us all these years that you have been do-
ing these fine things, and you have not been
doing them at all? It certainly gives more
than a third of what they will get under
this bill. Would the hon. Minister agree to
that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I would not.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister would not?
Hon. Mr. Dymond This is not a question,
Mr. Chairman. This is not involved in the
bill at all.
Mr. Bryden: I agree it is not a question
and I do not think the hon. Minister is on
the bit at all, because the statement he
just made is totally outrageous. I imagine
the hon. Minister of Public Welfare (Mr.
Cecile) did not hear it or he could not
possibly—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have stated this in
the House on many, many occasions. Under
the present medical welfare scheme which
has been in effect in Ontario for some 30-
odd years, the only provision for medical
services made is doctors' services in the home
or the office. That is all.
Mr. Bryden: There is some extension
here, but the basic services are there pro-
vided.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There is total provision
here. There is a total comprehensive pro-
vision-
Mr. Bryden: All right, so there is a 90
per cent protection or 85 per cent under
medical welfare, if that is what the hon.
Minister means. A moment ago it seemed
to me he was trying to imply they were
receiving very little coverage indeed, whereas
now they will receive very large coverage.
If the only point we are arguing about is
10 or 15 per cent, we can forget about it.
So all along, for 30 years or more, they
have been getting 85 to 90 per cent of the
coverage they will now be getting under this
legislation. The doctors, under medical wel-
fare, have been getting about 30 per cent of
the OMA schedule of fees. Now, they get
90 per cent. They get a tripling of fees
and some increase in business, I take it. That
is how it will work out.
So here they get a tremendous bonanza
right off the bat, and the hon. Minister is
so anxious to give it to them that he is
going to bring that portion of the Act into
effect on April 1, as fast as he can get it
in. I know they are itching to send out his
literature in the medical services division
right now, and they are most upset about us
holding it up here.
They have all this beautiful literature ready
to mail out and they do not think it would
look good if they mailed it out before we
were finally battered down over here. But
one of the reasons for that, no doubt, is that
the hon. Minister has to get this extra melon
for the doctors through in time for April 1.
In general, I think the section is objec-
tionable on a far broader basis than is sug-
gested in the amendment. We are in the
position now where it is the amendment, yes
or no, there is nothing else to be done. But,
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
575
I think the section is objectionable from top
to bottom. The 90 per cent is too high.
There is not sufficient protection against
arbitrary increase in rates by the medical
association.
The hon. Minister has opened up the one
spot where he did have himself protected
in previous years. Maybe that was a saw-off
in return for the 90 per cent. I do not know.
But for all of these reasons, I would suggest
that this whole section should be worked
over again, should be completely recon-
sidered. It is not adequate simply to add a
subsection which would attempt to eliminate
extra billing for the subsidized cases.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): I would ask the
hon. Minister's indulgence. I was not in the
House when Bill 136 was debated last year.
I wonder if he would favour me with the
answers to a few questions? I could prob-
ably ask other hon. members here, but I
would like to get them from a person in
authority, so to say.
As I understand it, the doctor is not
obliged to accept 90 per cent of his fees as
total payment. He can bill his patient for
the other ten per cent. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is right.
Mr. Ben: Therefore, if my friends to the
left here have their way and have it reduced
to 85 per cent, then they would oblige the
covered person to pay still an additional five
per cent out of his own pocket. Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is right.
Mr. Ben: Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Ben: Thank you. I just wanted to
know where they stood on this matter.
Mr. Bryden: Well, you would like to have
it jacked to 100 per cent, would you?
Mr. Ben: I want the people who cannot
afford to pay, not to have to pay anything
out of their pocket and you want them to pay
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member for Bracon-
dale has shown a genius for confusion that
is incomprehensible. Last year his friends in
this House-
Mr. Chairman: Order. No private conver-
sations.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, I am sorry. I was just
looking in that direction, but I was still
speaking to you. I had you in mind, Mr.
Chairman.
Last year his hon. friends in this House
fought quite strenuously to have inserted in
the bill a provision that the payments would
be on the basis of 90 per cent of the schedule
of fees. They fought quite strenuously and
we supported them. We would have pre-
ferred it to be 85 per cent, but their amend-
ment was 90 per cent and we proposed it.
Now I tell you from what my hon. friend
from Bracondale says, he thinks they were
totally wrong in that last year.
Mr. Ben: —90 per cent they—
Mr. Bryden: It was 100 per cent in last
year's bill so that the doctors would then
get their full schedule guaranteed to them.
As to my hon. friend, I say we are going to
have to take a couple of minutes to explain
a few things to him, because he obviously
has very little idea of how these things work.
It is normal in plans of this kind— as indeed
it is in PSI, where there is guarantee of pay-
ment in all cases— to make less than 100 per
cent of the schedule of fees payable. Ninety
per cent is now proposed. It is 90 per cent
under PSI, 85 per cent in Saskatchewan, and
so on. Now it does not follow from that, as
my poor confused friend from Bracondale
seems to think—
Mr. Ben: I am not confused. I know
where you stand.
Mr. Bryden: —that the patient-
Mr. Ben: —the people pay ten per cent.
Mr. Bryden: The more you want to stick
your foot down your throat, the better for
us. I will be happy about it, Mr. Chairman.
In the overwhelming majority of cases
when plans of this kind are in effect the
doctors accept a percentage as full pay-
ment. It is merely a matter of whether we
should pay the doctors 100 per cent or 85
per cent, or 90 per cent. It is not a matter
of whether or not the patient will pay extra.
Even if you have 100 per cent, it is still
possible for the doctor to bill extra, and
indeed that has happened.
The extra billing matter is totally unrelated
to this section here, to this 90 per cent. I
know the hon. member for Bracondale will
never be able to understand that elementary
point, but it is totally unrelated. What we
are talking about here relates to the charge
576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
doctors can make on the fund. If it is 90 per
cent, that means their income will be approxi-
mately 5 per cent higher than it would be if
it is 85 per cent. It is as simple as that.
We propose that the doctors will get 85
per cent of the schedule instead of 90 per
cent. Now do not tell me the hon. Minister
is in the same state of confusion as the hon.
member for Bracondale. This would be too
much. I can see that my poor friend, the
hon. member for Bracondale, thinks he has a
tremendous point-
Mr. Trotter: He has.
Mr. Bryden: He has not.
Mr. Trotter: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman. He keeps talking about his con-
fused friend, the hon. member for Bracon-
dale—
Mr. MacDonald: But the hon. member for
Parkdale was confused-
Mr. Trotter: Certainly not.
Mr. MacDonald: He was confused about
last year's bill.
Mr. Trotter: I certainly was not. The hon.
member for York South is crazy.
Mr. MacDonald: He thought it was 90 per
cent last year.
Mr. Trotter: Oh no, it was 100 per cent last
year.
Mr. Bryden: And now it has been changed
to 90 per cent.
Mr. Trotter: And now it is reduced to 90;
I am not arguing that.
Mr. Bryden: And he is objecting to us pro-
posing that it should be reduced to 85; he
says that we are thereby trying to put the
charge on the patient. That is what he said.
And he thinks he has scored a tremendous
point on it. So he has put all you fellows
behind the eight-ball, too.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Bryden: Well, there are two of them
over here. It is really getting pretty late and
I can see that these fellows are having trouble
working their way through this, Mr. Chair-
man. But in view of the fact the matter has
been raised, I would like to make it abund-
antly clear that when we are talking about
85 per cent, we are talking about the pay-
ment to the doctors under the plan. Extra
billing is a totally unrelated issue that can
arise no matter what percentage is paid. It
does not usually arise under these plans; it
occasionally arises, but not usually. As a
matter of fact, does not PSI prohibit extra
billing, except for people in certain income
categories? If they can do it, perhaps the
hon. Minister should consider doing it here.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: If a doctor enters into
a contractual relationship with PSI.
Mr. Bryden: That is a matter between the
doctor and PSI. Perhaps you could think
about something like that in relation to your
plan here, to try to eliminate extra billing. It
does not occur often, I admit, but where it
does occur I think it is really quite unreas-
onable.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I make no apolo-
gies for what my hon. associates did before I
was here. I am not responsible for what they
did and I am not responsible for what they
did not do. But I resent very much my hon.
friends to the left— and that is where they
belong— robbing the poor because they hate
the rich. And that is in essence what they
were doing when they suggested dropping it.
They say I am confused? Well, they should
not have had to ask the hon. Minister what
the relationship was with PSI. I could have
told them that the doctors enter into a con-
tractual relationship and they agree to accept
a specified fee. If there had been something
in this bill which compelled the doctors to
take 95 or 85 or 75 per cent of the prescribed
fee, then I could go along with it, but it was
not in here. And they should have looked
after that last year but they did not; they did
not.
Mr. MacDonald: What about your amend-
ment now?
Mr. Ben: I have not made any kind of an
amendment, thank you. That amendment,
also, with all due respect to my hon. friend
in front of me, is not the amendment I
would have suggested.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! One at a time.
Mr. Ben: Why do you not just sit and
listen? You have been wandering in the
wilderness for so long you have sunstroke
and you do not know what you are doing.
If there had been something in here which
specified that any particular amount would
have been accepted in total payment, I could
go along with it; but I can find no justifica-
tion for this House having reduced the
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
577
amount payable to the doctors from 100 per
cent to 90 per cent, when there was not
something in the Act which provided that
that should be the total amount that would be
billed to those patients. So, as I say, I sug-
gest that the poor are robbed because of a
hatred of the rich.
There was a statement made here about
this amendment. With all due respect, I
do not think the amendment as proposed
would solve the situation. I suggest my hon.
friend should amend it to read that those
who have their subscriptions subsidized should
have 100 per cent of the tariff of the OMA
paid. In that way there would be more cer-
tainty that those people would not be
obliged to pay that ten per cent out of their
own pocket. Now it is quite true, as someone
stated here, that there is no limit to what can
be billed, but that is going on the assumption
that every doctor is a heel, a thief, or an un-
scrupulous individual. I am willing to accept
that, just as in the legal profession, the
architectural profession, and the accounting
profession, most stick to the tariff. There is
a prescribed tariff and most stick to it.
Mr. S. Lewis: Why raise it to 100 per cent
then?
Mr. Ben: Because then the poor would not
have to pay that ten per cent, and you are
the people who say you look after the poor.
In this particular amendment here, I would
suggest that my hon. friend amend it to
read that where the subscriptions are sub-
sidized to a certain extent then, under those
circumstances, the medical services insurance
division pay 100 per cent of the OMA tariff.
Only in those circumstances.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree with the hon.
member for Bracondale in one connection. I
think the Liberal amendment is inadequate.
He thinks it is inadequate. But he is so far
above his own party that he does not even
discuss it with his own party before he comes
in and criticizes everybody, including his own
party.
However, Mr. Chairman, let us get down
to the basic facts of the proposition. As my
colleague, the hon. member for Woodbine,
has pointed out, at 90 per cent the doctors
are going to make more money than they
are now. They are, because they are going to
have no bad bills. They will all be paid; they
will get 90 per cent of their so-called charity
cases instead of now getting 30 per cent.
Indeed, the experience where these plans
have been put into effect indicates that they
will get as much money or more money at
85 per cent of the schedule. What we should
be having in the amendment, Mr. Chairman,
is 85 per cent of the schedule, and this gov-
ernment should have the intestinal fortitude
to sit down with the doctors and get in the
law that there shall be no over-billing. That
is the second point that is important.
Mr. Sopha: That is what our amendment
says now.
Mr. MacDonald: No over-billing at all?
Mr. Sopha: No. It says with regard to those
subsidized.
Mr. MacDonald: There should be no over-
billing, beyond the OMA schedule of fees.
Why should you permit them? It is all very
well to say they are all very good fellows.
I was talking to a doctor who is very con-
versant with what is going on in the doctors'
thinking at the present time in the medical
profession, and his comment was that because
this government had cut it down to 90 per
cent of the schedule of fees, the likelihood
is that there would be extensive over-billing.
The government cannot assure us that it will
not happen, but I think the government has
an obligation to protect us from it happening.
But there is a third point, Mr. Chairman,
that I would like to put by way of a question
to the hon. Minister. That is: Has the hon.
Minister any assurance— Or let me put it this
way: Has the OMA the unilateral right to
raise its schedule of fees at the end of two
years?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the
OMA, like any body or person, has the
unilateral right to raise its schedule of fees.
Whether this programme accepts such sche-
dule of fees is an entirely different matter.
Mr. MacDonald: It says here that it takes
90. Is the hon. Minister, in effect, saying that
at the end of the two years, if the OMA were
to raise its schedule of fees, you will then
come back with an amendment and pay 75
per cent to cancel out the increase?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It might very well be,
Mr. Chairman. I do not know what will
happen at the end of two years. But I do
know that the matter will be reopened. I
cannot say here that it will be reopened for
negotiation because the OMA executive has
already told me that it does not have the
power or the authority to negotiate for the
profession. So we will deal with each doctor
who deals with us.
Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now, Mr.
Chairman, if I may. The OMA cannot commit
what you do vis-a-vis each doctor but can
578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
you sit down with the OMA and negotiate
on the OMA schedule of fees?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I have
just stated that the OMA executive has ad-
vised me that it, the executive, does not
have the power or authority to negotiate
fees for the profession.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, who sets
the OMA schedule of fees?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The OMA.
Mr. MacDonald: Well then, if the OMA is
setting the schedule of fees, does it do it
unilaterally or, when we get a plan, does
this government deign to sit down with the
OMA and discuss it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Of course, we will dis-
cuss it with OMA, Mr. Chairman, but this has
nothing to do with setting the fee. We will
discuss it, and then we will-
Mr. Bryden: Of course not—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, would
you kindly ask the hon. member if he would
refrain from comments for a moment or two?
I do not want to be accused of being rude
again, Mr. Chairman.
We will discuss it with OMA as we have
done now, but we came to the point where
we had to state that this is what the pro-
gramme is going to pay. And I suppose this
will happen at the end of two years when
we sit down and discuss it with OMA again—
if discussion is necessary, and should there
be any upward or downward revision in the
schedule. But this has nothing to do with
the setting of the OMA tariff. It can set its
tariff where it likes, as any person can set
the fee schedule for their services where they
like.
I do not know of any government action
that sets any trade or profession or occupa-
tion fee schedule— call it what you will.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the hon. Minister
certainly will agree with me that there are
many trades where they cannot set their fee
schedule.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is quite a different
thing, Mr. Chairman. The physician is self-
employed and I suppose it could be con-
sidered that the physician does not set his
fee unilaterally; he sets it, in effect, between
him and each patient, if one were to take
this to an extreme. But the OMA tariff com-
mittee draws up a schedule of fees which is
passed or rejected by the council— ultimately
passed by the council of the OMA— and it is
a guideline.
As I explained last year, this is why I
recommended 100 per cent of the fee sched-
ule because since it was not a price list and
was only a guideline, I had hoped and
would anticipate that it would become a price
list. Therefore, we should do what the hon.
member for Bracondale suggested would be
possible— that there would be no extra billing
of the patient, particularly those who were
holders of standard contracts and, of course,
in particular, those who were being supported
in any way out of public funds.
This, on reflection, was still considered—
that we should take it down to 90 per cent,
but it is still, I want to make eminently clear,
not a price list. It is a guideline, but we are
taking it as a price list and we are going to
pay as a benefit 90 per cent of that price
list for the first year of the duration of the
plan.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to say
to you that this amendment that we framed
arrived in its present form after a very care-
ful consideration of the matters at hand-
Mr. MacDonald: Without the hon. mem-
ber for Bracondale being present.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, without the hon. member
for Bracondale. He can speak for himself;
I am speaking for the party—
An hon. member: For the party?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, let us make that clear. I
am glad the hon. member raised it. We will
have it in the record that I am speaking for
the party— the ball team on which I am
playing with most other hon. members.
We cannot accept the suggestion of our
friends to the left because the great schism
between us and them is that we do not hate
doctors. They hate them; they hate the pro-
fession as an institution and that, of course,
is a reflection of the trouble they ran into
in Saskatchewan and that has overlapped as
far east as Ontario.
We do not have that view of the medical
profession. We see them as an integral part
of this community staffed by very humani-
tarian people who are very dedicated to their
tasks. That is the position that we take.
We considered this matter very carefully
in relation to the schedule of fees and the
billing of people who pay their subscriptions
in toto— this group, apart from the subsidized
group— and in what is left of a free enterprise
economy and here we are miles apart from
our friends on the left— in what is left of it.
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
579
We did not see that this Legislature has any
right at all to interfere with the freedom of
contract by a doctor to charge what he feels
is reasonable for his service— vis-a-vis the
individual patient.
Now that is especially true in the realm of
the specialty arts. For example, a plastic
surgeon of the calibre of Dr. Farmer, the
outstanding man on the continent-we did
not feel that it behooves us in this Legislature
to go into his field of operation and tell him
what he should charge for the practice of that
very special art, the benefits of which he
confers on many people that come under his
lubric.
We would not go as far as that; I say to
the hon. member for Bracondale as well as to
all other hon. members of the House, that in
reference to those people where public
moneys are being used to subsidize their
premium, then it is eminently fair that 90
per cent payment should be deemed to be
payment in full. That is the end of the
matter.
A very valid point is made among an
excess of other verbiage, by the hon. mem-
ber for York South-
Mr. MacDonald: You are certainly an
expert on excess verbiage.
Mr. Sopha: You have to dig through the
—I was going to say the haystack, but it is
often the manure pile— you have to dig
through in order to find that one pearl.
I mixed a couple of metaphors there, but
he makes a valid point when he said that
he did not need to be so trite as to teach us
to suck eggs. Many of these things that
he expounds, we know. We know that
doctors have bad debts— they only collect
30 per cent of them— everybody knows that,
and they are getting payment for all of the
services.
Of course, one of the principles of this bill
is that we take away the charitable aspect of
it. People no longer are the recipients of
charity at the hands of the medical pro-
fession. We answer one of the great
criticisms offered by the medical profession
of this bill— they will ask you, if you meet
them in close contact, to name a person who
has suffered for want of medical care. The
answer is obvious; we tell them that we do
not want them to have to confer charity on
those people. We want a comprehensive
plan where those people are looked after-
according to the standard of the medical pro-
fession and the skills they have developed
and for which they are paid. Of course that
is the answer.
Now let me draw one more parallel. When
the hon. Attorney General presents his legal
aid plan— we have no way of knowing what
is in the plan— but I venture to suggest from
what I read in the newspapers, they are go-
ing to pay something like 75 per cent tariff
of fees to the lawyer. Now, no one would
ever suggest that above that tariff of fees
paid by the state, the lawyer would be per-
mitted to bill, in addition. That is going to
be payment in full and it will be accepted
as such by the lawyers.
There is no question of recovering some-
thing additional from the person. And if
something additional is recovered, then I
hope that the bill will require that the
lawyer pay it back to the state, instead of
putting it in his own pocket. That is the
way it should be.
Now what is sauce for the goose— that is
the lawyer— ought to be sauce for the
gander— that is the doctor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: You are going to
identify the party-
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, the doctor will
accept 90 per cent if we identify the re-
cipient of state aid.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes. But spell it out in
the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: But this is odious to
me—
Mr. Sopha: Yes, but spell it out in the bill.
That is what our amendment says.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: But this is odious to
me, as I said, identifying these people who
are receiving help.
Mr. Sopha: Well, identify them. I am say-
ing in reply, spell it out in the bill. Let us
say it shall be deemed to be payment in full
and there can be no dispute about it. There
is nothing left in the nether region of mis-
understanding then, if it is right in the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I think
my hon. friend has lost the point. Unfor-
tunately, he was otherwise occupied when I
said previously that I am quite certain the
doctors would accept what you have put in
your amendment, provided I let them know
who is being subsidized. But this, to me, is
an odious principle. I do not think that it
is anybody's business, as I have already said
this evening, who is being subsidized by
the state and this is all it means.
580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: The NDP want a means test.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: And I speak from the
depth of personal experience that this is far
more odious than the means test. It is no
one's business, as I stated, and we are using
as our numbering system, the same number,
the social security number and we will urge
every subscriber to apply for that number,
so that this will be his official number by
which he will be known in all matters per-
taining to the state at whatever level.
But if we are to identify them, I am quite
certain we would have no difficulty arriving
at this. We would not have to put it in
legislation, I am quite certain we would get
a general undertaking, but I have stated and
the government has accepted this as policy,
that we are not going to identify our people
and separate them off into classes— a matter
which is very odious to the hon. member for
Sudbury himself.
Mr. Sopha: Well then, how do you take
care of the situation, Mr. Chairman, where
doctors, as they have said to me and they
have said in the newspapers, will not bill the
state at all? They are going to bill the indi-
vidual.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The individual will bill
Mr. Sopha: Yes, and the individual who is
subsidized in whole or in part, gets the bill
according to the OMA schedule of fees; let
us take an illustration, an appendectomy,
say it is $150. I do not know if it is, but
let us say for a moment that it is. He gets
the bill from the doctor. The doctors have
told me they are going to send him the bill.
Then he applies to you and he gets $135.
Why should not he then be able to send that
$135 to the doctor as payment in full? What
is wrong with that?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There is nothing wrong
with it, if the doctor will accept it.
Mr. Sopha: Well, how do we know he will
accept it? And thus our amendment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I think
this matter will clear itself up, because if the
patient forgets to pay the doctor, as occa-
sionally happens, the doctor will very quickly
learn to bill the plan directly and get 90 per
cent of his fees.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, maybe that is a
good way to handle it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Some of them will.
Mr. Sopha: I can see, Mr. Chairman, that
the hon. Minister has given this consideration.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Oh, I have given it a
great deal of consideration.
Mr. Sopha: If the majority of patients who
are subsidized in whole or in part are billed
that way, and get $135 according to my
illustration, then those patients will want that
payment to be payment in full. They will
not be interested in tacking on the $15; and
indeed, in the great majority of cases, they
will not have the $15.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am quite certain, Mr.
Chairman, that in the great majority of the
cases, if they go to the doctor and say: "Well,
here is what my insurance paid me," the
doctor will accept it and that will be the end
of it. They will get a receipt for $135 and
that will be the end of it— in the great major-
ity of cases. Just as a few patients will forget
to pay the doctor, so there will always be a
small residue of doctors who will insist upon
the pound of flesh.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister has got himself into this wonderful
dichotomy. In the first place, he says with
emphasis and vigour, "We will not identify
the people who are being subsidized. We
will not tell the doctor whom he is working
for, nor reveal to him a person who is getting
aid from the state." Then, having established
that postulant, he comes around full circle,
and he says: "The patient getting the 90 per
cent must go and beg the doctor to take it."
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did not say "must."
Mr. Sopha: He must go. He must go and
plead with him.
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, he
has got to pay the bill before he-
Mr. Sopha: That is precisely what the hon.
Minister said. He takes the cheque in his
grubby hand and goes to the doctor and says,
"Doctor, I implore you to accept this pay-
ment in full." That is all they will give him.
Now, that is the position he got himself into.
On the other hand, I offer a simple solution
to this. In all cases where the patient is sub-
sidized by public money, when the invoice is
received by the government and is stacked
up against that person's enrolment, and it is
seen at that moment that he is subsidized in
whole or in part, then a cheque is drawn for
payment and on that cheque the words ap-
pear: "This is payment in full."
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
581
That myriad of cheques coming into the
doctor's office— you are not going to have the
doctor down sorting through them, saying,
"This fellow is subsidized. That fellow is not.
I will send this fellow an additional bill."
That will all be done by his secretarial staff.
The doctor will not even know. He will not
even know the identity of the people he is
treating because he has not got time. Have
you ever tried to get a doctor on the phone
lately? You can call five in a row and the
same answering service answers for all five
•of them. They are too busy to do the sort
of things the hon. Minister envisages.
My final submission: We offer this as a
reasonable alternative and it spells it out in
the statute, in simple words. We will not go
as far as the people from Threadneedle
street, over to the left— who sometimes, I
think, want to grind the medical profession
down to pay them back for Saskatchewan.
We will not do that to them. Many of the
doctors are our friends. Those people are
going to end up with no telephone service,
they will not be able to get into Maple Leaf
Gardens, and they will have no doctors.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me
this again is the problem that we face when
we do things by halves— either on the part of
the government or on the part of the amend-
ment offered by the Opposition.
If we want to get out of this dilemma, and
since the hon. Minister does not want to
identify people who are on welfare, then the
simple thing is for everyone to be covered in
exactly the same way. In other words, the
doctor accepts the 90 per cent, or 85 per cent
as we think it ought to be, for everyone in
full payment of the bill and that solves the
problem. The hon. Minister of Health does
not have to identify the people who are get-
ting welfare, and the problem which the hon.
member for Sudbury faces is overcome. This
is the simple way and if that were added to
the amendment then I think this would solve
the problem.
But, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me
that these are things that this House has to
face, that we are here giving the doctors a
bonanza beyond reason. I talk to certain
friends of mine who are medical men. I re-
member on one occasion, when one man had
in his hand welfare cheques that had come
in, he was delighted to get the percentage
that was there. He figured that was clear
gravy as far as he was concerned, because
otherwise they would have been charity cases.
Now those are going up to 85 or 90 per cent
under the legislation, he is going to do much
better.
As a matter of fact, that same man tells me
that he has to take regular holidays now
because he might as well be enjoying him-
self. If he did not, then his income would
be so high that it would not make sense for
him not to take the holidays. I was reading
the other day about the privileged position of
some of these people. I think that some of
us ought to be in that position in this House,
Mr. Chairman; it would be good to think
about it, that the doctors are going this
spring on a cruise to the Caribbean. It is
going to be a study cruise. They are going
to have a convention, and this is income tax
deductible. I think that we in this House
ought to have the same sort of privilege. We
ought to have a political convention of some
kind to study the process of the legislation
that we are introducing. And this kind of
a privilege would be right down the line.
We ought to be getting it.
Mr. Singer: Are the fees you get from the
North York planning board in your income
tax?
Mr. Young: Yes.
Mr. Singer: Did you go down to the Carib-
bean this winter?
Mr. Young: I expect to go to the Carib-
bean very often; but I do not expect to go,
unfortunately, and charge it against my
income tax. I wish I could, Mr. Chairman,
but it cannot be done. I expect to have plenty
of holidays, I expect to enjoy life to the
full, but also I do not expect to have this
kind of privilege.
Mr. Singer: Do you pay income tax on the
money you get from—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order. If the hon. member for Downs-
view wants to start hurling personal remarks,
maybe he should be just a bit careful.
Mr. Singer: That is a very good point of
order.
Mr. MacDonald: I just suggest to the hon.
member for Downsview that, living in a glass
house, he should not start throwing stones at
other members.
Mr. Singer: That is no point of order, at
all.
Mr. Young: There is one further point that
has been mentioned in this House which I
want to stress— one further point, and I am
sticking to the bill here. I am sticking to the
whole matter of income that we are going
to pay the doctors under this bill.
582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We should be negotiating— that is, the de-
partment should be negotiating— with the
doctors in regard to fees, and it should be
incorporated in this bill. If fees are to be
raised or to be adjusted at any time, there
should be power within this bill so that an
agency of this government should be able to
negotiate. This is standard practice today in
plans across the world. It is standard practice
in the trade union movement and in many
other places. For doctors to be able to set
their fees unilaterally is not a proposition
which this House ought to consider.
So, Mr. Chairman, we think that certainly
this amendment does not go far enough; it
should go much further. There are many other
things in this section which ought to be con-
sidered. If our hon. friends would consider
these other amendments to the section, we
would be glad to support them. We ask them
if they will do this.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the
remarks of the hon. member for Yorkview
so far as they appertain to the question of
universality. It is because we decided not to
have a means test that we have a universal
old age pension, and nobody screams more
against means tests than do the hon. mem-
bers to my left. The reason I rise, Mr.
Chairman, is because I cannot swallow the
inconsistency. I believe that people should
not have to go through the means test, and
this to me is a means test; and just as we
pay the universal old age pension to people
who are making hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year— in a desire to protect those
who need that money from having to go and
answer these questions and beg for it and
prove that they are destitute and starving.
I am willing that those doctors— those
larcenous individuals described here by the
hon. members to my left— get that extra five
or ten per cent to protect those people who
are destitute and needy from having to have
their poverty thrown in their face every time
a doctor would get a notice from the
carrier saying: "This man is having his
account subsidized; he is underprivileged;
take it easy on him."
Rather than subject him to that, I would
rather pay the doctor the other 10 or 15
per cent, or what have you. To me that is a
principle I believe in and I am not going
to support this particular amendment.
Mr. Thompson: As I understand it— perhaps
the hon. Minister of Health will correct me
—the doctors made an arrangement with PS I
and they were very happy to have 90 per
cent of their fees paid. They recognized there
were administrative costs in looking after
the sending out of fees and so on.
May I also state where the Liberal Party
stands on this? Because of the well-prepared
approach of the hon. member for Sudbury,
who with other party members worked this
out, and recognized the integrity of the
medical profession— I know that as well as
being able to make sane decisions as the
member for Sudbury, that the medical pro-
fession may ask— I do not know what his
inclinations are— but the medical profession
may ask that when there is a change of gov-
ernment, that he should be the Minister of
Health.
Mr. Sopha: I would be happy to be.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: I think we should try to be
realistic about what, in fact, will happen. The
hon. Minister of Health has tried to indicate
that, in some way or another, by this bill
he is protecting the people in the province
of Ontario from being divided into two
classes.
Just by the automatic fact of being a par-
ticipant in this plan, one is earmarked in the
first instance as a member of a plan who is
not a participant in a group. Therefore
1,800,000 of the people in the government
plan are going to be subsidized one way or
another by this government in order to
participate in the plan.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There could be others
in it.
Mr. Renwick: I only made the point be-
cause the hon. Minister is being ridiculous
about it. The fact of the matter is that most
doctors have a rather shrewd assessment of
the economic circumstance of their patients,
just the same as most professional men have
a pretty shrewd assessment of the economic
circumstances of their clients.
An hon. member: Including lawyers.
Mr. Renwick: Yes, including lawyers.
The significant thing that concerns us is not
that a doctor may, if he so chooses to do so
by supplemental agreement with his patient,
arrange an advance for a higher fee than the
OMA schedule. That is his privilege and if
the participant in the plan wants to join in it,
that is just fine. What we are concerned
about is the extent to which this 10 to 15 per
cent is going to be a deterrent to people who
require medical care. This is the important
and significant factor and I think because
the debate—
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
583
Mr. Ben: Why do you cut it down to 90
per cent, then?
Mr. Renwick: —because the debate has
strayed from the significant part of it, I
think we could usefully quote— and I intend
to quote about a page and a half of the Hall
commission report on this very topic, and
then I think we can deal with the specific
point. In the Royal commission on health
services in volume 2, starting on page 4,
the report states:
This, however, raises the question
whether a prepayment plan encourages or
induces a substantial volume of demands
for unnecessary medical care simply be-
cause of the removal of the economic bar-
rier to a desirable service. Is the increased
demand arising from the introduction of a
universal prepaid programme a demand for
unessential health services? There have
been statements made recently by mem-
bers of the medical profession in Canada,
that the introduction of a universal, com-
prehensive, prepaid medical care pro-
gramme, would lead to the unecessary use
of health services, and they advocate as a
remedy the policy of requiring the patient
to pay part of the fee at the time he re-
ceives the service in order to induce a
greater sense of responsibility in his de-
mand for care. But before applying such
a remedy, it is essential that we be abso-
lutely certain of the precise nature of the
problem and if the problem is correctly
defined—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is completely out
of order. This has reference to deterrents.
These are co-insurance and there is nothing
in these amendments referrable to that. In-
deed, one of the amendments strikes out the
co-insurance factor in the original bill.
Mr. Renwick: I would submit that it is
quite on the point, because whether it is
called co-insurance, or whether it is a de-
terrent fee, or whether it is a part payment,
it is a number of dollars which the person
covered by the plan is obliged to pay. The
basic question is whether or not that is a
deterrent to that person making use of the
facilities which are available to him under
the proposed plan, and to that extent it is
perfectly relevant to the discussion which is
going on in this chamber.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Let us take a vote,
not stay here all night.
Mr. Renwick: That the problem is incor-
rectly stated can be seen from the observa-
tions of the medical director of Canada's
largest medical prepayment plan, on the sub-
ject of use. He is Dr. W. B. Stiver, medical
directors of Physicians' Services Incorporated,
who wrote in the issue of July 13, 1963 of
News and Views on the Economics of Medi-
cine, a publication prepared by the depart-
ment of medical economics of the Canadian
medical association:
There appears to be a body of opinion
in the medical profession, which is also
shared by interested laymen, that over-use
is entirely due to the programmes of our
physicians' sponsored plans in Canada in
which comprehensive medical care, includ-
ing first dollar coverage, is offered to
employed groups. If you listen to the
proponents of this opinion you would
think that prior to the advent of such plans
that there was no such thing as over-use
of medical care. We know that this is not
so. We are all aware of the fact that the
pattern of practice of individual members
of the profession varies a great deal. We
see every day examples of the possibly
insecure physician who, in his enthusiasm,
or for other reasons, over-services the
majority of his patients. This type of prac-
titioner has been with us for many many
years, long before comprehensive prepaid
medical care on a service basis was brought
into being by the profession. We also know
that there has been a certain segment of
the population which has always demanded
a great deal of medical care and which
will continue to make unreasonable de-
mands if not brought under control by the
medical profession. In my opinion there
are the two basic factors in use.
And then it goes on:
The problem is also incorrectly stated
in that it assumes that it is only the poor
who use prepaid services. Obviously it is
only those in the low-income groups for
whom a part payment would have any
economic significance and thus deter the
use of health services.
I would pause there to indicate that this is
the point which is of concern to us in this
debate on this particular section. And I
would repeat that, that:
Obviously it is only those in the low-
income groups for whom a part payment
would have any economic significance and
thus deter the use of health services.
But surveys of the use of medical services
show an extremely high co-relation be-
tween high incomes and high use of serv-
ices. To the extent that over-use or demand
for unnecessary services is a problem and
584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
its existence though limited cannot be
denied, it is one which cuts across all
income groups and is not concentrated in
the poor. Even so there still remains the
question whether part payments are the
remedy.
Again it seems to the commission that
Dr. Stiver's views gained from his extensive
experience are incontrovertible when he
says in the same article: "We have in the
medical profession today an opinion that
the cure of over-use in prepaid compre-
hensive care is a combination of deterrents,
deductibles and co-insurance now given the
sophisticated name of patient participa-
tion."
It appears to me that the basis of this
opinion is purely impression. I know of no
published work, either in Canada or the
United States, which would indicate that
patient participation has any worthwhile
influence on use. We are told that it has
but I have yet to see a study that would
substantiate such an impression.
And the report concludes, in no uncertain
terms, that they are compelled to conclude
therefore:
That a policy imposing part payment
would simply deter the poor and have no
effects on the unnecessary demands of
those in middle and high income cate-
gories. Such a policy would mean that
Canada was simply continuing to ration
health services on the basis of ability to
pay, a policy which was overwhelmingly
denounced in submissions to the commis-
sion. The entire proposition must be re-
jected on the basis of an incorrect
statement of the real problem.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
crux of the argument which has engendered
the heat in this debate tonight, on this par-
ticular section, is because of the fact that it
must of necessity follow that, to the extent
that a 90 per cent provision is put in this
bill, it must for all participants in the govern-
ment plan be accepted by the doctor in full
payment for the services which he has
rendered to that patient unless the doctor
himself chooses, before rendering the service,
to make a supplemental agreement— which,
in my opinion, he is entitled to make if he
believes that his skill and knowledge and
experience warrants it— for a higher fee. But
to the extent that any person is a participant
in the government plan, the payment by the
government or by the patient subject to re-
coupment from the government, should be
accepted in full satisfaction of the obligation
under this particular standard contract.
Therefore I would ask that the hon. mem-
ber for Parkdale accept the extension of the
amendment which he has proposed to cover
all participants under the plan, and not just
those who are subsidized, and leave it entirely
up to the doctors as to whether they will
make a supplemental arrangement for any
additional fee which they may see fit to
charge.
Mr. Ben: Is the hon. member here sug-
gesting that before a doctor treats a patient
he should ask him what plan he is covered
under, and put before him a contract and
say, "Sign here before I treat you"?
Mr. MacDonald: That is what a lawyer
does when he goes-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Ben: The hon. member had better
start going to different lawyers.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
say one short word in answer to what the
hon. member for Riverdale has said.
When we presented— does the hon. member
want to continue?
Mr. Renwick: Yes, I had thought, in the
course of what I had to say, that the im-
portant point is to make certain that we do
not ration the health services under this
government scheme dependent upon whether
or not the person has the ability to pay this
additional number of dollars. The only way
that you can get out of this difficulty is to
require that all participants in this plan be
entitled under this contract which they have
bought to—
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Even if they are in a high salary bracket?
Mr. Renwick: —to be paid and to receive
90 per cent from the government that is
running it, in full payment of that account
rendered on that contractual arrangement.
If they wish to receive more, that is a sep-
arate and different matter which they can
negotiate clearly, and in advance or after-
wards, with the particular patient. That is
their privilege to do so. But every member
participating in this plan should know that
payment of 90 per cent of the schedule of
fees— which, after all, is only a suggested
schedule and is not a binding document on
any doctor— should be full payment. And
that is my answer to the hon. member for
Bracondale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I did want to
answer very briefly to what the hon. member
FEBRUARY 15, 1966
585
for Riverdale has said, and I do not intend
to regurgitate the argument which has gone
on for nearly four years on this subject.
When we submitted this amendment we
looked over the whole section, as the gov-
ernment has brought it in or has amended
it, and we are quite willing to admit that
there are many things that over a period of
time are going to have to be considered— as
to how, as a government, we are going to get
along with the doctors. But what is most
important for any scheme, such as we hope
to see in the future, what is most important
for it to work, is that we do co-operate with
the doctors and they co-operate with us.
If we go the extreme, as the NDP has
suggested, or as was done in Saskatchewan,
there is bound to be trouble. If we go to
the extreme, as the Ontario medical associa-
tion suggested in their letter of January 26,
there is bound to be trouble. But we have
seen the example of the doctors in Ottawa,
not willing to accept the suggestions of the
OMA. I think about three out of 65 doctors
supported the OMA. This is a healthy sign
for health services in Ontario, because the
success of any scheme is going to depend
upon the goodwill of everybody concerned.
So we here, in the Liberal Party, have not
wanted to try to put the lids on fees at this
point because we believe that public opinion
and the good sense of the medical profession
will prevail.
If the OMA start to set exorbitant fees, it
will become obvious to the public and the
public will react accordingly. The amend-
ment we did suggest covered a certain part
of the population, where it would not be-
come known to the public that they were
being charged an excessive rate. Therefore
there is not the glare of public opinion on
any excessive charges. That is why we had
the limited amendment we suggested. If,
unfortunately, it should prove in the future
that the OMA have become too strong, even
among the doctors, or if the medical pro-
fession is going to an extreme, then obviously
we are going to have to bring this section
back into the Legislature to see to it that
the public of Ontario is protected.
But then, let us hope and let us pray that
that is not necessary. Let us say to the
doctors that we are admittedly working for
a universal, overall scheme; and let us hope
and seek their co-operation. Let us by all
means avoid the extremes that the NDP
has suggested, and let us again avoid the
extremes of the OMA. I think that the
medical profession will see through their
own representatives, because the executive
of the OMA, I feel, has been doing a great
disservice to the medical profession. It has
been making the doctors look like the bad
men, and they are not. You talk to the
average doctor today— he is not an extremist.
There are some, but they are very much in
the minority.
So, on this section, we of the Liberal
Party have not tried to make political hay
by saying that the doctors are gouging the
public, or doing this or doing that. We are
appealing for common sense from the medical
profession, and from the public, of the prov-
ince of Ontario. This, I am sure, if we
look at the history of this province, is what
we are going to have. And this is so abun-
dantly, so obviously, necessary if we are go-
ing to have a good health service in the
province of Ontario. So with that, I am ask-
ing the House to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment, say "aye."
All opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All in favour of Mr. Trotter's amendment,
please stand.
Those opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 18, the "nays," 44.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and section 14 is agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour)
moves that the committee rise and report pro-
gress, and ask for. leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report pro-
gress and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn;
but, before doing so, we will continue with
Bill No. 6 tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.25 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 21
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, February 16, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 16, 1966
Discrimination in employment because of age, bill to prevent, Mr. Rowntree, first
reading 589
Telephone Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 590
Statement re grants to establish classes for new Canadians, Mr. Davis 593
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, in committee, continued 595
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 619
589
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome, as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery Silverthorn
public school, Toronto and Lawrence Heights
junior high school, Downsview; in the west
gallery Don Mills junior high school, Don
Mills.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to prevent discrimination in employment
because of age.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, may I give the House an out-
line referring to the background and the
main purpose of this bill?
One of the principles upon which all the
members of this House are united is the
importance of assuring to the people of this
province the fullest measure of equality of
opportunity. This principle has been and is
being forwarded in many ways, not the least
of which is through the legislation now
placed before the House.
The bill will prohibit discrimination in
employment in connection with hiring, treat-
ment, separation and so forth, against persons
between 40 and 65 on grounds of age. It
will also prohibit discriminatory treatment
based on age in connection with member-
ship in a trade union. The statute will be
administered by the Ontario human rights
commission.
With three and a half years of experience
Wednesday, February 16, 1966
behind it, the commission has developed
educational and conciliation techniques that
have increased understanding and respect for
this province's human rights legislation. The
enforcement scheme— conciliation, board of
inquiry, and prosecution, if necessary— would
be the same as is contained in the Ontario
human rights code.
The bill will empower the commission,
subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-
Governor in council, to establish exemptions
from the coverage of the statute where the
nature of the employment requires the exer-
cise of an age specification or limitation.
May I say a few words about the need
for this legislation? There are still, as hon.
members are aware, a great many capable
older workers, with many years of useful
employment ahead of them, who have been
denied the opportunity to work because of
popular, yet negative, attitudes regarding
chronological age and employment. We now
have enough reliable information and studies
from a wide range of agencies to indicate
clearly that many of the myths and stereo-
types held about the capabilities of the older
worker are not only untrue but can have a
deleterious effect upon our development and
productive economy.
We have all had personal experience of
older workers whose lives have been blighted
by difficulties in finding employment and
these difficulties have often been based en-
tirely on age. We can ill afford to lose the
skills and capabilities of our senior workers.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of dollars and cents
and considering the valuable contributions
that older employees can make, it is wise to
protect the employment opportunities of
those older individuals who are capable and
efficient workers.
This legislation will discourage the con-
tinuance of unfounded assumption as to job
abilities based solely on age and will encour-
age to the greatest extent possible the prac-
tice of judging each individual applicant on
his individual merits and with reference to
particular standards of performance for the
job in question.
590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Age Discrimination Act can be used
to bring about change for the benefit of the
whole community without undue disturbance
to any of its parts. In my view, sir, this
legislation, accompanied by a strong educa-
tional programme, will win the approval and
support of people throughout this province,
for it contains the basic ideals of social
justice and equality of opportunity to which
we all subscribe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
THE TELEPHONE ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Telephone Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation,
the purpose of the amendment is to permit
subscribers to be released from certain
liabilities when their subscription to the
company is terminated.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I would like to
answer a question asked by the hon. member
for Yorkview (Mr. Young) yesterday.
His first question was: Would the Minister
tell the House whether any convictions have
been obtained under section 27, subsection 1,
of the OWRC Act within the last 12 months?
The answer is, "yes-"
His second question: If convictions were
obtained, would the Minister name the muni-
cipalities or the persons involved?
The answer: The Matspeck Construction
Company Limited, Helmut Matthiss and
John Krauter.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Agriculture, notice of which has been given.
The question comes in two parts:
In light of the report by the scientists of
the Ontario agricultural college at Guelph
that mink fed on fish from Lake Erie are
found to be sterile due to the use of certain
insecticides by the agriculture industry, I
would ask: 1. What steps is the hon. Minis-
ter's department taking to correct this serious
problem, and; 2. What studies are being done
to find what effect consumption of fish on
Lake Erie could have on human beings?
An hon. member: A good questionl
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the hon. member's questions, I would advise
the answer to part 1. is:
In 1964 mink ranchers in southwestern
Ontario, and in fact throughout Ontario, ex-
perienced low conception rates on their mink
ranches. It is understood that Lake Erie fish
were used to supply most of the protein
requirements. The Ontario veterinary college
carried out tests on the fish but the tests did
not indicate that the fish were responsible for
the low fertility.
Now in answer to the second part of the
question: The food used in Canada is subject
to controls set by the food and drug director-
ate of the federal Department of Health and
Welfare. Some pesticides are very toxic to
man and others are non-toxic, and thus
various tolerances and levels are enforced in
relation to food. But this is the responsibility
of the food and drug directorate at the fed-
eral level.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Agriculture.
In view of the statement by a vice-president
of the New York Central Railroad at a recent
meeting in Windsor that his railway makes
an effort to establish new industries and ex-
pects to increase its business in Ontario, will
the hon. Minister make representation to this
railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way to increase their grain-handling services,
including boxcars, on behalf of the grain
growers in Essex and Kent counties?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would
like first of all to say that any improvement
in available services as provided by the two
railroads mentioned by the hon. member is
most welcome news to all of us in this House
who are interested in the development of
industry, and particularly the agricultural in-
dustry. It has not been brought to my
attention that there was a shortage of grain-
handling facilities in these areas or that
there had been a shortage of railway cars. I
suppose, at certain times of the year, such a
shortage could indeed develop. No repre-
sentation that such has been the case has ever
been made to me nor, to my knowledge, to
my department.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It was
in the OFA brief.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: If it was I do not recall
it. Frankly, we have not been aware that
such was the case. However, if it is the case,
we would do everything possible to see that
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
591
it is taken care of. I welcome the news that
the vice-president has said he would be
pleased to extend these facilities.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two
questions, my first to the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral (Mr. Wishart).
In view of yesterday's experience in evict-
ing families from expropriated properties in
York township, does the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral not believe that it would be possible to
establish more humane procedures; and, if
so, would he assure the House that the situa-
tion will be studied with a view to establish-
ing improved procedures?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the
sheriff for the county of York, and his offi-
cers, acted yesterday with great care and
patience in evicting the families from these
expropriated properties in York township.
I understand that these properties were
expropriated in April, 1965. It was not until
December of that year— last year— that the
eviction notices were filed in the sheriff's
office. All through this time, the property
owners in question have been aware of the
circumstances. I am advised that 51 of the
53 properties had been vacated prior to
yesterday without any intervention of the
sheriff's office of the county of York. The
persons who were evicted have known since
December of last year that February 15,
1966, was the last day they could remain on
the property.
I can assure the hon. members of this
House, as well as the citizens of the province,
that every care is taken to ensure that the
most humane procedures are adopted in
such situations.
The sheriff went to the properties con-
cerned, while the persons were there, to
inform them that it was now time for them
to leave. I think this is a much more hu-
mane procedure than having the sheriff en-
force the writ of possession while the
residents are absent from the property.
I would welcome any suggestions from the
hon. members as to how the laws of this land
can be upheld by the adoption of another
procedure, in this type of case, where per-
sons patently refuse to comply with the law.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): I would like to
address a question to the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile), notice of which
has been given. The question is long and for
those parts which the hon. Minister cannot
answer now, I am quite content that he
accept them as notice.
1. How many (a) nurseries, (b) child day
care centres, are operated or subsidized by
the provincial government in:
(1) Each of the member municipalities of
Metropolitan Toronto; (2) Ottawa; (3) Hamil-
ton; (4) Windsor; (5) London; (6) Oshawa;
(7) Peterborough.
2. How much was paid to these nurseries
or child day care centres?
3. What is the basis for contribution by the
province?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer
most of the questions from the hon. member.
Question 1: The municipalities of the
metropolitan area: Toronto, 16 nurseries,
seven of which include day care centres;
North York, three nurseries; York township,
one nursery; municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, one nursery; Ottawa, one nursery,
including day care centre; Hamilton, one
nursery, half-day programme only; Windsor,
none; London, two nurseries, one nursery
centre for crippled children; Oshawa, one
nursery, half-day programme only; Peterbor-
ough, one nursery, half-day programme only.
Question 2: Toronto's grants for 1964-65
were $280,348.35; North York, $4,302.64;
York township, $6,000; municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, $4,728.25; Ottawa,
$11,243.43; Hamilton, $2,187.80; Windsor,
none; London, $7,909.49; Oshawa, $804.34;
Peterborough, $1,742.02. The total provincial
day nurseries maintenance grants for 1964
and 1965, therefore, for that group, would
be $362,729.85.
Question 3: The basis for contribution by
the province is found in The Day Nurseries
Act, chapter 87, RSO 1960. Section 21 reads:
The council' of a local municipality
within the meaning of The Municipal Act
may, by by-law, provide for the establish-
ment of day nurseries for the care and
feeding of young children.
(2) A by-law passed under subsection 1
may provide for the establishment of day
nurseries directly by the municipality or
by any organization named in the by-law
and approved by the Minister, but in either
event, in order to qualify for a grant
under this Act, the council of the munici-
pality shall be responsible for the efficient
and satisfactory operation thereof and for
furnishing to the Minister such reports
and other information as he may require.
(3) There shall be paid to every local
municipality in respect to every day
nursery established under section 2, and
592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which is conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the regulations, an amount
equal to one-half of the amount paid out
or contributed by the local municipality
for the operation and maintenance of the
day nursery, computed in the manner pre-
scribed by the regulations.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, for the infor-
mation of the House, that one year ago
there were 33 nurseries receiving provincial
municipal grants, and at the present time
there are 42.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Is it the intention of the hon. Minister of
Agriculture to extend the programme of for-
eign students working in Ontario agriculture?
Will foreign students be allowed to other
areas, other than the 100 students coming to
the Delhi area to work in tobacco?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I must
confess that if the hon. member knows of
these 100 students, he knows more than I
know about them. Quite frankly, we have
not been able to find any positive proof that
there are 100 students coming from anywhere.
I would say this: Our department has been
co-operating with The Canada Department of
Agriculture for a number of years in locating
a few students from Japan. These students
are brought over here and are placed on
farms where they have a particular interest,
and then are taken to OAC, where they com-
plete some training and are sent back to
Japan. This is a part of their agriculture
training provided through the Japanese gov-
ernment and our own government.
We have no knowledge of any other
students coming. But I would say this: We
would welcome the opportunity of providing
jobs for these students, if they could be
found and could be brought to this country
through the offices of the federal govern-
ment. We would encourage this, quite
frankly; and we have proposed that students
be brought in from some countries where we
understand there is some desire on the part
of the students to come.
Mr. Paterson: A supplementary question.
The hon. Minister is aware that there were a
couple of hundred students brought in on
this programme into western Canada last
year. Has he been made aware of this fact?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I was not aware of
that.
Mr. Paterson: I have another question of
the hon. Minister. Will the hon. Minister
meet reasonably soon with Essex and Kent
counties canned crop producers and canning
firms to advise them of the department's
plan for supplying labour, and thus allowing
these producers and canners to plan this year's
production?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to this question, I am sure the hon. member
realizes the actual recruitment of labour is a
federal responsibility, through the national
employment service. However, for a number
of years now, particularly last year and the
year previous, we established what is known
as a federal-provincial labour committee,
headed by Gordon Bennett, our assistant
Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Now we have
worked with the federal national employment
service, with other agencies, Indian affairs,
through ARDA, in bringing people in from
the Maritimes and from areas of lesser em-
ployment in Ontario to fill these jobs and
we are continuing to do this, this year.
Right now I would advise the House
through you, sir, that meetings are being
arranged in Essex and Kent counties and in
the tobacco areas to discuss with the local
people the requirements for labour, so that
we will get on with the job of trying to fill
these requirements as quickly as possible.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan).
Can the hon. Provincial Treasurer explain
why former employees of the Ontario govern-
ment who are entitled to return of their
contributions in the superannuation fund have
to wait six months or more to get their
money?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the
hon. member that first of all the period of six
months is a very unusual instance, and not
the run of the mill at all.
I would like to point out to the hon.
member and to the House, however, that
before a refund can be made, it is necessary
for the pensions funds branch to receive
clearance from the department concerned, so
that no moneys are owing to the Crown
by the former employee. I think the hon.
members understand that civil servants are
paid in advance to a certain extent, that
is on the 24th of the month they receive a
cheque which pays them up until the end of
the month. If someone leaves during that
period, the money that has been overpaid
must be returned.
There are also advances under accountable
advance warrants, their uniform, any property
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
593
of the government, or of the department con-
cerned, that are in the hands of the em-
ployee, and these must be cleaned up before
it comes to the pensions funds branch.
Then we, in the hope of being of service
to the person who is retiring, make sure that
he wishes a refund of the money, because
a great many are more anxious to transfer the
money to another pension fund. As is well
known, if the money is taken in one payment,
income tax has to be paid on it at the
time it is received, while if it is being trans-
ferred to another penson fund, there is no
income tax charged.
So very often the employee's wishes are
not made clear to the pensions funds branch,
and as a result this may cause some delay.
There is also the question of whether an
employee leaves for health reasons. This is
checked to make sure that he is leaving for
health reasons and that the funds can be
returned.
I may say that once the matter reaches the
pensions funds branch it is then cleared up
very quickly.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, by
way of a supplementary question of the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, I hope I can persuade
him to look into this further, because I have
had a number of cases. Furthermore, I was
speaking to the personnel director of one
department yesterday who said this is a
common problem he has to face. So I sug-
gest that it may be commoner than the hon.
Provincial Treasurer realizes.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, it may be
more common than I realize, but I would like
to state again that once the clearance has
been received from the department, there are
no delays to any extent following that.
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions, one of which
is directed to the hon. Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis), notice of which has been given.
Have representations been made to the
hon. Minister or his department from the
Lakehead with regard to a community col-
lege? If so, by whom? And were the educa-
tion authorities in Fort William consulted or
involved in such representations?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, there have been representations
from the Lakehead. Mr. Tamblyn, who is
president of the new Lakehead University;
Mr. Dalziel, who is the director of education
for the city of Port Arthur; and by Dr.
Johnston, who is vice-president of the Lake-
head chamber of commerce, which I assume
includes both municipalities.
There is nothing in the brief to indicate
whether the educational authorities in Fort
William were consulted. I cannot tell the
hon. member whether they were, but there
is a letter on file addressed to the Minis-
ter from the business administrator of the
Fort William board, requesting that consid-
eration be given to Fort William as a possible
location for such a college.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, before
the orders of the day, just a very short state-
ment.
As was indicated in the Throne speech,
plans were underway to develop classes for
our new Canadians within the school system,
and I am pleased to announce today that
grants will be paid to school boards in the
province who establish classes for new Cana-
dians. These expenditures are necessary. I
think this is obvious, because in many cases
the new Canadians cannot be placed in the
regular classroom environment because they
lack the ability to speak or understand the
language of instruction. These classes will be
in the same category as the auxiliary classes
for, say, the emotionally disturbed, the hard
of hearing, and will be treated in this fashion.
The problem will not be resolved by addi-
tional payments alone.
The boards themselves still have, I think,
a very complicated task to deal with, but we
feel that the regulations that have been sent
out to the boards-I believe they went out
yesterday, and this was done after consulta-
tion with the citizenship branch of The
Provincial Secretary's Department and with
that of the Minister as well, because of
his interest in this area-we think this will
enable the boards to develop a more com-
prehensive approach to the instruction of
these new Canadian children.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Could I ask the hon. Minister a ques-
tion on that?
Does this mean that you will be taking
over the whole of the new Canadian language
training, or will the Provincial Secretary still
look after the evening classes for adults?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to
make it very clear, this is part of the regular
school programme. This will be done for the
children, shall we say, in the school system
itself. These will be auxiliary classes for new
Canadians.
Mr. Freeman: Mr. Speaker, my second
question is directed to the hon. Minister of
594
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Labour and was inadvertently placed in the
name of the hon. member for York South.
Has The Department of Labour authorized
overtime hours for the maintenance crew of
Caland Ore Company in Atikokan, which has
been working 12 hours a day seven days a
week, from May to December of last year?
How can the hon. Minister justify such a
serious breach of the law which authorizes
only 100 hours overtime per year, and is he
aware that this issue is one of the main
reasons for the strike which has just begun?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have no question
from the hon. member for Fort William.
Mr. Speaker: The question was given to
me as being from the member for York South
but apparently it was a typographical error
in the NDP office.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, we have
not authorized any overtime hours with re-
spect to this company. Therefore, paragraph
two does not apply and would appear to be
superfluous.
As to the third paragraph, I am now aware,
but was not aware prior to this morning, that
this issue is one of the reasons for the strike
at the Caland Ore properties. The last inves-
tigation and inspection of the Caland Ore
properties by the department indicated that
the company was in compliance with The
Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act.
Since then the department has not received
any complaints from any employee with re-
spect to overtime and hours of work at this
operation.
In checking the matter of the strike, as
stated in the question, I have looked into
the labour relations matters with which this
company is concerned, and I find that a
conciliation board on February 2 of this
year worked out a memorandum of agree-
ment with representatives of both the com-
pany and the union.
The memorandum of agreement embraced
10 items, one of which dealt with overtime.
The agreement was subsequently submitted
to the union membership for ratification, but
was turned down. The conciliation board re-
port was released on February 7, leaving the
union to strike seven days after receipt of
the report. As to the actual causes of the
strike and whether this was the main item
or one of others, I have no information.
With respect to the dispute itself, and the
fact that a strike is currently in progress,
every effort will be made by the department
and the conciliation branch to bring the
parties together to try to find a resolution of
their difficulties.
Mr. Freeman: Would the hon. Minister
tell us when the last inspection was con-
ducted at the property?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It was in March,
1965.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond), notice of which has been given.
How many full-time psychiatrists are on
the staff of the Ontario hospital at North
Bay; how many patients are presently in
the hospital, and what number of patients
was the hospital originally built to house?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, 5, 715 and 720.
Mr. Ben: I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man), notice of which has been given.
1. How many females during the last full
year were sentenced to terms in prisons
under the jurisdiction of The Department of
Reform Institutions as would entitle them
to apply for parole, either federal or pro-
vincial;
2. How many of the females mentioned
in answer to question 1 applied for (a) fed-
eral parole or remission of sentence; (b)
provincial parole;
3. How many of the females mentioned
in answer to question 2 (a) and (b) were
granted parole or remission of sentence; and
4. How many of the females granted
parole were subsequently in breach of
parole?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): In answer to question 1, every
female admitted to a provincial reformatory
is entitled to apply for a federal parole. In
the last fiscal year the number was 576.
With respect to 101 of those serving in-
definite sentences, the only ones over which
the provincial parole board has any jurisdic-
tion, there was no need for them to apply
for the provincial parole. Any female serv-
ing an indefinite sentence is automatically
interviewed by our parole board without any
necessity for applying for parole.
The board had 156 interviews with females
last year. This is somewhat higher than
the actual number of inmates, but is ac-
counted for by the same person being inter-
viewed on more than one occasion, and a
number of these cases would have been
sentenced the previous fiscal year.
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
595
The federal parole board-or the national
parole board, as it is rightly called-can deal
with any sentence. Application must be
made to the national parole board on behalf
of the person concerned.
The Ontario parole board concerns itself
with those serving indefinite sentences, which
I have already pointed out are the only ones
with which the Ontario parole board can
deal. This board sees every person concerned
without any necessity for applying for con-
sideration.
In answer to question 2— "How many of
the females mentioned in answer to question
1 applied for (a) federal parole or remission
of sentence; (b) provincial parole?"-with
reference to (a), I am unable to give figures,
because applications may be made on behalf
of the woman by her lawyer, family or
friends, as well as by the woman herself. I
am here referring to those eligible for
national parole.
Members of our staff have a responsibility
to assist those who wish to apply for national
parole, and we have forms available for that
purpose. However, we can keep no accurate
record of applications for national parole,
because these applications, of necessity, go
through federal and not provincial channels.
In answer to (b) of that question— this was
partially answered in reply to question 1.
Every one of the 101 females receiving an
indefinite sentence was interviewed by the
Ontario parole board. It is interesting to note
that of these 101, there were 50 serving a
sentence of less than 6 months, and 25 of
the 50 were serving sentences of 3 months
or less.
On question 3— "How many of the females
mentioned in answer to question 2 (a) and
(b) were granted parole or remission of
sentence?"— the reply is that four females
were released on parole by order of the
national parole board, and one by remission
of sentence on their authority. Forty-eight
were released by order of the Ontario parole
board; 47 of these were authorized during
the fiscal year and one had been held over
from the previous year.
On question 4— "How many of the females
granted parole were subsequently in breach
of parole?"— the reply, as in answer to ques-
tion 2, is that we have no figures with refer-
ence to breach of national parole. In respect
to the Ontario parole, six females violated
Ontario parole during the fiscal year.
Mr. Ben: Do I understand correctly that
about 10 per cent of the female prisoners
in custody in provincial institutions received
parole or remission of sentence— either pro-
vincial or federal— during the last fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not figured
out the percentages. I have pointed out
that 48 out of 101 which were within our
jurisdiction to grant parole, were released by
our parole board. I pointed out, too, that
the hon. member must remember that 50 of
these were serving sentences of less than six
months and of these, 25 were serving sen-
tences of less than three months. Obviously
there would be very little point in providing
parole for those who were serving sentences
of less than three months because it is
obvious that the judges or magistrates who
sentenced them to three months wanted
them to serve for three months.
Mr. Ben: My question was this. As I
understand from the figures given by the
hon. Minister, there were 576 inmates
within the control of the hon. Minister
within the last statistical year. Of these, 53
were granted parole or remission of sentence;
48 under the jurisdiction of the hon. Minis-
ter and four plus one under the federal juris-
diction, which would appear to be 53 out of
576, which is in fact 10 per cent. I just want
to know if my figures are correct.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course the figures
are correct, but again just to get the record
straight, we have no control of the differ-
ence between 101 and 576.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Third order, commit-
tee of the whole House.
Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
Mr. Chairman: On section 14:
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Prior to section 14 being carried,
I am sure the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) would want to clarify some-
thing which I think is of concern to the
people. I am using section 14 for this, Mr.
Chairman, because in the repeal of that
section of The Medical Services Insurance
Act, there would be a vacuum— apart from
the fact of the hon. Minister setting up his
own government insurance programme, and
I wonder, sir, with the indulgence of the
hon. Minister, could I read out a series of
questions? I am not passing a motion.
596
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My first question is that as I understand
it the government has said that its Medi-
care programme is going to cost the province
$58.9 million over the first year. Assuming
that is right, could I ask: Can the govern-
ment estimate what the administrative costs
will be; can the government estimate how
much will be expended in wages, and on
advertising the plan for enrolment?
Also, how much will be received in sub-
scriptions from the three groups which will
be participating in the plan— I am thinking
of the fully subsidized, the partially sub-
sidized and the non-subsidized? How many
estimated subscribers are there and what is
the breakdown? How many single persons
are expected to participate and how many
married couples?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): On a point
of order, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy
to have these questions asked and answered
and I hope they will be at some stage, but
for the guidance of the rest of us who also
have many questions on which we want in-
formation, do these questions relate to
section 14 which proposes to repeal section
21? It would seem to me it would be better
if they were raised at some other time,
possibly on the motion to report the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, in an endeavour to be help-
ful, I have to agree with my hon. friend
from Woodbine. I cannot see, Mr. Chairman,
where this falls within the ambit of section
14, but to be in a position to give the hon.
leader of the Opposition some kind of reas-
onable answer I wonder if he would consider
taking this up under my estimates? I can
give some of the figures now but I cannot
give all of them by any means.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to hear what the hon. Minister does
answer. I realize that I am throwing these
at him, but he has his advisers here and
these are certainly of considerable impor-
tance.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: My advisers are not
here today.
Mr. Thompson: I beg your pardon? Are
they going to be coming to the House
shortly?
Well, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair-
man, I tried to get it in. I will hold off on
the questions, although there is a continuity
to them. I have only got about another
three, if the hon. member for Woodbine
would let me continue.
How many estimated subscribers, and then
what is the breakdown? How many single
persons are expected to participate and how
many married couples; and would the gov-
ernment table its method of arriving at the
$58.9 million figure? Would the government
table its claim breakdown? How much is
estimated to be spent from public funds for
obstetrics, and how much for office calls?
As I understand— and I would appreciate
if the hon. Minister would clarify this— with
the welfare recipients half is going to be
paid by Ottawa, that is on indigents— half
premiums are to be paid by the subscribers,
and with non-subsidized individuals all is
to be paid by the subscriber. For that reason,
I wonder how the hon. Minister has arrived
at the $58.9 million figure?
May I say, sir, that one of the concerns I
had is the question of the cost of adminis-
tration for the first year. I have asked how
much that would be, but I am wondering
whether a large part of that cost of adminis-
tration is not for the building which I under-
stand has cost the government $3.15 million.
Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, to
answer the last question first, not one penny
of that is going towards the cost of the build-
ing. The building is provided for us by
public works. We are not authorized, nor
are we empowered, to buy buildings or to
rent them. This is all done by our real
estate agent, The Department of Public
Works.
I would only be guessing at the figures
the hon. leader of the Opposition has
mentioned and I think it would be most
unreliable to try to answer them from guess-
work. I have none of that information with
me because I could see nothing in these
amendments which would give rise to a ques-
tion of this kind. Nevertheless, at the proper
time I will be armed with this information
insofar as it is possible to give it, because
a great deal of this, the hon. leader of the
Opposition is bound to realize, would be
estimates.
For instance, it would be impossible to
give any reliable opinion or suggestion as to
how much would go to office calls and how
much would go for obstetrics. One could
only judge from a sampling of the experience
we have now and say this is a possibility.
But it would be little better than, I do not
even believe it would be, an educated guess;
it would be a very bare guess to me. How-
ever, I can— with respect to the estimate for
salaries, for advertising, for the potential
number of subscribers and how we arrived
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
597
at the $58.9 million-I can have those figures
when my estimates for this matter are before
the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, while we are still on section 14, I
want to make a few comments with regard to
it. We are going to oppose repeal of section
14 for this reason: I concede in advance
that leaving this in the bill precisely as it is
will be untidy in that it will continue to deal
with certain sections in relation to private
carriers which the government has struck out
completely from their plan at the moment;
but we are going to oppose it because I think
it underlines once again a very serious defect
in the whole approach of the government.
As we have pointed out many times before
in the debate, and I just mention it in passing
without going into detail, the government
has now withdrawn from regulation of private
carriers completely in terms of maximum
premiums, and in this particular section in
terms of that most serious abuse which was
one of the motivating forces that got the gov-
ernment into action in bringing in its bill a
year ago, namely, the prevalence of cancella-
tion of policies by insurance companies;
sometimes without valid reason, and often
without notice. We have this problem in other
insurance fields and have dealt with them
under other circumstances in this House and
we will come back to them. I am thinking,
for example, of car insurance and the fire
insurance field.
But I just want to draw to the attention
of the House, Mr. Chairman, the kind of situ-
ation which is going to be left completely
unregulated by the complete withdrawal of
the government from this particular field of
coping with the cancellation of policies.
The government has fixed a premium of
$150 for a standard policy. We have argued,
and I think with considerable evidence to
justify it, that this is so high that in the
instance of certain low income groups they
are simply not going to be able to buy it.
If they are not in a group, if they are in-
dividuals or individual families who are seek-
ing coverage, they are in fact going to
become the 12 or 15 per cent who will likely
remain uncovered in Ontario. Experience in
Alberta has proven that they remain un-
covered there with premiums of approxi-
mately the same level.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what is going to
happen? These people are going to be driven
to seek lesser coverage from the private
carriers at lesser amounts, the kind of cov-
erage that the government was willing, a year
ago, to leave private carriers to provide. In
other words, the government established a
standard policy that every company must
meet, but they left them free to offer lesser
coverages for lesser amounts. With a good
salesman they will go out and persuade
someone to buy what he thinks will be
necessary to meet his health requirements, on
a catastrophic basis only, for perhaps $75.
He will find, as experience has proven, that
the very problem that he faces will not be
met by the policy that he happened to have
bought.
But, Mr. Chairman, since the government
has left a certain number of individuals— and
it may be a good percentage of this 12 or 15
per cent— as the ready victims of the private
carriers it has not even gone forward to the
point of protecting them from a cancellation
of policy. In other words, a family that feels
they cannot spend $150 will become amen-
able to the plea of a salesman, from a certain
insurance company to buy coverage at, say,
$75 a year. But it still leaves that company
free to cancel the policy at will if perchance
this family comes up with a claim that they
think represents too high a risk. Now I think
this is deplorable.
I think the government was quite rightly
disturbed, even if somewhat belatedly dis-
turbed a year ago, in moving into the field
and making it impossible for private carriers
to cancel policies for any other reason than
non-payment of premium. But here they are,
letting this continue; therefore the only
recourse we have, to express our opposition
to this return to an untrammelled and un-
fettered and unregulated free enterprise in
the exploitation of sickness and illness— the
only opportunity we have to voice our ob-
jection to it— is to vote against repeal of
this section which dealt with the regulations
or the statutory requirements which would
block the cancellation of policies.
I would hope the hon. Minister might be
persuaded; but apparently he thinks this is
completely outside his purview. Unfortu-
nately, Mr. Chairman, he is going to leave
a lot of citizens—
An hon. member: It was not last year.
Mr. MacDonald: It was not last year— you
are right. And it is going to leave a lot of
citizens in the province ready victims to this
kind of abuse that has grown up in the insur-
ance field.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
there is no use of opposing this for the sake
of opposing, or talking for the sake of
talking; and it would not make sense in
598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
drafting a bill to leave this particular section
in the bill. We have said again and again
that we do not want health insurance or medi-
cal insurance carried by private carriers. We
want the private carriers out of the bill; and
where private carriers still exist in the prov-
ince of Ontario, we really do not want them.
But they do not come under this department;
they would come under The Insurance Act.
Therefore, to repeal this section, as asked by
the government, is the sensible thing to do.
Again I emphasize: We want the private
carriers out of it completely. We are happy
to see any section repealed that gets rid of
the private carriers; therefore, under this sec-
tion, we support the government.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is
about the most complete capitulation to the
position of the government I have ever seen,
under the guise of a curious sort of shop
logic. The hon. member says he wants to
see the private companies out of the picture
altogether, so the method by which he pro-
poses to do that is to give them an untram-
melled free rein in the field. They could
carry on without any regulation at all, where
we take the position that they should be
regulated.
We agree that they should not really be
selling insurance in this field at all; but the
hard plain fact is that they are going to be,
after this legislation passes. They are going
to have a very large area in which they will
operate.
We are well aware of the fact that, in their
operations, they have engaged in practices—
or many of them have engaged in practices—
which are quite unfair to the policyholder.
As far as we are concerned, we will do any-
thing possible to limit them in that, and bring
them under some sort of reasonable control
as long as they are operating in this field,
Mr. Chairman.
It is not our idea that they should operate.
If they are there, we want something done
about it. Here, at least, was a section— which
is now to be repealed— which did provide for
some regulation. Regulation as proposed in
the old bill was to be by the superintendent
of insurance; as far as we are concerned, let
it carry on that way. It might be more logical
and tidier to have it in The Insurance Act;
but I would rather have the job done than
merely cater to tidiness.
I think it is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, that
we should be so concerned about tidiness that
we just do not do anything at all. At least
we had something, in a law that was already
in effect. That law is in effect. I do not
know that it has been proclaimed, but it cer-
tainly has been passed.
Here it is, right on the statute books, an
important field of regulation. It is now pro-
posed by the government that it should be
taken out of the statute. I say: Keep it in the
statute— unless and until the government is
prepared to come in with something as good
or better, by way of amendment to The
Insurance Act.
I agree it would be tidier in The Insurance
Act. I said that, back two or three years ago,
when the government brought in its first bill
in this field, which was mainly a bill to regu-
late private carriers, the best place to do it
would have been in The Insurance Act; and
it should have been done 30 years ago. You
can say all that. The fact now remains that,
if we follow the logic of the hon. member
for Parkdale, we are now going to give away
something we now have in return for abso-
lutely nothing. What do we get in return?
Nothing. They are operating; they will oper-
ate—
Mr. Trotter: Private carriers are not in the
bill.
Mr. Bryden: They are in the legislation as
it now exists. It is proposed in this bill— they
are in it in the form that they are subject to
certain regulations. Under section 21 of the
Act as it now exists, they are subject to regu-
lations in certain forms— not adequate, but
better than nothing. If we pass section 14 of
this bill then even that small amount of regu-
lation goes down the drain.
This is what we are objecting to. We are
not saying that section 21 of the Act is a
very good section, and that it could not be
greatly improved upon, but it is better than
absolutely nothing. And the proposal before
us is that in place of it there should be abso-
lutely nothing at all.
I suggest to the hon. member for Parkdale
that he give the matter another thought. I
think he might agree with me. He is usually
in the same position as we are— that Opposi-
tion groups are always in— that it is better to
have a little bit than nothing at all. I think,
if he would consider it further, he might see
that it is better to keep section 21 than to
repeal it, even though it would be much more
desirable in our opinion to do a great many
other things that are not contemplated in the
bill at all.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I have to point out that
the debate is completely out of order. We
debated the principle of this bill on second
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
599
reading and it was carried by this House.
May I read again from the explanatory note:
The first basic change is that the
standard medical services insurance con-
tract, the only thing to which Bill No.
136 has reference and the only thing in
connection with which it gives The De-
partment of Health any authority, the
standard medical services insurance con-
tract is to be supplied only by the medical
services insurance division of The Depart-
ment of Health. Accordingly, provisions
dealing with the licensing and regulation
of carriers in the medical services insur-
ance programme have been repealed and
complementary amendments have been
made.
I am quite certain, Mr. Chairman, that my
hon. friends from York South and Woodbine
have not misunderstood the import of this
section.
Mr. Bryden: The explanatory note has no
special status.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: They know full well
what this section means, and they know full
well that it only has reference— that this
whole Bill No. 136 only had reference to
the regulatory powers over insurance carriers
with respect to the standard contract. The
standard contract is not to be sold now by
private carriers. They are cut completely
from the bill by virtue of these amendments.
Therefore The Department of Health has no
power or authority over them in any way.
We went through all of this, sir, in con-
nection with another section yesterday. We
have gone through it in certain measure with
several sections. Surely it is patent now
that private carriers are out of the bill, and
any reference to them must be taken from
this bill, because we have to rewrite or pre-
pare an entirely new Act to give us control
over them.
There is a method, as the hon. member for
Parkdale pointed out, Mr. Chairman, under
The Insurance Act or The Prepaid Hospital
and Medical Services Act. Those are the
only legal instruments I know of, within the
power of this Legislature, whereby these
people now can be controlled. I therefore
say that this debate so far has been com-
pletely out of order.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I would disagree with the hon. Minister that
the debate up to this point is out of order.
It is perfectly clear under section 21 that
what was being dealt with in Bill No. 136
was medical services insurance contracts. We
agree with the hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, it is a
standard medical services insurance contract,
a specific and peculiar contract.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
Minister will read the subsection of section
21, which is now proposed to be repealed, he
will see that an elaborate procedure is set
out to cover those contracts which are non-
cancellable, or which are renewable, other
than standard medical services insurance con-
tracts. That is what the section deals with.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member would also read the principle,
inherent in these amendments, to rule out
private carriers from this bill altogether.
This has been debated and, I repeat, passed
by this Legislature.
Mr. Bryden: That is not the principle
enunciated even in the explanatory note, and
after all the explanatory note has no official
status. We are perfectly entitled to disagree
with it. But if there is a question of prin-
ciple involved here, the only question of
principle, Mr. Chairman, is that private
carriers will not now be selling standard
contracts. That is the only question of prin-
ciple.
It does not say anything about this
ancillary matter that was dealt with in
section 21 of the Act, and that is not
affected by the principle that private
carriers will not now deal in standard con-
tracts. This was a further matter, dealt with
in that old bill— it is actually an Act— which
we think should be continued. Actually it
does not say that the Minister of Health
will regulate; it says the superintendent of
insurance will carry on these functions.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on the same
point, it has a very direct bearing on the
bill which is before this Legislature, because
of the extent to which the private carriers,
who are going to have something between
60 or 70 or 80 per cent of the insurance in
this field in the province, are going to be
able to cancel the medical services insurance
contracts under group plans. For example
when a person leaves a group to the extent
that he cannot carry that insurance forward,
the only alternative that the person is going
to have is to apply to the medical services
insurance division for a standard contract.
And you can well appreciate that it is this
very section which will perpetuate the medi-
cal services insurance division administering
600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a plan for the people who are the high
health risks in our community. It is because
of this that in a very real sense this section,
by its repeal, to the extent that private
carriers are going to be allowed to cancel
their insurance, is likely to turn the medical
services insurance division into the equivalent
of the assigned risk plan in the automobile
insurance business.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 14 carry?
An hon. member: No, no.
Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.
Shall section 14 stand as part of the bill?
All those in favour, please stand.
All those opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
""ayes" are 79, the "nays," 7.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17:
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think this
is a very important section of the bill, dealing
as it does with the provisions in the Act
itself under which regulations are carried.
You will recall that the provision of section
17 provides in subsection 3 a suggested—
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, could we have order in the House?
I am one desk in front of the hon. member
and I cannot hear him.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the amend-
ment which I am going to propose is to the
provision contained in subsection 3 of section
17 of the bill, which is the section of the
bill which amends section 28 of The Medi-
cal Services Insurance Act.
Section 28 of The Medical Services In-
surance Act is the section of that Act under
which the Lieutenant-Governor in council
may make the regulations which will, of
course, in a very real sense determine the
effective application of the bill. One of the
matters— and there are many matters of
concern under regulatory provisions such
as are contained in that Act— is the provision
proposed respecting the procedure for the
acceptance by the Minister of charges in
the schedule of fees of the Ontario medi-
cal association. The proposed amendment is
technical, but I will read it and then read
the section as amended, in order that it will
make sense to the House:
I therefore move that in connection with
section 17, that subsection 3 of section 17 of
Bill No. 6 be amended with regard to the
new clause (la):
1. by inserting after the words "pro-
cedure for" in the first line the words "in-
cluding arbitration procedures," and
2. by adding thereto the words "and
thereafter."
so that that particular clause will read:
The Lieutenant-Governor in council may
make regulations respecting the procedure
for including arbitration procedures and
conditions of acceptance by the Minister
of any change in the schedule of fees of
the Ontario medical association respecting
any new procedure or any incidental or
ancillary matter during the two-year period
mentioned in subsection 1 of section 20
and thereafter.
The purpose of the amendment, of course,
is perfectly clear, and that is to provide a
procedure by which the Minister will be in-
volved in changes.
Mr. Chairman: Moved by the member for
Riverdale that subsection 3 of section 17
of Bill No. 6 be amended with regard to
the new clause (la):
1. by inserting after the words "pro-
cedure for" in the first line, the words "in-
cluding arbitration procedures," and
2. by adding thereto the words "and
thereafter."
Mr. Renwick: The purpose of the amend-
ment is simply to make certain that the
Minister of Health is involved in any changes
which take place in the schedule of fees of
the Ontario medical association, whether they
occur during the first two years or at any
time thereafter, and to make provision that
if agreement cannot be reached between the
Minister and the Ontario medical association
on the schedule of fees, that the matter
should be referred to arbitration and settled
by arbitration.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, there are
other matters that arise in connection with
section 17 of the bill, and I would like to
direct some questions to the hon. Minister in
regard to them.
Included in the new clauses that are to be
added when section 17 is carried— assuming
that it will be— will be the power to prescribe
subscription rates. I think that was probably
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
601
in the old Act in some other form, and
it is in here now. The hon. Minister has, I
think, been quite frank with the House and
generous in the information he has tried to
give, and on a number of occasions he has
tried to the best of his ability to indicate
what he expects to see in the regulations.
I think all members of the House appreciate
the courtesy this hon. Minister has always
shown in that matter. When he brings in
legislation where regulations are going to
be an important factor, he tries to indicate as
far as he can, his thinking about the regu-
lations, and that is always very helpful
to members in assessing the bill.
Therefore, when I ask some further ques-
tions about what he has in mind with respect
to the regulations, I am certainly not imply-
ing that we have not appreciated the in-
formation he has given us up to now. One
thing, however, that has occurred to me in
relation to his new formula on subsidization,
relates to the borderline cases and the anoma-
lies that can arise there.
As I recall the hon. Minister's thinking
last year, he had it in mind that there would
be a fairly elaborate sliding scale of subsi-
dization—a subsidy that would be in inverse
proportion to the amount of taxable income
up to a certain limit. I assume that has
been scrapped because it has been found to
be difficult from the administrative point of
view. I do not know this— it is just an
assumption I am making. It seems to me
that in principle it had a lot of merit in it.
On the other hand, one has to balance the
merit in principle against feasibility in prac-
tice, and I have no doubt that what the hon.
Minister now proposes is a lot simpler to
administer.
It does, however, bring forth in a very
acute form, this problem of anomalies at the
borderline, because unless there is going to
be some sort of notch clause, or notch
clauses in his regulations, anomalous situa-
tions could arise. Take the case, say, of a
family of three or more. It is entitled to a
subsidization of $90 per year if it has some
taxable income, but no more taxable income
than $1,300 a year.
So the situation could arise where a
family whose taxable income was precisely
$1,300, would get $90 a year, but a family
whose taxable income was $1,325 would get
nothing. The second family would, there-
fore, be $65 worse off than the other even
though its income was higher.
Now, I raise the point only to ask the hon.
Minister if he has in mind any way of
dealing with it. If he has not, would he
take it under advisement before the regula-
tions are issued?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I appreciate this prob-
lem, sir, and I can assure hon. members
that we have thought about it every possible
way we can. We recognize that there is
this sudden cut off. We determined, of
course, that there had to be a cut off and
we determined on this figure. We realized
that no matter where we cut off we would
be up against the same "grey" area where the
person just over the border seems to be quite
severely penalized. I have not got an answer
to the problem yet, but we are continuing
to look at it.
I would say very frankly that I would
appreciate any suggestions, apart from the
failure to observe our cut off mark.
The hon. member spoke about the elabor-
ate sliding scale, and I grant you that I
thought it was more fair, and it did not
make this sudden cut off so obvious.
Mr. Bryden: No, the cut off was small.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is right; it was
only a matter of $10, when you got up close
to the border line. However, it was ad-
ministratively difficult. My people pointed
out to me that it would increase the ad-
ministration a great deal, and since our con-
cern was to keep administrative costs to the
bare minimum, we felt that this was one
place to save considerable administrative
costs.
I repeat, we have not found a method of
dealing with this and we will continue to
look into it.
With respect to the proposals of the hon.
member for Riverdale, it would seem to me
that discussing arbitration procedure suggests
there will be two parties to a dispute, or
disagreement, or difference of opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I pointed out yesterday that
the medical profession, the body with whom
we will be dealing, the body who will pro-
vide the services, have told me that the
association has no power or authority to
negotiate. So that there cannot be two
parties, and if we were to get into arbitration
it would be with individual doctors.
What we propose to do under this— and
this so far is only in the proposal stage, but
it is about the only method left open to us—
is that we will look at any proposed changes.
This clause is actually to give us the power
and authority to deal with internal changes
in the fee structure that come about from
time to time. As long as this does no
harm to the whole fee structure, then we
602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
can make internal arrangements and deal
with them.
Our thinking at the present time is that
if there should arise the necessity to discuss
fee schedules, then we will determine what
we believe is just and equitable; we will dis-
cuss it with the respesentatives of the
medical profession so that they will be ad-
vised of, and aware of, what we are thinking.
Then we will have to do exactly as we did
in the case of the 90 per cent— we are going
to have to come to an arbitrary decision
and tell the profession that this is it.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have two
other points that perhaps the hon. Minister
would comment on in dealing with the sec-
tion related to the regulations. Is it his
intention to include in the regulations to be
published the actual schedule of fees and
any changes which may take place in it
from time to time?
It is my impression now that the schedule
of fees of the Ontario medical association is,
for practical purposes, known only to the
doctors. Now that standard contracts are
going to provide for payment of those fees
related to that schedule, is it not a wise
suggestion to put that schedule of fees into
the regulations, and to provide by changes in
the regulations for any changes that may take
place from time to time in that schedule
so that the people who are having the benefit
of standard coverage could have a public
place where they could refer to the schedule?
The other point which concerns me is
whether, inadvertently, by making schedule
A the actual contract part of the statute, we
have burdened ourselves with a very cum-
bersome method of making any changes in
the standard contract. If at any time, on the
recommendation of the medical council, it is
decided that the area of services to be cov-
ered should it be enlarged it may well be that
the provisions relating to the regulations
should contain specific power to pass regu-
lations to enlarge the comprehensiveness of
the contract with a protective provision, of
course, to prevent the services from being
restricted.
I would appreciate it if the hon. Minister
would make any comment on those two re-
marks.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I had
not thought of publishing the schedule of
fees, and I do not know where we would
stand in respect of this, but I certainly will
take this under consideration and discuss it
with my people.
As for the other proposal, I can see no
harm to accepting it. Indeed, I am prepared
to propose an amendment to this effect on
the suggestion of the hon. member.
I cannot say anything more about the
schedule. I do know that this schedule is
available to any member of the public who
wants to buy it. It costs $2, but if it is
published in the regulations it might be
more readily available to them. I do not
know, but we will think about this.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to add my support to
what the hon. member for Riverdale
has said. I think definitely, sir, that there
should be a schedule of rates. Government
money, taxpayer money, is being spent here,
and doctors are no different from other
people. As taxpayers we have a right to
know what they are earning for certain tasks
they perform. There is no doubt in the
world that the vast majority of doctors are
most conscientious and honest. On the other
hand, there are always bad apples in a
barrel.
I think that to put this above board, sir,
so there is no suspicion of anyone, a schedule
of fees definitely should be published so
that the doctors know what they can charge,
and we as taxpayers and patients know for
what we are paying.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, there
is a schedule of fees, there is no question
about that, but unfortunately it is a guide
and the doctor can use it as a guide if he so
chooses. I have never known any doctor
loath to discuss the schedule of fees with a
patient, but again many patients are not too
anxious to discuss fees. When you are sick
and you go to see the doctor, you do not go
worrying about money, you go to get better,
we hope. However, as I have promised, I
will give very definite consideration to this
proposal. Frankly, I had not thought about
it being in the regulations.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister know offhand what the charge
for a house call is under the schedule of
fees today?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I do not. I have
not made a house call for a long time and I
really do not know. I believe it is six dollars,
but I do not know.
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
aware of cases where it has been as high
as $17 just lately.
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
603
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well now, that de-
pends how far the call was from the doctor's
office.
Mr. Whicher: It was one and a half
blocks.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, of course, I
know nothing about it.
Mr. Whicher: I know the hon. Minister
does not, but that is what happened.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sopha): Normally less
than a plumber, however.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: My TV repair man
charges fifty cents more than I do.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, following
on this, the hon. Minister, I believe, has
said that the cost to the province would be
$58.9 million. I find it difficult to know how
the hon. Minister arrives at that figure if he
has not had some kind of suggested schedule.
I do not want to go through those questions
again, but I have asked this question before
and I wondered if I can get an answer to
some of my questions.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: At the moment we are
getting that information for the hon. leader
of the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I
would move an amendment that subsection
(k) of section 28 be amended by inserting
"extensions or" before the word limitations
so that the clause will now read:
—prescribing extensions or limitations on
benefits under the standard contract.
Clerk of the House: The amendment is by
inserting the words "extensions or" before
"limitations."
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman; I am
sorry, that should be "extensions of or limi-
tations on."
Clerk of the House: So the section will
read "prescribing extensions of or limitations
on benefits under the standard contract."
Mr. Chairman: Does the member with-
draw his amendment?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
withdraw to allow the hon. Minister's amend-
ment to take its place provided it be re-
introduced.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment—
the point is not the extension of the benefits
in relation to payments only, but it is the
extension of the services to be provided and
whatever the appropriate wording to cover
that would be most—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is actually a bene-
fit. If we add services to the contract we
are extending benefits.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment please say "aye."
Mr. Chairman: Those opposed say "nay."
The amendment is carried.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, to return to
this matter of the Ontario medical association
schedule of fees, I think that the hon. Min-
ister confused the issue somewhat when he
said the OMA schedule of fees is merely a
guide. That is absolutely correct, it is merely
a guide for the individual doctor. They can-
not make it compulsory upon him. In fact, I
think that if they tried they might be in
trouble with the combines people in Ottawa.
So a doctor could charge twice as much or
half as much as the schedule of fees, if he
wished.
That is true with regard to the doctor, but
it is not true with regard to our legislation.
This schedule of fees now becomes the basis
upon which public funds are paid out, and
from that point of view it is no guide, it is
law— 90 per cent of that schedule must be
paid out. Therefore, I think it is imperative,
since it now becomes part of the public law
of the province that it be public. The aver-
age citizen has the greatest difficulty getting
a look at the schedule of fees. I have seen
it but only after considerable difficulty. I do
not say that previously anyone had any right
to look at it; up until now it has been for
the information and benefit of the medical
profession, but henceforth, it is a matter of
public interest.
I think the schedule of fees under which
payments are going to be made under this
Act should be published in the regulations
and confirmed by the regulations.
I may say also that this relates to the
amendment that the hon. member for River-
dale proposed and then withdrew. Maybe I
will say something about that later. Perhaps,
just for this moment, we can stay with the
specific point of the publication of the sched-
ule of fees.
Mr. Trotter: Well, Mr. Chairman, the only
way we are going to have any control over
the doctors is to keep the public happy. In
other words, if the doctors start to boost the
604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
OMA fees as high as they like, there would
obviously be a great outcry from the public.
Surely the public should have a right to
know what the schedule of the OMA fees
is. It should be in the regulations.
We in this party support the hon. member
for Woodbine in what he has said. Surely
if you are spending public money, not only
the government, but the public in general
have a right to know what the fee schedule
is. Also, they will know from time to time
if the fee schedule is being raised and how
much, and of course, it will again be for
public opinion to decide if the doctors are
charging too much.
When we were discussing it yesterday I
was one of those in favour of saying let us
trust the doctors, they will not go too far
in their charges. In other words, we do not
want to move in and have price control on
what a doctor charges for fees.
One thing that will act indirectly in a so-
called free enterprise market, if you wish to
call it that, is that public opinion will judge
what the doctors are doing, and the only
way the public are going to judge is if they
have knowledge of what the fee schedule is.
Surely it is not asking too much of the hon.
Minister if he would promise here and now
that the fee schedule will appear in the
regulations.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not promise this to the House. I have under-
taken to you, sir, that I will give this very
careful consideration, and if it is possible and
it comes within my right to do so I will act.
I can assure the House that I have taken
very seriously the things they have said about
this and will be governed by the sentiment
of this House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the hon. Minister whether, with his staff here
now, he is prepared to answer some of those
questions? Shall I quote them again?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Would the hon. leader
of the Opposition pose his questions? My staff
did not hear them, and I did not get them
all down.
Mr. Thompson: Certainly. My questions
are:
Am I correct that the government's esti-
mated cost was $58.9 million over the
first year? Can the hon. Minister tell us
whether he has an estimate on what his ad-
ministrative costs will be? Can the hon.
Minister estimate how much will be expended
in wages? How much will be spent to ad-
vertise the enrolment plan? How much will
be received in subscriptions from the three
groups which will be participating in the
plan, those three groups being the fully-
subsidized, the partially subsidized and the
non-subsidized? How many subscribers are
you considering in this $58.9 million? What
is the breakdown in that estimate of single
persons and married couples?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. leader of the Opposition wants these
answers right now, we can get them for him.
I can tell him that the administrative cost is
estimated to be five per cent.
Mr. Thompson: Five per cent? Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Now, how this is
broken down still further they will have to
find for me. If you will give me a list of
these questions, I will get the answers for
you.
Mr. Thompson: Fine.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Chairman, to draw the session back just for
a moment further to the question of the fee
schedule, and respecting the hon. Minister's
reply to our request that it be included as
part of the regulations, some of us under-
stand the medical services insurance division
is preparing a handbook for distribution to
the various doctors who join the plan, and the
interested parties throughout the province,
which handbook will include a printing of the
OMA fee schedule. If it is, therefore, to be
part of the branch policy to disseminate that
information in public terms, should it not
also logically then be appended to this Act?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, there
is no intention of publishing the fee schedule
to send out to the people or the doctors.
First of all, the doctors have it. This
book— the last one I saw is something like
100 pages— would be a very costly under-
taking. In fact, it would pay me better to
buy the books from the OMA and distribute
them. No, there is no intention of publishing
the fee schedule, or us reprinting the fee
schedule and sending it to every person in
the province.
Mr. S. Lewis: Not to the doctors?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, the doctors do
not need to have it sent to them, they have it
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
605
now. Every doctor has a copy of the fee
schedule. It is automatically sent to him.
Mr. MacDonald: Following this, if I might,
Mr. Chairman, while we are on it, is not the
medical services insurance branch developing
a manual for their own internal use, which is
going to include the fee schedule, with re-
gard to claims procedure?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, if you are doing
that— admittedly this may be just for your
own internal use— I think the hon. member
for Scarborough West is just pointing out that
if you are including it there for your own
internal use, it should be part of the bill, so
that everybody knows what it is. This is the
basis upon which public moneys are going to
be spent.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I am
not arguing this with the hon. members at
all. I have undertaken to you, sir, to give
very careful consideration to this. I have
listened carefully and, I think, sympathetic-
ally, to all that has been said. I think there is
a great deal of validity to what has been
said, and I have undertaken to give most
careful consideration to this.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask the hon. Minister if
I understand correctly, that a building has
been obtained for the administration of this
Act?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: And where is that building?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: At 135 St. Clair avenue
west, the corner of St. Clair and Avenue
road.
Mr. Sopha: May I inquire who it was pur-
chased from?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am afraid, Mr. Chair-
man, he would have to ask the hon. Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Connell). I had noth-
ing to do with the real estate dealings.
Mr. Thompson: He did answer who it was
purchased from. I think there was a ques-
tion about—
Mr. Sopha: I am particularly interested to
find out who it was purchased from.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I really do not know,
because I have nothing to do with the pur-
chasing of the real estate. That is done by
The Department of Public Works, Mr. Chair-
Mr. Sopha: Well, if my wife buys a car, I
am interested in where she buys it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, but this is entirely
different. The Department of Public Works
is involved in all property transactions for the
government, sir, and when they hand me the
keys, that is the first I have to do with the
building. I have nothing to do with it prior
to that, except to see it, and to pass judg-
ment that it would suit our uses.
Mr. Sopha: This is the strangest sort of
secrecy that I ever heard of. Does the hon.
Minister mean to say that before he gets the
building he isn't even interested in it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I recall
this was asked as a question before the orders
of the day some weeks ago, and I think the
record is in Hansard now.
Mr. Sopha: It was not asked before the
orders of the day. We are particularly inter-
ested to find out who the owner was.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
There is no secret about who owned the
building. It was the McNamara Gunnar
Corporation, or—
Mr. Sopha: All right. Then may we hear
who is on the board of directors of the Mc-
Namara Gunnar Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not have that
information.
Mr. Sopha: Could we have that informa-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is available by a
search. I will take it under advice.
Mr. Sopha: Could we ascertain how much
was paid for this building?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This has already been
answered.
Mr. Sopha: Could we find out how much
was paid by the McNamara Gunnar Cor-
poration for the building?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I think
this is a little remote.
Mr. Sopha: It is not remote at all.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It has nothing to do
with the bill here whatever.
Mr. Sopha: The administrative costs come
within this Act and it is not remote at all.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Not the cost of the
building to the vendor.
606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Oh yes. I would like to know—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I have already pointed out in
answer to a question when the hon. member
for Sudbury was not in his seat, that the cost
of this building has nothing whatsoever to do
with the administrative costs of this pro-
gramme at all. The building was purchased,
as in the case of all public buildings, by The
Department of Public Works, for the use of
The Department of Health. It is paid for
out of The Department of Public Works
budget.
I do not concern myself with how this is
acquired or anything else. I have no author-
ity over that building until the key is handed
to my department, and I have no costs in-
volved in it whatsoever coming out of the
medical services insurance division budget.
Mr. Sopha: Well, all this sounds like a very
excessive answer to a very simple question.
My point is that I am rather surprised that
before the hon. Minister gets a building he
does not even go and have a look at his real
estate.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did.
Mr. Sopha: He was telling us a while ago
that he did not move in with the OHSC be-
cause there was not enough floor space.
Now in this day of high taxes I say we are
entitled to know how much the Gunnar
Corporation paid for that building when it
got it, and how much it sold it to you for.
I suggest that is a minimum of information
we should have. And we should also know
who is on the board of directors of the
Gunnar Corporation, because you are going
to find a very interesting name when you
look at the board. I would also like to know
whether that interesting name had any con-
nection.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, I know that I am
not on the board.
Mr. Sopha: Well, nobody said you were
on the board.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. leader of the Opposition asked some
questions. How did we arrive at the $59
million, the $58.9 million?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We estimate, and I
repeat, these are estimates; in respect of the
welfare recipients, we know that number
was 275,000 persons: Estimated to cost $40
per capita — $5.5 million. Non-income tax
group estimated at 756,000 at $40 per
capita, $30.2 million. Partially assisted, 1,044,-
900 persons, estimated at $40 per capita,
$23.3 million net, a total of $59 million.
It is estimated that $5.5 million will be
received from the federal government under
the Canada assistance plan. It is estimated
that the administrative costs will be five per
cent. We have no breakdown of the salaries,
the advertising costs. And what was the other
thing you asked?
Mr. Thompson: I have several other ques-
tions, but I appreciate what you have
answered for me.
I notice you mention under welfare re-
cipients $40, may I question that? You said
welfare recipients $40, but surely you are
going to get, under The Canada Assistance
Act, half of that paid?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the $40 was the net by which we arrived at
our projected cost. We estimated that the
per capita claims cost — pure claims cost,
would be $40 annually.
We will reclaim from Ottawa under The
Canada Assistance Act when it is passed, 50
per cent of what the province expends for
medical care on those eligible under that
Act. We estimate that will be $5.5 million.
They will give us $20 per capita back, in
other words, and that of course will come
off your total.
Mr. Thompson: On the premium that the
individual who is non-subsidized pays, will
the hon. Minister be indirectly subsidizing
this cost, does he think? I am thinking of
the two other areas of indigents, half
premiums to be paid by subscriber, and in-
dividuals who are non-subsidized, I assume
that all that would be paid by the subscriber.
I do not know if I make myself clear.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not quite clear
on that. We will be subsidizing all of those
that I have mentioned.
Mr. Thompson: I have tabled the other
questions previously and I look forward to
answers.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have
been up and down so many times to get
at this I feel like the hon. member for Wood-
bine's Mexican jumping bean.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a
number of questions with the hon. Minister
that I think appropriately come under this
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
607
section. If you will let me return to this
question of the OMA schedule of fees I am
not concerned with the question of it being
published-the hon. Minister has indicated he
will give serious consideration to this. But
I do want to raise it once again in the con-
text of any future changes, and whether or
not they are negotiable, whether or not
changes remain the unilateral right of the
OMA.
Let me say in this connection, Mr. Chair-
man, that I fully appreciate the difficulties
that the hon. Minister of Health and the
government have had in trying to— if I may
use the word— "negotiate" this whole issue
during the last five or six months. The hon.
Minister of Health, the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts), and various government spokes-
men have had many meetings, indeed the
president of the OMA has been credited with
attending at least a dozen meetings.
I was once credited in the press with say-
ing that the government had presented their
proposed amendment to the OMA. I wrote
a letter to the paper, correcting this, but
they did not even deign to publish my
letter. Yet, I have never said that the gov-
ernment presented the amendment.
I know that the government was dealing
with a body that had been excessively secre-
tive—arguing that it had the exclusive right
to deal with a matter that they think is
their right. I think the government is coming
to recognize, and the public recognizes, it
is something beyond their exclusive right. I
think the hon. Minister has been negotiating
at arm's length.
One of the hon. Minister's problems is
magnificently illustrated by this problem he
faces now on any future changes in the OMA
schedule of fees. I have reason to believe
that the government said to the OMA that
at the end of the two-year period, the sched-
ule of fees would have to be negotiated.
The counter-statement of their position by
the OMA is that they have no power to
negotiate the fees, they presumably can
come up with a schedule of fees, but then
they pass it on as a suggestion, and in effect
the government is placed in the position
where they have to negotiate with each
doctor.
Now, I suggest to the hon. Minister that
if the OMA is going to persist in this partic-
ular position, it may be necessary for the
government statutorily to give the OMA the
power to negotiate. The hon. Minister has
given the OMA or its related body, the
college of physicians and surgeons, certain
powers in terms of the regulating and the
disciplining of the medical profession. Indeed,
at the national level, the doctors' organiza-
tions are now considering whether or not
they should negotiate. They have set up
a committee to look into the question of
whether they should not negotiate, and
whether they should accept arbitration pro-
cedures in the event of not being able to
reach a satisfactory and amicable solution in
the negotiations.
I think this is the situation that the govern-
ment finds itself faced with at the moment,
and I sympathize with them completely. It
is an intolerable situation. I do not think
that the OMA can, with justice, say they
have no power to deal with this.
In fact, they draw up the schedule of fees.
In fact, it becomes a guide that most doctors
accept. In fact, it is going to become the
basis upon which the government is going
to pay out public money.
Therefore, I think this needs to become
institutionalized, if I may use that term.
Because, I suggest to the hon. Minister, if he
does not do this then he has only one alterna-
tive—the one that he, by implication, con-
ceded he might have to resort to two years
from now.
If the OMA say they will not negotiate
with you; that they have no power; that
they reserve the right to a unilateral decision
when raising fees, then the hon. Minister is
in a relatively powerless position. The only
thing he can do is to go back to his bill and
alter the 90 per cent payment figure. If the
OMA schedule of fees goes up so much, you
can reduce your payment to 75 or 80 per
cent, so that in effect you keep payments
at a level you think is fair. I would suggest
to you, Mr. Chairman, this is a very untidy
way of going about it.
Now, it may well be that up until now
doctors have operated on the basis that this
was their exclusive right. But, now that we
are moving into the field of public provision
for medical insurance I think the doctors
have got to cut out this procedure and must
be willing to sit down and negotiate a sched-
ule of fees.
Now, sir, a good deal of the money has
got to come out of the Treasury, and whether
they like it or not they are going to be put
into the position of everybody else who has
to negotiate to a degree for the income that
they will be receiving and will have to live
on from this point forward.
However, I leave that because I am pain-
fully aware that the hon. Minister has got
a problem on his hands. But I have sug-
gested one or two alternatives on how he
608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
should cope with it, and I suggest the tidier
alternative would be that he seek some sort
of acceptance from the OMA for negotiation.
I suggest that he should not be too timid in
seeking this, because within the framework
of their own organization they have acknowl-
edged that they must do this. They have set
up committees nationally to consider whether
or not they should negotiate. Indeed, I
wonder if the hon. Minister should not go
one step further and in effect say to them
now, rather than facing them with an arbi-
trary decision two years from now, that we
want to negotiate and we will set up the
procedure for arbitration if you cannot come
to an amicable solution, so that they would
know precisely where they stand and we
would know precisely where they stand, Mr.
Chairman.
So much for that and unless the hon.
Minister has any comment on it I will go on
to my questions that I wanted to raise with
him.
This section is dealing with the regulations
and, as has been pointed out, there is a new
addition to it, the one that deals with the
prescribing of subscription rates. Mr. Chair-
man, there are a number of questions I
would like to put to the hon. Minister in
this connection because I personally am not
clear in my own mind as to how he antici-
pates this will operate. For example, if a
patient gets a bill from a doctor and that
patient is not in a position to pay that bill,
can he send the bill on to the medical services
division, where it will be paid? Or must he,
in effect, have paid the bill and got, in effect,
a receipt for it, and send that on to the
government agency to get repayment? What
is the procedure here? Would the hon. Min-
ister mind clarifying it for me?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: . If the patient is
covered and the doctor wants to bill the
patient directly, he does so. When that bill
comes to the division the patient will be
paid at the prescribed level, 90 per cent of
the fee schedule for that service, but we will
not ask for a receipt. We do not care what
the patient does with the money when he
gets it.
It was suggested to me, not by organized
medicine, but by a few individuals, that we
should not reimburse any patient until we
get their receipts. That is not what we
are in business for. We are in business to pay
the patients' claims, and what the patient
does with the money, if the doctor does not
want to bill the plan directly but bill the
patient, is not our concern.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, let me get this
clear then. The doctor gives the patient a
bill. The patient is not in the position to
write a cheque or make a cash payment; he
just has not got the money. He passes it on
to the medical insurance division, which
sends back 90 per cent. You are in effect
saying that if he wants to go out and spend
that money on beer, or a holiday in Florida,
this is his own business. And if the doctor
does not then get the money presumably this
is going to be your procedure for putting
pressure on the medical profession.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member
would not think that of me, would he?
Mr. MacDonald: Of course I would not
think that of the hon. Minister, but
events may be pushing him in this direction.
He may be the unwilling victim of events.
It may be he will teach the doctors that the
way to get their money, and to get it quickly
and not have it dissipated on Florida visits
or on beer, is to bill the government directly
rather than giving the bill to the patient for
when he gets the money it may just stick
to his fingers.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member said
it.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I said it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The hon. member said
it, I did not.
Mr. MacDonald: And the hon. Minister
smiled in asquiescence.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I laughed out loud.
Mr. MacDonald: Very good. I think I
have the answer to that.
Now, secondly, Mr. Chairman, I was
curious about one point which I recognized
as comparable to the procedure which exists
in connection with hospital insurance. I
happened to receive a letter from a lawyer
in Hamilton who points to what he feels—
and I think he has a point— is an injustice,
namely, for mothers who support a single
child on a single income— this may be women
who are separated, who are divorced, maybe
widows, they are trying to sustain themselves
on this single income. The procedure, as I
understand it, is that they are going to have
to pay a family premium, though they are
not really a family in the sense of father and
mother and children, and the contention is
that they should be treated as an individual.
Has the hon. Minister given any con-
sideration to this, and what is his reaction?
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I take it there would
be the mother and one child? No, frankly
I have not, other than in a general con-
sideration, given consideration to details of
this kind, but it would seem to me the
logical way to deal with this would be to
look upon this as a couple rather than a
family unit. This might well be the kind of
case that would be decided by the council.
There is one thing certain in my own
thinking. I would want it administered in
such a way that the least possible hardship
was worked on the mother, and as I say, my
first reaction would be that two single
premiums would be better than charging a
family unit.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the hon. Min-
ister has gone a step in the direction that I
feel is justifiable. I believe I am correct, in
that under the hospital services commission,
at the moment, a single person under these
circumstances with a child is treated as a
family.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I think that is right.
Mr. MacDonald: So maybe it should be
reviewed in the context of both the prospec-
tive health plan and in the hospital services.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: There are two govern-
ments involved in that programme at the
present time.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
A third question— and I hope that I might
be able to explore with the hon. Minister
something that I raised earlier in this debate.
Has the hon. Minister in the last three or four
days— he said he had not done it before-
given any thought to the premium proposals
that I made in my initial statement in this
debate? If we are going to get subsidy of 50
per cent based on a $34 national average,
that would result in a $110 million subsidy,
from Ottawa. If the total cost is going to be
$40 per capita for the population of Ontario,
in the range of $260 or $270 million, this
leaves us $150 million to be raised in the
province of Ontario.
Now the hon. Minister has already indicated
he is willing to spend under this bill approxi-
mately $70 million for the subsidized and the
partially subsidized groups. This leaves only
$80 million to be raised. And that extra $80
million can be raised on premiums, which, if
the hon. Minister has looked into, will find
are valid, of $20 for a single person, $40
for a couple and $50 for a family. In other
words, we could give coverage to the whole
of the people of the province of Ontario
for that amount.
Now, has the hon. Minister looked into it?
Does he confirm that these are accurate
assessments? And if so, why is he not willing
to move quickly in giving that level of
premiums for everybody in the province?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, Mr. Chairman, at
the time the hon. member brought this up I
undertook to look into it and consider it.
I have not done so yet and I am quite sure
the hon. member will recognize why. I have
been well tied down to this House.
I must point out that the postulated $110
million from the federal government is not
available to us yet, and in the whole context
as we consider that programme and what the
provincial attitude shall be toward it, I can
assure the hon. member that this will be
very carefully considered.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you will
recall that the first item on the consideration
of this section is an amendment which I
introduced and then withdrew when the
hon. Minister introduced his amendment. I
would like to ask that the amendment be
now considered which I placed before.
Mr. Chairman: It has been moved by Mr.
Renwick that subsection 3 of section 17 of
Bill No. 6 be amended with regard to the
new clause (la) by inserting after the words
"procedure for" in the first line, the words
"including arbitration procedures"; 2. by
adding thereto the words "and thereafter."
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, are you calling
the amendment now?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I wanted to go back to
an earlier matter. Since I asked that question
earlier courteously, I do not see why there
should be any attempt to deny to me informa-
tion that the people are entitled to have.
Two people have sent me notes referring
to page 163 of Hansard, where the question
was asked by the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition, "How much was paid for that build-
ing in the previous sale?" The answer was
given that the information was not avail-
able. I cannot comprehend that, because
surely in purchasing real estate—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I have
to ask that you rule this out of order. It has
nothing to do with my department whatso-
ever.
610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: What is the hon. Minister try-
ing to hide?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am trying to hide
nothing. I do not know anything about it.
This is a matter for The Department of
Public Works.
Mr. Sopha: I am trying to find out how the
McNamaras got the contract of sale.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I repeat, sir, that this is a
matter coming within the purview of The
Department of Public Works. I have no
responsibility for it at all. I have no knowl-
edge of it. I have only the knowledge that
I read on page 163 of Hansard where the
question was asked already by the hon. leader
of the Opposition. But I am quite certain that
the hon. Minister of Public Works is capable
and willing to answer the question of the hon.
member if asked at the proper time and in
the proper context.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, speaking
to the point of order: About two days ago the
hon. member for Sudbury rose, polished his
halo and said that we were doing violence
to the bill by bringing in matters that had
no relevance to the bill. I suggest that he is
doing precisely that now. He is engaged in a
little bit of nit-picking.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I think
this is very fundamental. One of the reasons
why we did not have a close organization
with the Ontario hospital services commission
—the hon. Minister talked about the fact that
under administration we would be able to cut
out duplication, we would be able to have
the wide experience of these people and so
on— was the fact of floors.
Why should not the hon. member for Sud-
bury ask about the building in view of the
fact we had duplication of administration on
the excuse of one and a half floors?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is out of order.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, if somebody
would just tell me how much profit the
McNamaras made, the same people that ten-
dered a $100-a-plate dinner to the hon. Prime
Minister of this province. Talk about Mr.
Pearson being entertained by the Rockefel-
lers. Here people sell a building to the gov-
ernment and they tendered a $100-a-plate
dinner to the leader of the province.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I would ask the
member to ask his question at the proper
time and then put it on the order paper.
Mr. Bryden: I was wishing to speak to the
amendment, Mr. Chairman, now on the floor,
the amendment proposed by the hon. member
for Riverdale.
I think that a lot of the discussion we had
in the interval during which the amendment
was withdrawn indicates the need for this
type of provision. The amendment, as I recall
it, suggests at least the beginnings of a nego-
tiation and arbitration procedure in the de-
termination, not of the fees that individual
doctors will charge, but of the basis on which
payments will be made to the medical pro-
fession under this Act, and, I hope, under
more comprehensive legislation that some day
might follow.
I think it should be noted, Mr. Chairman,
that what we are proposing here really is
something that I think would be beneficial to
the medical profession. It is not a proposal
that would be restrictive on the profession.
As the matter stands now, essentially the gov-
ernment arbitrarily determines what the basis
of payment will be.
Now I am not saying that they do that in
practice; they do not have discussions and so
on with the medical association. As far as the
law is concerned, however, they can arbitrar-
ily determine the basis on which they will
make payments. The statute says that for
two years it will be on the basis of the OMA
schedule existing at the time the section
comes into force. Thereafter, as far as I can
see, nothing governs it and, therefore, it
would follow that the government simply
determines itself what the schedule will be
under its power to make regulations.
We are suggesting that there should be a
recognized procedure whereby the govern-
ment will talk to the doctors about the sched-
ule of fees to be used as a basis for payment
under the Act, and that if there is a dispute
there should be some sort of machinery agree-
able to both parties whereby the matter can
be arbitrated. Then we would hope in those
situations that both parties would accept the
arbitration without further ado. I think it is
necessary to work towards that type of pro-
cedure. Otherwise, we can anticipate trouble
in the future.
I am not saying we will run into the kind
of trouble that has occurred in Belgium, be-
cause I think Belgium is different from Can-
ada; its problems are of an entirely different
nature. On the other hand, there is a prob-
lem in Belgium, and the problem is over the
negotiation of the payments that doctors are
going to get. That is what it turns on. I
think we should be preparing ourselves for
this.
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
611
I believe that our amendment does not
really go far enough, but it was the best we
could do in dealing with the sections as
they are now before us. I would like to see
it clearly laid down in the Act, that we
start off with the present OMA schedule.
We then have a procedure whereby from
time to time, as necessary, it can be changed
by agreement, and where there is no agree-
ment, there will be arbitration.
I do not think it is relevant for the hon.
Minister to say that the OMA cannot nego-
tiate for individual doctors. I am not
suggesting that it can, but what it can do
is speak for doctors as a group as to what
they think is a desirable schedule of fees.
They are doing it right now. They issue a
schedule of fees as a recommended schedule.
They are doing that as a group right now.
This schedule of fees is now acquiring a
new significance because it becomes a basis
under which payments are made out of
public funds. The future determination of
that schedule takes on a public significance
that it did not previously have, and there-
fore, I think better guidelines should be laid
down in the Act than are now laid down as
to what we do a year from now, two years
from now, five years from now and so on
in relation to the very important schedule
of fees which becomes really the basis of
payment of public funds.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened to these arguments carefully, and
again I repeat that there could be, and
would be, validity in the argument if there
were two parties to negotiate. As I see it,
there can be no negotiation unless there are
at least two parties, and there are not two
parties at the present time. I stated that we
discussed this, and frankly I was going
along merrily believing that the executive of
the Ontario medical association did have the
power to negotiate for the profession. When
I was a practising physician and a member
of the association I believed that the execu-
tive spoke for me, and when I participated in
an election it was with this in mind, that
these were the men whom I would choose
to speak on my behalf. However, in the
late days of our discussions, they told me
that they did not have this power.
I am led to hope, as the hon. member for
York South pointed out, the parent organiza-
tion-and the OMA is a division of the parent
organization, the Canadian medical associa-
tion-has already established a committee to
look into this whole matter of negotiating.
I would, therefore, ask that hon. members
indulge us for a time and let this go because
it covers the first two years of operation, in
the hope that there will be satisfactory nego-
tiation proceedings set up, a body em-
powered by the Ontario medical association
to speak for them.
Of course, they are drawing up a fee
schedule now which is acceptable to the
group. This is a tariff arrived at by a com-
mittee which goes into the matter very
extensively indeed. I think now it is a con-
tinuing committee dealing with this matter
throughout the whole period between
changes in schedule— this is the latest infor-
mation I have about it. This is then put on
the floor of the council which represents the
whole profession and every member of
council and every member of the association
has a right and an opportunity to speak
about it.
But I cannot possibly, on behalf of gov-
ernment, meet this huge body of people, and
until they have an established group which
is empowered to speak for the profession as
a whole I think it would be most unwise to
write into legislation that we are going to
undertake this. I have stated already, sir,
that we may very well have to do two years
hence exactly as we did in this instance-
discuss with the elected representatives of
the profession, keep them aware of what we
are proposing. Then if they still cannot
negotiate, the government will be placed in
the position of having to take an arbitrary
decision and make it known to the pro-
fession.
I do not see how this proposed amendment
would add anything to our Act at the present
time. Probably next year, probably the year
after, before we are ready to consider any
changes in fee schedule, there will be the
proper machinery that will allow an amend-
ment such as is proposed by the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale to actually work.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
amendment of the member for Riverdale,
please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the amendment,
please rise.
All those opposed to the amendment will
please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 24 and the "nays" 55.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost and section 17 approved.
Section 17 agreed to.
612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 18:
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, on section 18,
we have a few remarks to make. The gov-
ernment in its amendment has suggested four
items which admittedly are an improvement,
but they do not go nearly far enough. There
is one improvement particularly though. I
am glad the government has seen fit to take
the advice we gave them last year of re-
moving the limitation for psychotherapy.
Time and time again we have tried to
emphasize the importance of treating mental
health on the same basis as we treat physical
illness. I think in this province we spend
about one-sixth the amount per patient on
those who are mentally ill as on those who
are physically ill.
We are well aware on this side of the
House that by removing the limitations on
psychotherapy the medical insurance scheme
might be open to some abuse. I think if
this is watched carefully that it will be a
real advance forward. Insofar as that part is
concerned, we heartily support this change.
The removal of the limitations on annual
health examinations and well-baby care is a
good thing, because one of the most impor-
tant things in keeping down medical costs is
finding an illness before it starts, or just at
that point where it is about to begin. So
many of these societies, like the cancer
society, encourage people to have annual
checkups so there is some opportunity for
the doctor to find out if there is any illness.
Well, one of the best ways to find it out is
by having annual health examinations. So
at least we can say the government has
gone this far.
But if we look at such reports as the Hall
commission report we learn of the impor-
tance of giving proper dental care. Well,
the government has come into this House
and it has said that in certain respects if
there is surgical dental work being done it
will be covered under this scheme. But
again, prevention is so important, and what
should be included under the schedule,
which is part of this Act, is the dental care
of children under the age of 18 years. As
a party, we would like to see this done. We
realize that a proper scheme would cover
everybody who is going to need dental care,
but under the present circumstances of the
number of dentists who are available, and
bearing in mind any medical health scheme
will have to be phased over a period of
time, we are saying that for a start, let us
give the protection to those who are under
18.
What is even more important, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the government seems to be
ignoring the heavy burden, particularly on
older people, of the heavy costs of drugs.
Admittedly, drugs are expensive and it would
be an added expense to the scheme, but
even as a beginning those people who are
receiving old age assistance should receive
drugs. The people who are getting on in
years— those who are suffering from arthritis
and similar ills— suffer from an extremely
high cost of drugs. I know, and I am sure
the hon. Minister of Health knows, and I am
sure you know, Mr. Chairman, that there are
many elderly people today who are trying to
live under a very heavy burden of excessive
drug costs. Therefore, I submit that this
amendment the government has brought in,
should have included drug costs for those
who are receiving old age assistance.
Again I emphasize that this should be but
a beginning.
Under what is covered in schedule A, we
as always, see the overweening influence of
the Ontario medical association. I do not
know why they keep ignoring chiropractic
services. We know for a fact that the work-
men's compensation board have used the
services of chiropractors. Some may want
them; some may not, but the Ontario hospital
association is always talking about freedom
of choice. Surely, if a prospective patient
thinks that he would get better services from
a chiropractor he should have the right to go
to the chiropractor and should be covered
under schedule A.
We know that in this province— and again,
it is obvious from the acceptance of chiro-
practic by the workmen's compensation board,
we know that the science of chiropractic has
reached a sufficiently high standard that they
should be accepted. I say to the hon. Minister
that the only reason why the chiropractors
are kept out of this scheme is simply because
of the blind prejudice of the Ontario medical
association. It is a disservice to the people of
the province of Ontario that they have not
been included in here.
Under schedule A, there is item 4 which
we on this side of the House say should be
removed, and that section 4 under the "Ex-
ceptions" of schedule A reads this way:
4. Services with respect to conditions
that, in the opinion of a physician, are not
detrimental to the health of a covered
person including services for cosmetic
purposes only.
Now just briefly look at this matter of what
they call "cosmetic purposes." The govern-
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
613
merit has had the good sense to say that
psychotherapy should be covered. Well, cos-
metic purposes could easily come under the
matter of treatment of psychotherapy. We
know that because—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. I thought that we had estab-
lished this principle two days ago, that where
an amendment was not proposed in this
bill, the section that was already law was not
subject to debate. If we propose to amend it,
then a new bill should be brought in by the
proposer of the amendment suggesting that
an amendment be made.
I would further point out that this section,
before it became law last year, was very
thoroughly debated, and as I recall, it was
amended on the suggestion of the hon. mem-
ber who is now speaking.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, the schedule
is being amended, and all we are suggesting
is that it should be amended further.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Not all of it.
Mr. Trotter: They have amended parts of
it and they have gone on in section 18. They
have removed three of the limitations, and
under the "Exceptions" they made one more
change having to do with dental surgery.
Surely we can talk of what more should be
done.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I submit
that parts of the Act for which amendment
has not been proposed in this bill, should
not be subject to debate, and I think this
principle was established two days ago.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, if you so rule
in that respect, you are certainly limiting
the extent of what can be said under this
schedule. Surely when an Act like Bill No.
136 has been completely ripped apart, we
are dealing, under this Bill No. 6, with amend-
ments to 136. But the truth of it is that it
has been ripped apart to such a vast extent
that this schedule A should certainly be
discussed.
Mr. Chairman: I have made my ruling.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I point
to the fact that two previous Chairmen had
different rulings to yours? If I may suggest
with deep respect to you, I had brought up
an amendment at the very start where I had
included groups, and the Chairman at
that time said it was quite all right, to have
this included under "Persons Covered," I
could include groups. There have been two
other similar amendments which the Chair-
man said would be ruled out even though
the hon. Minister of Health brought up his
point and was overruled.
Mr. Chairman: As I recall, the Chairman
expressed doubt in making his ruling.
Mr. Thompson: You are making it like a
steeplechase; one does not know what kind
of a hurdle one has to face.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I shall
attempt to live within the four corners of
your ruling. First, I may say that we in the
New Democratic Party welcome the first
part of this section 18 which strikes out the
limitations with regard to annual health ex-
aminations, well-baby care and psychother-
apy. We can only say with a sigh of relief,
that on this occasion the fullness of time was
only about eight months. We argued this
last spring and got nowhere; we were steam-
rollered down. Now it is accepted. We are
grateful for these small mercies, and we
trust that the people of the province of On-
tario will benefit from them.
Let me move on now to the next amend-
ment that you have made, and the substitu-
tion thereof, where you say that:
The benefits provided by this standard
medical services insurance contract to a
covered person shall, subject to the limita-
tions prescribed by the regulations, include
payment for the surgical procedures that
are specified in the regulations that are
performed in hospital by a dental surgeon.
The amendment raises the question of pay-
ments to a dental surgeon. In other words,
you are broadening those to whom payments
can be made. Previously it was only going
to be for physicians.
Now, first let me say with regard to dental
or oral surgeons, I am puzzled as to why the
hon. Minister imposes the restriction that this
must be for surgery within a hospital. The
reason why I raise this point, Mr. Chairman,
is that there are many dental surgeons today
—oral surgeons— who have equipped their
offices at considerable expense, and they
have everything that is required in that office
to perform surgery. Therefore, why is the
restriction going to be made that the payment
can be extended to them only if it is done
in the hospital?
It seems to me that the net effect of this
is that you are going to deprive yourself of
an opportunity of using these expensive facili-
ties that have been put in the oral surgeon's
614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
office, and secondly, you are going to impose
an added burden on the use of hospital beds,
because the only way that they can get pay-
ment now is to go into a hospital and the
oral surgeon should follow them into the
hospital and perform the operation there.
It seems to me that this is a mechanical
kind of decision that is going to defeat your
purpose of making the services of dental
surgeons or oral surgeons available and com-
pensable under the Act.
That is point 1.
Secondly, in opening this section the hon.
Minister has not seen fit to extend coverage
to one or two other groups, and yet he is
going to make payment to doctors who may
be performing these same functions as these
one or two other groups. I am referring, for
example, to optometrists and to chiroprac-
tors.
In the instance of optometrists, this
service for eye refraction is handled by an
ophthalmologist— if I have that word correct,
I always have some difficulty with it. If you
have an eye doctor handling it, he gets com-
pensation. But if it is an optometrist who is
handling it, he is not going to get compensa-
tion.
In other words, the government is not
denying, is not saying they will not make
payment for this. What the government is
saying is we will make payment only if it
is handled by an eye doctor, not if it is
handled by an optometrist. Well, I am sorry.
If it goes to an eye doctor, the payment is
made.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not made? Not for
a refraction?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, I stand cor-
rected in that particular instance. But, it
seems to me that you are choosing between
one particular member of the health team
and not another.
Let me try to make my point in connection
with the chiropractor. The medical associa-
tion is taking its traditional antagonistic atti-
tude towards chiropractors, despite the fact
that government agencies like the workmen's
compensation board have now accepted pay-
ment for chiropractic services. I draw this
to the attention of the hon. Minister; it has
reached the point where many insurance
companies have extended their coverage for
chiropractic services, along with medical
services, and they have found that it costs
them nothing more.
In other words, the hon. Minister cannot
come back with the argument that this is
going to mean higher payments and, there-
fore, increased premiums. The simple fact
of the matter is that experience is proving
that when a person has gone to a medical
doctor and he finds that he cannot get satis-
faction instead of going to the second or
third call he will go to a chiropractor because
he thinks he can get, and sometimes he has
got, satisfaction. Or alternatively, instead
of going to a doctor, he will go to a chiro-
practor; because he believes that the chiro-
practor can give him the particular service he
is seeking. In other words, this whole volun-
tary approach, or choice of who you want on
the health team to look after you, is being
denied by the government after it has enun-
ciated this as one of its principles.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this par-
ticular point was substantiated by other de-
velopments in the last year. When the
chiropractors came in to visit the hon. Min-
ister of Health, they had been told a year
ago that this government was waiting until
the LaCroix commission in Quebec had made
its findings.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, this is completely wrong.
The chiropractors were told that we were
waiting— they had asked for a bill— to see
the LaCroix report. The LaCroix report has
not been very helpful in any way to us. Now
we are setting up our own committee to
study the whole matter.
Mr. MacDonald: I just want to draw this
to the attention of the hon. Minister. He
says the LaCroix report has not been helpful.
All I can say is that I understood spokesmen
for the chiropractic assocation to say they
were told this— maybe not by the hon. Minis-
ter—maybe by somebody else in the govern-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: In respect of the bill.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not disputing his
word, that they were waiting until the La-
Croix commission came down. But the hon.
Minister now says that the LaCroix commis-
sion has not been very helpful. The in-
teresting thing is this: The Hall commission
report investigated the job that the LaCroix
commission was doing in Quebec and had
such confidence in it that in its report it
states that it will in effect accept the LaCroix
report as an appendix to the Hall commis-
sion report.
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
615
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did not read it in the
Hall report.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is there; and I
suggest to the hon. Minister that it is in it.
And what does the LaCroix commission say?
Briefly it is this: "The chiropractic vertebral
manipulation is a valuable method of treat-
ment and should be available to the people
of Quebec." There, in essence, is the LaCroix
commission report.
The Hall commission report, by prior state-
ment, has in effect accepted that. This gov-
ernment now, instead of accepting the La-
Croix report and the Hall commission's
acceptance of it, so to speak, has established
its own committee on the healing arts, which
is going to postpone action on this for another
year, or two or three. I do not think that
this is a defensible proposition. What, in
effect, this government is doing, is stepping
in and agreeing to pay one member of the
Tiealth team through this plan from public
funds, and not paying another member of
the health team— and they are using the com-
mittee on healing arts as an excuse, as a
reason, for further delay, as they try to
achieve some sort of a combination with the
Ontario medical association in its traditional
opposition.
I do not think this is defensible. There-
fore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
that section 18 of Bill No. 6 be amended as to
the paragraph to be inserted in schedule (a)
of The Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965,
"by striking out all the words in that para-
graph after the word "payment" in the third
line, and substituting so that the paragraph
which is at the bottom of page six of the bill
will read as follows:
The benefits provided by the standard
medical services insurance contract to a
covered person shall subject to the limita-
tions prescribed by the regulations include
payment for the services of oral surgeons—
which the hon. Minister himself has in his
bill:
—optometrists and chiropractors.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): What is that
going to cost?
Mr. MacDonald: I have indicated that in
many instances it will cost nothing more. It
will be an alternative form of service.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, the
reason the oral surgeons were brought into
this is because there is a certain range of
surgical services performed both by plastic
surgeons and by oral surgeons. This is of
particular importance in respect of our only
dental college in the province, here in To-
ronto; and it was a very grave fear of the
faculty that its teaching will be very greatly
reduced if this were left entirely to surgeons
alone.
After a great deal of discussion and con-
versation with the two colleges— the Royal
college of dental surgeons and the Ontario
college of physicians and surgeons— it was
agreed that this limited list of procedures,
usually referred to as maxillo-facial surgery,
should be approved for payment either to a
plastic surgeon, medically trained, or a den-
tal surgeon. This was agreement reached
between those parties and ourselves.
In respect of the other disciplines, and this
is simply repeating what I said last year, this
was a physicians' services programme. It was
chosen this way because, next to hospital
care, physicians' services take the biggest
slice of the health-care dollar; therefore we
thought that, by providing insurance in this
area, we were performing the greatest service
we possibly could. There has been— and none
of the disciplines referred to are in any ques-
tion or doubt about this— no discrimination.
And I would like the hon. members of this
House to recognize that the OMA was not
consulted about this, and that we are not
bowing to the OMA.
I occupy the chair of Minister of Health.
I consider it my duty to see to it that
whatever healing services come within the
purview of my department are made avail-
able to the people insofar as it is possible.
My great concern is to see that the best pos-
sible service is available to them, and that is
where my concern begins and ends. I do not
believe in chiropractic myself, but I frankly
admit that a very, great many people do be-
lieve in it and a very great many people use
it. This is their right and I would be the
first to defend that right against all comers.
But at the present time— and I have stated
this many times to the people concerned, the
chiropractors, the optometrists, the podiatrists,
the naturopaths and all of them— there is no
discrimination against them as groups. All of
them are practising under laws of this prov-
ince and, as long as they do that, they are
quite within their rights. They therefore
have been given recognition by the state, by
the province of Ontario, but at the present
time we do not believe that we could include
their services under the programme.
When we reach that place where a total
health service is provided for the people,
there is not any doubt in mind that they will
be included. At the present time, we felt
616
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that we had gone as far as we could afford
to go.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, is it not true
that if a man was going to a chiropractor,
because of the fact that he is not covered
under this scheme that is coming about, he
has to go to a medical doctor? Is the hon.
Minister suggesting that the doctor— that the
fees would not be equal? Surely we have
suggested here this afternoon that there
would be a rates schedule, and surely the
schedule would be the same for a chiroprac-
tor as it would for a doctor for the same
service. As far as I am concerned, I simply
cannot see why the cost of the overall scheme
would be any greater by including chiroprac-
tors or optometrists.
Mr. MacDonald: The insurance companies
have proven that it is not.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister can say that the reports of the
insurance companies are contradictory, but
on the other hand one of the best boards and
commissions of this government, the work-
men's compensation board, has accepted
these people. If it accepts them, why can-
not you do it?
What I fear, Mr. Chairman, is this: If you
do not bring the optometrists and chiro-
practors into this scheme, you are going to
legislate them out of business; and when the
time comes in the distant future that the hon.
Minister talks about where there will be an
overall scheme— chiropractors and optome-
trists included— there will not be any chiro-
practors left for this reason.
Who among the citizens and taxpayers of
Ontario is going to go to a chiropractor
when he has to pay the money out of his
own pocket, when in many instances he can
get the same service from a medical doctor?
Obviously he will go to the doctor, the
medical doctor. And yet, Mr. Chairman,
there are not enough of them in the province
of Ontario to look after the legitimate de-
mands of their profession. I simply cannot
see why a chiropractor is not included:
First, because there is no doubt in my mind
that they do a great service; secondly, because
of the fact, in my opinion, that they will be
legislated completely out of business and
thirdly, it simply will not cost any more by
including them in this scheme. I say to my
hon. friends among the Conservative back-
benchers, there are many of you who believe
what I have said here this afternoon. You
are not going to cause a revolution by stand-
ing up and saying what you believe. You
have talked about these matters privately.
Why not stand up and suggest to the hon.
Minister this afternoon what you have said
in the corridors of this Parliament building,
in the past?
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, when I was
on my feet before I had a similar motion in
regard to this. Naturally we support what
the hon. member for York South has said.
For some reason what I was saying was out
of order in the same line, but I now find he
is in order. I am glad that this matter has
come before the House because, as I said
earlier, the whole problem here is the vice-
like grip that the OMA has tried to get on
any health scheme. The treatment of
chiropractic is the very, very same reason
why we are faced with not only the chiro-
practic people being left out, but also the
optometrists— those people in the field of
optometry. So I would hope that this com-
mittee would support the amendment as
given by the hon. member for York South.
If we are going to have any health serv-
ices with a broad base we are going to need
various healing arts as part of the scheme.
No doubt as medicine and the other healing
arts grow there are going to be various
fields that should be added into such a
scheme, and it is a pity that we as a Legis-
lature deliberately serve the particular
groups who in their own interests want to
keep out other healing arts. So I would
hope that it will be supported.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Chairman, I would not want anyone on the
other side to get the impression that I
would be so foolish as to deny the place of
the optometrists and the chiropractors in our
community. I have had personal experience
with them as no doubt have many of the
hon. members.
As much as I would like to support this
motion that they be included now, I think
we have to take into account what the hon.
Minister has said, that in the consideration
of the overall bill, the total bill, it has been
found necessary to delay— which is practic-
ally what he has just said now— adding these
other health services to the bill at this time.
I think the hon. Minister has given assur-
ance now and he has given assurance before
in and out of the House that these services
would be included subsequently. Now as
far as I am concerned, as one who supports
and appreciates the importance of the
optometric services, chiropractic and others,
I think that at this time I am not prepared to
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
617
support the amendment. I am going to
support the hon. Minister, and I say that
after a lot of consideration because we have
people in our areas, in our ridings— I know
you have, as I have— who are keenly inter-
ested in this and have discussed the proposi-
tion with me on many ccacsions. Although
I would be just as happy as many others to
liave this included at the present time I am
not going to support the amendment, I am
going to support the hon. Minister, and I
have every confidence and faith that when
lie makes the statement that these services
will be included, that will be good enough
for me all in due course.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Chairman, I was not going to get involved.
But something occurred in the last minute.
A member of the government said he would
like to see this come about eventually, but
he would support this bill now and these
things would come after. I would like to
tell you of an experience that our people
have had in the county of Welland.
They have Welland county co-op who are
doing an excellent job for the people— one
of these non-profit organizations that serv-
ice many people exceptionally well and they
show a bit of a profit in their annual state-
ment also. For the past two years they have
included chiropractic treatment for their
contributors, for the people who have paid
into this plan, which is a good one— members
of my family also belong. For just about two
years now they have paid the bill for chiro-
practors. It is working out exceptionally
well. No one is being hurt and I do not
know why we have to wait for a year or
maybe two to bring this to the public. This
is the time for action. I do believe that we
should get down to business and give people
the service that they require. This is only
an added service that certain people will
need; they do not need medical men; they
need adjustment. Chiropractors are the ex-
perts in that field.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I
make just one further brief comment? I was
a little intrigued by the logic of the hon.
Minister when he said that he had listened
to the plea of people in the dental surgeons
schools in regard to what it would do to
their teaching programme if these people
were excluded. I suggest to him that pre-
cisely the same argument applies with equal
validity, except the government is discrim-
inating, with regard to the chiropractors.
One of the problems of chiropractors-I
will say quite frankly and I have said it to
my friends in the profession up until now—
is that we have got to be certain that their
profession has adequate standards. The in-
teresting thing is that in the province of
Ontario they have achieved the standards
they have, and I think they are as high as
anywhere on the North American continent,
without a single cent of public funds having
gone into it.
Every other profession— dental, medical,
all of the rest of them— have got millions of
dollars of contributions in terms of their
teaching, in order to establish adequate
standards. The chiropractors have done it on
their own.
So if the hon. Minister of Health is willing
to bow to the pleas of the dental surgeons
and the authorities in the teaching field that
it is going to hurt their teaching if they are
not included in this plan, I suggest the logic
of that argument applies equally, in fact
more strongly, in terms of discrimination
against a chiropractic group which has estab-
lished its present standards on their own
efforts without any public funds. But now
the government is going to continue to dis-
criminate against them.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I have just
one more comment to make to the hon. Min-
ister. What really is he afraid of? Is he
afraid that these people have not had the
proper training?
Mr. Bryden: He is afraid of the OMA.
Mr. Whicher: The optometrists, as I
understand it, have about four years of
training, chiropractors have about four years
of training, and the hon. member for Wood-
bine, in my opinion, hit the nail on the
head. We are all slightly afraid of the OMA,
and the hon. Minister is the most frightened
of any of us.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Whicher: What does the OMA think
they are anyway, God Almighty? There are
a lot of people in the province of Ontario
who need chiropractic and optometry serv-
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The OMA has never
dictated to me what services I shall put in,
or what services I shall put out. They have
never at any time said a word to me about
chiropractic service, optometrical service or
any other service except their own, and it
has not been a plea that we cover only
their services.
618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I say
this. I certainly accept what the hon. Min-
ister has said, that they have never seen
him about this. But he is certainly preaching
from the same text that they have preached
through the newspapers and television
throughout the province of Ontario.
Maybe they have not gone into the closets
or into his office and told him what they
wanted, but nevertheless he is the strongest
champion that anybody has in this whole
province.
For example, if a person wants to go to
an eye doctor in the city of Owen Sound
today— supposing he needs glasses immedi-
ately—do you know how long it takes him
to get an appointment? At least six months.
And it is going to be longer than that under
this health scheme that we have been pro-
moting here the last few days. Optometrists
are necessary in this province.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order-
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Minister
please sit down for a while? I am not going
to sit down.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order it is specifically spelled out in
the Act that examinations of the eyes by
refraction is not a benefit, no matter who
performs it. It does not matter whether it
is the ophthalmologist or the optometrist, it
is not a benefit under the Act. And it is
rather strange to see that this is included in
practically every state scheme. There came
to my desk just today a report of the Ameri-
can Medicare. The cost of a routine examina-
tion for glasses is among medical bills the
plan will not pay. Now, it is passing strange
that every state that has gone into this has
found the same difficulty.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, all I know is
that in many of the health schemes through-
out the province of Ontario today, and as far
as the co-operatives are concerned, optome-
try services are covered, and as far as I am
concerned they should be covered in this
scheme.
May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that at
the present time there are nearly 600 optome-
trists in Ontario who, in my opinion, are
perfectly competent to do just as good a job
as any medical doctor, as far as looking after
the needs of the people— and that goes doubly
as far as chiropractors are concerned. The
OMA— maybe the hon. Minister is not speak-
ing for them, but he has certainly given a
perfect example of their story here this
afternoon.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I do not want to prolong this, but it
so happens that I have taken the opportunity
on many occasions to get up and espouse the
cause of the chiropractors, the optometrists,
and so on— the paramedical groups. It seems
to me that the point mentioned by the hon.
member for York South is a very valid one, as
well as the point mentioned by the hon.
member for Bruce.
The hon. member for York South men-
tioned that the Hall commission report actu-
ally stated that, as far as they were concerned,
the LaCroix commission report in Quebec
was one on which they would base their
entire case for the chiropractor. As it
happens, the LaCroix commission report
in Quebec has found that chiropractic in-
deed does have some scientific basis, that it
is beneficial to a lot of people who suffer
from back ailments, and ailments of a simi-
lar nature. The very fact that the Hall com-
mission report did say that it would accept
the findings of the LaCroix commission re-
port indicates to me that in effect, the Hall
commission report really knew, and under-
stood, what the LaCroix commission report
was going to bring in in regard to chiroprac-
tic.
What I am saying, in effect, is that the
Hall commission report, as far as I am
concerned, actually supported the profession
of chiropractic; and to me the fact that the
hon. Minister of Health will not recognize
the chiropractic profession, the optometrists,
and the other paramedical groups in this
particular Act, Bill No. 6, is reason to assume
that the medical resources which we now
have will be strained to the breaking point.
Because, as he pointed out, the fact that I
can go to a medical doctor and have that
service provided free of charge and covered
under that plan, will put me in the position,
all things being equal, that I will go to the
medical doctor even though I know that per-
haps a chiropractor would do me more good.
I will go to the medical doctor because, hav-
ing done that, I know that the service is paid
for; whereas, if I go to the chiropractor, then
the service is not paid for— I have to pay it
out of my own pocket.
So I say to my hon. friend that I believe
he should— as he often has said, under the
name of common sense— include these medi-
cal groups in this particular bill.
Mr. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man, I draw your attention to the fact that
FEBRUARY 16, 1966
619
it is now six o'clock and, under the rules, we
either recess or adjourn for the day.
Mr. Chairman: Well, there is still this
amendment to get through.
Mr. Bryden: There will still be discussion
of it, sir.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to put the
amendment, anyway.
Mr. Bryden: No, no! There will be more
discussion. I have some observations to make.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the committee
of the whole House rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report progress
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in any event, between
the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., we will con-
sider items on the order paper under the
heading: "other motions." We will continue
tomorrow with the debate in committee on
Bill No. 6; and thereafter, if we conclude
that matter, we will proceed to the Throne
debate.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 22
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Bebates
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION '
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 17, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
19f>«
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House. Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 17, 1966
Tabling final report of special committee on redistribution, Mr. Robarts 623
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965, bill to amend, reported 626
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Young 631
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Young, agreed to 640
On notice of motion No. 6, Mr. Paterson, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Welch, Mr. Bukator 640
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Bukator 650
Recess, 6 o'clock 650
623
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introductions of bills.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the final report
of the special commission on redistribution
of electoral districts in Ontario. Copies of
this will be distributed to all the hon. mem-
bers.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend is it now
his intention to send this to a committee or
deal with it on the floor of the House?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest we have a look at this report and let
it be assessed and see what we might do
with it. It will have to form the background
for a bill— in other words this is nothing
more than a report.
The committee is a committee appointed
by resolution of this Legislature and there-
fore the committee reports to the entire
Legislature and not to the government. It
is a question whether the report itself should
be referred to a committee of this House,
whether it might be dealt with on the floor
of the full House, or whether we might more
properly introduce a bill embodying the
recommendations contained in the report and
then that bill could be dealt with in the
normal fashion in which legislation is dealt
with in this House.
But I would suggest that we allow the
report to be distributed and examined and
then decide what procedure we will follow
after that.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I rise on a point of personal privi-
lege. In the final edition of the Toronto
Telegram of Wednesday, February 16, there
Thursday, February 17, 1966
is a paragraph which says, and I quote: "Mr.
Thompson claimed in the Legislature yes-
terday jthat $300 million was leaving
Canada."
I made no such statement and I will re-
peat for clarification what I did say. It was
this, and I quote from my speech in the
Legislature:
I wonder if the hon. Provincial Trea-
surer knows that U.S. -controlled com-
panies are now raising large capital funds
in Ontario. Let me explain. The volun-
tary guidelines put limits on the amounts
U.S. companies can raise within the States
for investment in foreign countries. As a
result at least 20 large U.S. companies
have set up new subsidiaries to raise
money outside the U.S. in U.S. dollars for
their operations in Europe.
I continued in my speech:
Total borrowings for the past five
months come to at least $300 million in
U.S. dollars, much of it raised in Ontario.
I thought my remarks were clear and I trust
that this clears up the confusion in all quar-
ters, including any who are quoted as say-
ing that I was "mixed up" or "confused" or
"exaggerating."
I am satisfied that the information I gave
is correct. Also, Mr. Speaker, there has been
newspaper speculation as to who my advisors
were in this matter. I say to the House that
I have many advisers, not only on this sub-
ject but on all subjects which concern the
Legislature. I sometimes take their advice
and I sometimes reject it, but any statements
I make are my own, after I have carefully
weighed the advice I have been given.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), a copy of which has
been submitted to him.
Has the Ontario hospital services commis-
sion established a listing of categories of per-
sonnel to guide nurses and the labour
relations board in future applications by
nurses for bargaining rights?
624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the commission has not estab-
lished such a listing of personnel for the
purpose mentioned and no request has been
placed before us to do this.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may fol-
low with a supplementary question of the
hon. Minister.
Is he aware that the recommendation of
Mr. Jacob Finkelman, QC, chairman of the
Ontario labour relations board during the
hearings at the Riverview hospital in Wind-
sor, said that the lack of the definition of
students for each category of personnel was
one of the main difficulties in bargaining?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I was aware of that,
Mr. Speaker, but I do not think that this
comes within the purview of the responsibil-
ity of the hospital services commission at all.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to direct a question to the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man), notice of which has been given. I trust
that the hon. Minister will answer it while I
am still here, because I see that my time here,
according to this report, is short.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the announcement
of the sale of cattle from the St. John's train-
ing school, could the hon. Minister inform
this House if it is the intention of this insti-
tution to do away with the animal husbandry
and agricultural operation? If so, have there
been any studies made as to why this type of
training is no longer beneficial in the rehabili-
tation of the trainees of St. John's?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, in reply— and in
answer to the hon. member's comment about
answering these questions before he disap-
pears from this House— if he continues to ask
as many questions, the House will never dis-
solve and he will never disappear from it.
In reply to the hon. member's questions,
Mr. Speaker, the farm at St. John's training
school owned and operated by the brothers
of the Christian schools has never been used
as a form of training in the therapeutic re-
habilitation sense. A greater percentage of
the population of this school is under the age
of 16 years and therefore the educational pro-
gramme of these children has necessitated
their full-time attendance in the school class-
room.
The occasional boy over the age of 16 has
been employed on the farm in the past, but
there has been no regular course of study in
animal husbandry at the school.
Before this school was constructed, the
farm buildings comprised part of the prop-
erty and the Christian brothers felt at that
time that these buildings could be put to use
in the raising of cattle, chickens and pigs
which could be used by the school, as well as
the community of brothers. This govern-
ment's action assuming full operating costs
of the private training schools encouraged the
Christian brothers to make a study of the
costs and value of operating this unit. They
concluded that it was not a successful opera-
tion and should be terminated. There are
very few children admitted to the school who
are interested in this type of training and as
previously mentioned, their academic educa-
tional programme should be continued.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Tourism and
Information (Mr. Auld), a copy of the ques-
tion has been submitted to him.
What are the department's plans in 1966
for a tourist reception centre at or near the
exit to the Ambassador bridge in Windsor?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, approval has
been given to The Department of Public
Works to purchase the necessary property
and I am informed by the hon. Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell) that the plans for
the structure which will go on it are virtually
complete. As soon as this is done, tenders
will be called.
I would also tell the hon. member that we
have made arrangements for temporary facili-
ties adjacent to the bridge entrance to be
used until such time as the new building is
completed.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask
the hon. Minister a supplementary question:
I have a little difficulty in hearing him be-
cause of the paper noise in the background.
Does the hon. Minister intend to use the
facilities of the Ambassador bridge for the
setting up of a reception centre this coming
year?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not as familiar with
the area as the hon. member, Mr. Speaker,
but my understanding is that the property
being purchased is adjacent to the bridge, but
not on the bridge property. The place where
we propose to use temporary facilities is on
the bridge property and has been made avail-
able to us by the bridge authorities, as I
understand it.
Mr. Newman: The facilities will not be
available this year, then, will they?
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
625
Hon. Mr. Auld: That I cannot answer ex-
cept to say that we expect it will be com-
pleted before the end of this year.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Health, notice of which has been given.
Could the hon. Minister inform this House
what steps are being taken by his department
regarding the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides, in view of the study made by
the technical advisory unit, food and drug
directorate?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, while
there have been no cases of humans being
poisoned from minute quantities of chlori-
nated hydrocarbon insecticides remaining on
food, there is concern over their persistence,
and over the evidence that low levels may
accumulate in the fat of man and animals.
The Department of Health and The Depart-
ment of Agriculture have active programmes
for the control of pesticides, in which they
co-operate closely with the federal food and
drug directorate and the federal Department
of Agriculture. In addition, during the cur-
rent session of the Legislature, I propose to
put before the Legislature certain amend-
ments to our pesticides control Act to further
strengthen our control programme.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a supplementary question? Is
his department giving any consideration to
the possibility of having insecticides sold in
the same manner as poison, with the pur-
chaser signing a poison register?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am not in a position,
Mr. Speaker, to answer that question, but I
will have the information for the hon. mem-
ber.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Provincial
Secretary (Mr. Yaremko).
Will the hon. Provincial Secretary please
tell the House the birthrate for the province
of Ontario for the years, 1961, 1962, 1963,
1964 and 1965?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
The birthrate per thousand population for
1961, 25.3; 1962, 24.6; 1963, 24.1; 1964,
23.2; the rate for 1965 is not yet available.
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I would like to make a statement
in regard to certain allegations and remarks
made by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) in the House yesterday, regarding the
purchase by my department of the building
at 135 St. Clair avenue west from Gunnar
Realty last December.
To clear the air and to give the House all
the information which is available to my
own department in regard to this transaction,
I asked my Deputy Minister to prepare a
memorandum which I shall now read:
With reference to the attached news
article in the Globe and Mail of February
17, Mr. Elmer Sopha, MPP makes fur-
ther inquiry as to the purchase by the
province of the above building which was
acquired for office space for The Depart-
ment of Health.
As you will recall in a previous state-
ment, a question was asked in the Legisla-
ture on this matter-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): But not an-
swered.
Hon. Mr. Connell:
—one of the questions being: "How much
did Gunnar-McNamara pay for the build-
ing before it was purchased by the prov-
ince?"
The answer to this portion of the ques-
tion was that information was not avail-
able, because the province had no part in
the original purchase from the firm that
originally erected the building. The origi-
nal negotiations for the lease of this prop-
erty were made between the Ontario
hospital association (the Blue Cross) and
Jayton Investments Limited, who estab-
lished the yearly rental of $37,500, men-
tioned below. This company erected the
building under a contract with Angus
Robertson Limited and later sold the build-
ing to Gunnar Realty Limited. It was on
the amount of. this sale that the depart-
ment had no information, because it was
made before the province started negotia-
tions for the purchase.
I personally checked the amount of the
contract price of the Angus Robertson
Company and was given confidential infor-
mation to satisfy myself that the asking
price as made by Gunnar Realty was
reasonable.
A study by the property office showed
that the cost per square foot of office
space was in keeping with current figures
of $20 per square foot on the 144,243 gross
square feet of the building, or $2,888,860.
The property office checked the equip-
ment placed in the building by Gunnar
Realty after their purchase and determined
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the built-in equipment which we
were buying with the building had cost
at least $500,000. On this basis the asking
price appeared quite in order.
In purchasing the building, the depart-
ment was bound by all the conditions, out-
standing leases, etc., that went with the
property, among these were the following:
1. The $2 million mortgage held by
Manufacturers Life.
2. Leases with the following tenants:
Canadian-Imperial Bank of Commerce,
General Steelwares, Domtar Chemicals
Limited, Prest-o-lite Limited, James Gordon
Sweaton, Package Industrials Limited,
totalling $128,913.46 per year.
There were other commitments. For
example, with the Associated Broadcasting
Corporation Limited, to pipe music regu-
larly into the various offices; elevators
maintenance contracts with the Otis Ele-
vator Company; water treatment contract
with Culligan Limited and air conditioning
contract with Trane Service Agency, To-
ronto.
There were certain rooms in the building
equipped for the specific use of Gunnar-
McNamara and their tenants, which are
being adapted for office space by our
department.
Mention has been made of the fact that
the province does not yet own the land on
which this building sits, although we are
negotiating with the owners, the Ontario
hospital association. The commitments
which we purchased from Gunnar-Mc-
Namara include a long-term lease, 20 years
basic, with the right of extension to a
total of 54 years, at a yearly rental of
$37,500 for the first period, subject to nego-
tiation at the end of the 20-year period.
We propose to wipe out this arrangement
in time and also to discharge the mortgage
and obtain clear title to the land and the
building.
As you will recall, we were asked to
acquire accommodation for The Depart-
ment of Health in November of 1965 for
600 employees and if possible have this
accommodation available by December 15,
1965. It was impossible to erect a new
building in that short period of time. Our
property office searched for an existing
building that could be rapidly converted
for office space. I have no hesitation in
stating that the purchase of this building
was both economical and timely. I firmly
believe the province received excellent
value for the investment and the required
office space has been placed at the dis-
posal of The Department of Health within
the time limit requested.
That is signed by my Deputy Minister.
Earlier in his report it mentioned that the
value was estimated at about $20 per square
foot at that time. I checked with a number
of architects today and they have estimated
that a similar type of building today would
cost at least $22 a foot, and possibly $24 per
square foot.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): But how
old is the building? By how much have build-
ing costs gone up?
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: Third order, committee
of the whole House; Mr. A. W. Downer
in the chair.
THE MEDICAL SERVICES INSURANCE
ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill No. 6, An Act
to amend The Medical Services Insurance
Act, 1965.
On section 18:
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I have
a question I should like to put to the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) on this
section.
He suggested yesterday that there were
contradictory reports from insurance com-
panies relating to whether or not costs were
actually increased in such plans when chiro-
practic and optometric services were included.
I wonder if the hon. Minister could indicate
to the House which companies, and on what
basis he conveyed that information to the
Opposition?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question.
I only know that from the great number of
reports I have, that these matters are all
in controversy.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, can the hon.
Minister of Health not name a single instance
where this is indicated? I say to the hon.
Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that we
cannot have it both ways in this House.
If, in fact, the Ontario medical association,
with its view of ill-concealed disdain for the
paramedical professions, if in fact that view
has not determined the hon. Minister of
Health, then there must be some other view.
What, in effect, he is saying is that the
economists, actuaries and professional reports
indicate that the cost of the plan would be
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
627
increased. But in truth, Mr. Chairman, all we
are really being given is another example of
autocracy by experts. Nothing is, in fact,
spelled out; surely no one can contend that
you have the right to come to the House and
say the expert opinion posits this fact, and
then give us no corroborating evidence at all.
There were many hon. members in this
House, including the member for Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) yesterday, who obviously had a very
close relationship with chiropractic services,
who knew some facts about the costs of those
services. We quoted the LaCroix commis-
sion. We quoted the Hall commission to the
hon. Minister and the Minister has given us
no responsible reply. Mr. Chairman, I think
he should. I think he should give us some
documented evidence for discarding the para-
medical professions from the plan at this
point, since our contention is that for the
same services, there would be no increase in
cost.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The best corroborative
evidence one can give of this is that where
these services are included, in the great
majority of instances they are included in
what is known as major medical services or
extended benefits. I think this is proof of the
fact that they do cost more than the basic
physicians' services.
I would like to emphasize again, sir, that
the Ontario medical association and the medi-
cal profession have nothing to do with saying
what benefits would be provided within the
terms of this contract.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I, too, would express my concern over
the chiropractors and optometrists being dis-
criminated against in this bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a point of order to take issue with that.
There is no discrimination. I have stated this
unequivocably before the House; there is no
discrimination.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, many of our
citizens have been using the services of these
two fine professions in the province. A couple
of weeks ago I was into a doctor's office
which was filled. When I got in to see the
doctor, I asked him how long he had been
practising here. He said 42 years. He also
said he was doing more work then than when
he first started to practise. He was over 70
years of age. If he should stop work, what
would happen to the people on account of
the shortage of doctors?
This raises a great concern where you are
going to be funnelling those who use the
services of the chiropractors and the op-
tometrists right into the medical doctors'
hands. This is going to increase the work of
our doctors.
This is of great concern to many of our
citizens, Mr. Minister, and we hope you will
take another look at this.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I really must protest at the categorical asser-
tion of the hon. Minister that there is no
discrimination in the bill as it now exists
against these paramedical groups referred to
in the amendment.
He comes before us time after time saying
that certain unnamed experts have divined
heaven and have discovered certain immut-
able laws that we mere legislators must
accept without question, without even asking
for the qualifications of the experts concerned.
But when he further makes a dogmatic state-
ment that a bill under which accounts for
certain people will be paid, but not for other
people, is not discriminatory, I suggest that
he has himself confused with God to the
point where it is ridiculous. How can he
make such a statement? It is plain on the
face of it that if people can get a certain type
of service in one place without paying for it
and they have to pay at another place, they
are likely to choose the place where they do
not pay. If legislation provides that an
account will be paid in some cases and not
in others, then it discriminates in favour of
those cases where no payment is required, or
where payment is made out of the public
Treasury.
I frankly admit to no expertise of any kind
in this field. I am in no position to pass
judgment on the qualifications of chiroprac-
tors, optometrists or oral surgeons. My opin-
ion on that would not matter. The point is,
however, that they are licensed to practise in
certain fields and under certain conditions in
this province, and licensed medical practi-
tioners often perform the same sort of work
that these people do in some fields. There is
not complete duplication. But insofar as the
licensed medical practitioners work in the
fields of these other people, the bill is obvi-
ously discriminatory in their favour and
against the other people.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that we, in
our public statutes, should not in effect be
passing judgment on the relative merits of
these particular groups working in the health
field unless we have a lot more evidence to
convince us that we can legitimately pass
judgment on their relative merits. I can re-
member a great many years ago when the
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
question of chiropractors was a lively issue
with regard to workmen's compensation.
I was, at that time, in a province which made
many pioneering changes in workmen's com-
pensation and this was one of the fields in
which we were interested.
I would go to the medical bureaucrats in
The Department of Health and say: "Is there
a sound scientific basis for determining that
the chiropractors do not provide a quality of
service which would justify their inclusion
under The Workmen's Compensation Act?"
The type of answer I always got was to the
effect: "We will not say anything. We will
not express any opinion at all except do not
cover them."
Of course, we know that the medical pro-
fession never mixes in politics, but it takes
over departments of health across the coun-
try. It does not use these old-fashioned,
crude pressure- group techniques of going to
the government with a printed brief and read-
ing it while Cabinet Ministers doze. Then
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister makes
a few well-chosen comments. No, it does not
bother with that sort of crude amateurism;
it just moves into the administrative area in
which it is interested and takes it over. So
the hon. Minister does not have to go to
the OMA to find out what the OMA wants.
Why, he is surrounded by it. The whole
atmosphere is permeated by the thinking
of the OMA, and the other groups in the
health field get mighty short shrift. They are
always being pushed down— denigrated by the
medical group. It is all done very subtly. It
is hard to smoke it out, but I can certainly
say from my experience in the field of public
administration that you can never get them
to say that chiropractic services are not scien-
tifically performed; they are of no benefit
to people. I do not know whether they are
or are not, but you can never get any
statement. You get just a constant pressure
that you should not do certain things.
I will say that in Saskatchewan we went
ahead and did it. We did not really know
whether we were doing the right thing or
not; we could not get any expert advice, but
we went ahead and covered them under The
Workmen's Compensation Act and I think
now chiropractic services qualify under all or
most workmen's compensation Acts in the
country.
It is not my impression on the basis of any
information I have had that this has had a
deleterious effect at all. In fact, I think the
effect has been beneficial. I do not think that
there is any workmen's compensation board
that would now suggest that it should cease
to cover chiropractic services under certain
conditions. Of course, there are also con-
ditions attached to all the services they
perform, and that is reasonable enough.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that his legis-
lation is, on the face of it, discriminatory
among certain groups without any valid reason
being given for the discrimination and that
therefore he should remove the discrimina-
tion. As to the matter of cost, this is difficult
to determine but if some people in your
medical welfare group— the people who are,
shall we say, compulsorily covered so that
if they want to get free services they will
get it— let them make a choice the same as
any other citizen. When a person pays his
$150 or whatever it is that is required, let
him also make a choice. If he finds that the
chiropractor is not giving him service such as
he wants, he will probably seek other pro-
fessional advice.
Personally, I have never consulted a chiro-
practor in my life. I do not see that they
provide any services that would be beneficial
to me at all, but that is a different matter.
I know lots of people who think they have
been greatly benefited by chiropractors.
Frankly I think that this whole area of how
the human mechanism operates still has
enough uncertainty in it that nobody can say
dogmatically just who might be able to
provide the best service for any particular
condition.
I think in fairness to the professional groups
concerned and in fairness to the public who
often want to use their services, that this
amendment should be carried. The scheme
should be adjusted to provide payments for
their services on the same basis or at least
subject to the same type of conditions as are
applicable to services of licensed medical
practitioners.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, the case for the chiropractor and
optometrist has been extremely well put here
this afternoon and on other evenings. How-
ever, I would like to bring up the case of
dental attention and primarily to the in-
dividual up to and including the 18-year-old.
But before I do so, I would like to place on
the record the stand that has been taken on
a comprehensive medical care plan by the
council in the city of Windsor. Back in 1964
the Windsor city council approved a reso-
lution that called for a complete comprehen-
sive plan. Then once the Hall commission
report came down, the city council enlarged
on their plan and included in their resolu-
tion—and I will read just the one paragraph:
"Dental and optical services for children up
to 18 years of age shall be included."
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
629
Now as dental services cost approximately
10 per cent of the whole health care of the
individual, it would only seem proper that in
this bill would be included some provision
for dental services and especially for the
dental services of those who are on some
type of pension— the children of the person
who is receiving some type of governmental
assistance or aid.
Too often that youngster can only be
treated for extractions. No attention is paid
to the fixing of the teeth. He will apply to
a dentist and the dentist naturally, in his
good graces, will take care of the teeth in
the proper fashion, but I do not think it is
fair to be asking for the dentist to be sub-
sidizing the community after that fashion.
In the city of Windsor we have a Civitan
service club, whose prime service is providing
dental treatment to underprivileged children.
Now, I made a plea over four years now for
some type of grant for this service club and
my pleas have always fallen on deaf ears,
both with the hon. Minister of Health and
The Department of Public Welfare. Now I
think that assistance should be given to the
children under 18 years of age, so that
both the health and public welfare ministries
now can say that these individuals are
covered.
The youngsters that do receive this assis-
tance, as far as dental work is concerned in
my own community, come from the very
underprivileged group, and if there is any-
one in the community that we should be
attempting to upgrade, it should be those in-
dividuals. The lack of dental attention
creates a serious emotional handicap in these
youngsters and I think that by including
dental assistance up to the age of 18, we
would take a long step forward.
I would like to relate the case of a grown-
up who required dental assistance. This
fellow— in fact, I can mention his name,
John Maj— was receiving some type of gov-
ernmental assistance. I do not recall whether
it was old age assistance or a disability pen-
sion—but during the Christmas mail run he
was fortunate enough to obtain employment
in the post office. After he had obtained em-
ployment and received his pay cheque, the
department found out and immediately de-
ducted a certain portion of his next assis-
tance cheque.
He suffers from a heart condition, yet still
took this employment so that he could have
some type of dental work done.
Now, here is a man who was deprived of
dental work simply because The Department
of Public Welfare said that only extractions
were permissible. I think if dental assistance
was available under this plan, that man
would have never found himself in that posi-
tion.
However, I would really like to put for-
ward a case for individuals up to the age
of 18, because in my own profession seeing
the youngsters in school, the ones that you
generally see that need all the dental atten-
tion are those who come from the under-
privileged, the lowest financial strata of
society.
I certainly think that in our 20th century
we should attempt to do something, and I
would strongly recommend to the hon. Min-
ister of Health that he include dental serv-
ices, especially to those up to the age of 18.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I do not know whether the hon.
Minister is going to speak to the many rep-
resentations made on this side of the House;
I hope he will. But, I wonder if he would
in the course of his remarks address himself
specifically to the point I made with regard
to his own amendment, namely, restricting
payment to dental surgeons when operating
within a hospital.
I raise the question as to why you deliber-
ately exclude using all the facilities which
many dental surgeons have in their own
office now, when the net result of it will mean
you will be overburdening our hospital situ-
ation which is a problem in itself.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, Mr. Chairman,
in discussing this with the dental surgeons
and with the physicians, we concluded that
this was not to be so, that most of these pro-
cedures have to be done in hospital anyway.
I think the day is passing— and I must say
I cannot speak from very wide experience on
this matter-but I think the day is passing
where surgery is being done in the dentist's
chair, in his office. That day has gone and
I think it is a very good thing for the
people it has gone because this was one of
the most hazardous undertakings I think
that was ever embarked upon.
To answer the other representations that
have been made, Mr. Chairman, I can only
say again, as I have said many times, that
this bill is to insure physicians' services. The
hon. members from both Opposition parties
have talked a great deal about the federal
proposal. Now, the federal proposal, let me
remind you, is specifically stated to cover
physicians' services. I am not, again, detract-
ing from the value of all of these services. I
might suggest to you that because physicians'
630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
services will now be insured, people will have
perhaps a little more left over for themselves
to pay for those other services pending the
time when they shall come under a health
insurance programme.
I would suggest in all kindliness to my hon.
friends from the Socialist benches that they
should not suggest to the chiropractors that
doctors can give their services because the
chiropractors will be the first to deny this.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, there is quite a lot of
overlapping.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is their right.
As far as optometric services are concerned,
it is specifically spelled out in the bill that
optometric services will not be paid for no
matter who gives them. They are not a
benefit under this programme, whether given
by an ophthalmologist, an optometrist or
anybody else. I repeat, sir, that this is a
physicians' services bill and as for the fact
that the others have been left out— the
pharmacists can complain, psychiatrists can
complain, masseurs, and a whole host of
other paramedical personnel can complain
just as validly as can the ones that have been
mentioned here today.
I think this is proof positive that there
has been no discrimination in leaving them
out. This is a physicians' services bill and,
I would repeat, in keeping with the proposals
laid down by the federal government.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the amend-
ment, say "aye."
All opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All in favour of the amendment, please
stand.
All opposed, please stand.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 30, the "nays" 56.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment
lost.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20:
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister is going to
have to be about as agile as a one-armed
paperhanger in trying to get all the different
phases of this legislation into force at the
proper times and get it all meshed together.
And still he has the standard, rather inflexible
commencement type of clause, namely, that
the whole Act comes into force by proclama-
tion of the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor. I think it was the same coming
into force section in the Act passed by us
last year.
First of all, I wonder if I may ask him if
last year's Act, which we have been in the
process of amending, has in fact been pro-
claimed in force? How long has it been in
force?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Two sections have
been proclaimed.
Mr. Bryden: Do you have authority under
a commencement clause of this kind to
declare individual sections in force? Is there
some provision of The Interpretation Act
which enables you to proclaim individual
sections in force?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, I am advised
there is. It would be our intention now to
put the whole Act together and proclaim it
as one piece, with the exception of the two
sections already proclaimed.
Mr. Bryden: What are the two sections
that are now proclaimed?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Section 2, subsection
1, and 27.
Mr. Bryden: What is that again? It is
very hard to hear in here at the present
time.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Section 2, subsection
1, and section 27.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, yes. In other words,
that is the basis on which the administrative
machinery has been set up that the hon.
Minister hopes will be coming into opera-
tion shortly.
Well now, how does the hon. Minister
plan to handle the question of certain groups
starting to get benefits under the Act at an
earlier date than others? As I understand
it, for what we might, as a shorthand term
call, the medical welfare group, benefits will
start being paid in their case on March 1.
Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: April 1.
Mr. Bryden: April 1. In all other cases it
will not be until July 1?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Those in receipt of
social assistance are now under partial cover-
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
631
age. The present agreement will be termi-
nated as of March 31, therefore they have
to be taken over. And the division will take
them over.
It is anticipated, according to the Minis-
ter of National Health and Welfare that the
legislation pertaining to the Canada assist-
ance programme will be in effect by then so
that the federal government will be ready
with its part of the programme.
Since that has been announced, we felt
we should be ready to fit into that part of
the programme when it came into effect.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I still want to
discuss this matter. I understand the ex-
planations of the hon. Minister but the fact
still remains that this means a big increase
in the income of the medical profession from
this class of people, or these classes of
people, that come under various types of
assistance legislation as of April 1 when
nobody else is getting any benefit until
July 1.
It seems to me that the whole thing
should become operative on July 1. I do
not see why the medical profession should
get this bonus for the three-month period
before they are providing services to other
people under the Act. I would suggest to
the hon. Minister, at least as far as the pay-
ment of benefits is concerned, that it all
come into force at the same time.
If it were a matter that the people in these
various groups covered by assistance legisla-
tion would suffer, this would be a different
matter, but I do not see that they will suffer
to any considerable extent at all. All that
will happen will be that the doctors will
benefit greatly, and I think they are doing
very well under the Act as it is. I see no
reason why we should give this extra bonus
for them which will be quite substantial for
an additional three-month period.
Let them get the extra payments in respect
to medical welfare, which I suppose will be
roughly triple the payments they are getting
now, but at the same time as they are pro-
viding services to other people covered by
the Act.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
he proclaim the Act, the whole thing, in
force at the same time, and make it opera-
tive with regard to its benefit provisions all
at the same time.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
Bill No. 6 reported.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and the bill be re-
ported with certain amendments, and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report a bill
with certain amendments and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: First order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment to
the amendment to the motion for an address
in reply to the speech of the Honourable, the
Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of the
session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to continue this debate, I would first
of all ask the serious consideration of this
House to an urgent problem which is facing
some of the employees of this province at the
present time.
Yesterday we had the introduction of a bill
concerning the rights of our citizens. The
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree) in-
troduced it. It is a bill that prohibits dis-
crimination in certain categories and he said
this: "There are still, as hon. members are
aware, a great many capable older workers
with many years of useful employment ahead
of them."
I am quite aware that this bill sets an
upper limit of age 65. Some would quarrel
with that upper .limit because we feel that
the pension situation in this country is not
yet adequate to meet that upper limit.
There are a good many people in this
building who are facing a layoff tomorrow;
they have received a letter which says:
A shortage of work has resulted in a
surplus of staff in the tradesmen and labour
groups. Our records indicate that you
attained the retirement age of 65 years on
February 17, 1964.
—this is the specific letter to which I refer:
It is contrary to the policy of this depart-
ment under these circumstances to retain
employees who are beyond the age of re-
tirement. You will therefore be released
from employment on February 18, 1966,
at 5 p.m.
632
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Should you obtain other employment in
the meantime, one day's notice to the de-
partment will be required in order to pre-
pare your final pay cheque.
Yours truly.
This has gone out to a large number of men
who are over 65 and in the employ of the
province. They are very concerned about this
because some of them— I think all those con-
cerned here are casual staff— have been in the
employ of the province for a great many
years. They have looked forward to reaching
the age at which they could collect the old
age pension. As the House is aware, the pen-
sionable age is now dropping by one year
each year; in a few years the age will be
down to 65.
But these people who today are facing
separation of employment have been counting
on achieving the pensionable age when the
old age pension would carry them over. One
67-year-old man is facing unemployment and
his big problem is that at 67, who will hire
him? Others who are over the 65 age limit
have the same problem.
The hon. Minister said in his statement
yesterday:
We have all had personal experience of
older workers whose lives have been
blighted by difficulties in finding employ-
ment. These difficulties have often been
based entirely on age. We can ill afford to
lose the skills and capabilities of our senior
workers. In terms of dollars and cents and
considering the valuable contribution that
older employees can make, it is wise to pro-
tect the employment opportunities of these
older individuals who are capable and effi-
cient workers.
He also said:
We now have enough reliable informa-
tion and studies from a wide range of
agencies to indicate clearly that many
of the myths held about the capabilities of
older workers are not only untrue, but can
have a deleterious effect upon our develop-
ing and productive economy.
Mr. Speaker, in one of these cases the worker
would be eligible in one year— he is 67 now—
for the old age pension. Others will be elig-
ible in two years and, at most, with the pen-
sionable age dropping, these workers who are
now facing the layoff would be eligible for
the old age pension in 2l/z years' time.
So the treatment seems a little harsh at this
point, because these men have been making
their plans with the old age pension in view.
I quite understand that they chose to be
casual labourers in the employ of the prov-
ince, but they chose that because of the
scandalously low wages being paid.
I have before me the wage schedule that
went into effect in November, 1963. A main-
tenance painter and decorator started at
$4,200 and went up to $4,400.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): What does the
hon. Minister of Labour think of those rates
for skilled labour?
Mr. Young: One of the men concerned— a
painter— gave me the figures for last year in
actual earnings. One of the reasons why
these men did not come on permanent staff
—if they indeed had the opportunity— was
that they received trades' pay as casual
labourers. Of course, they were subject to
periodic layoffs and that sort of thing, but
this one man in particular received last year
$5,310.18 in income. It is not a high income
but it is about $1,000 more than he would
have received if he had been on the per-
manent staff.
Another man received an income of $4,500
because of sickness during the year, but the
problem is, Mr. Speaker, that these men with
just another year or two could bridge that
gap between present employment and the
pension. It may well be that they should
have provided private pensions for themselves
but men on this kind of income would not
have very much to spare to provide these
pensions. So just as a matter of human dig-
nity and decency and common sense, it
seems to me that this House, at least this
government, ought to seriously consider ex-
tension of employment of these particular
individuals.
There is no question that there is work
to be done. Maintenance work must be kept
up in this building and in adjacent buildings,
and while it may be that there may be a week
or two layoff once in a while, I think these
men are quite willing to face that, provided
they can look forward to secure employment
until such time as they are eligible for the
pension.
I simply say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that
this is a generation of men who have built
up the great productive capacity of this na-
tion. Their work was interrupted by depres-
sion and various events which made it im-
possible for them to build up much equity,
yet these men have made it possible for the
great outpouring of goods and services in
Canada and Ontario. To shut them off at
this point from sharing in that output in a
realistic way is just a bit on the cruel and
heartless side.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
633
What I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, is not
charity. It is just plain, simple justice and
I hope that before tomorrow at 5 o'clock,
the Cabinet or whoever is responsible in
this field, will see fit that this matter be
reviewed and that these men be continued
in employment as long as they are productive.
We are not asking more than that— as long
as they are able to do a full day's work for
a full day's pay, until such time as they
reach the age when the pension will be paid
automatically to them.
We bring that to the attention of the hon.
Minister and of the Cabinet and we hope
they will act, thinking in serious terms about
the needs of these men.
Mr. Bryden: Why should they be thrown
off, anway, when they are capable of work-
ing?
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe): What is the
hon. member mumbling about?
Mr. Bryden: It is a serious matter. I
would have thought the hon. member would
be concerned about it.
Mr. Letherby: But I cannot hear the hon.
member when he is mumbling.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member should
go and see the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Connell) and tell him to be a man.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I now turn to
a matter which has been of increasing con-
cern to the hon. members of this House and
to the people, in the northern half particu-
larly, of this continent.
All of us have seen increasing pollution
in our lakes and rivers over the past years.
The Ontario water resources commission has
been taking certain steps in this province to
carry out remedial measures. Our municipali-
ties have been examined. They have been
issued reports. They have been asked to
initiate certain sewage works. Our industries
have been looked at and have been asked
from time to time to look after the effluent
which they are pouring into the rivers of
this province. The same thing has been
happening across the border in the United
States. The situation has become so serious
in part of our international waterway and
water system that the international joint
commission has been asked to look into the
situation regarding pollution in our lakes
and rivers.
I have before me an interim report of the
international joint commission of the United
States and Canada on the pollution of Lake
Erie, Lake Ontario and the international
section of the St. Lawrence river.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this report
was tabled because the commission felt an
emergency situation ought to be faced up to
at this time. The preamble to the report ex-
plains what happened. On October 7, 1964,
the Secretary of State for External Affairs
of the government of Canada and the Secre-
tary of State for the government of the
United States requested the international
joint commission to investigate and report
upon the extent, causes, location and effect
of pollution in the waters, limited here to
Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international
section of the St. Lawrence river, and to
recommend the most practicable remedial
measures which might be considered neces-
sary. Their terms of reference include these:
The commission is requested to inquire
into and report to the two governments
upon the following questions:
Are the waters of Lake Erie, Lake On-
tario and the international section of the
St. Lawrence river being polluted on
either side of the boundary to an extent
which is causing, or likely to cause, injury
to health and property on either side of
the boundary?
If the foregoing question is answered
in the affirmative to what extent, by what
causes and in what localities is such pollu-
tion taking place and if the commission
should find that pollution of the character
just referred to is taking place, what
remedial measures would, in its judg-
ment, be most practicable from the eco-
nomic, sanitary and other points of view,
and what would be the probable cost
thereof?
Mr. Speaker, this report was tabled because
of the emergent situation. The report says
this:
Because of the magnitude and com-
plexity of the problems involved, it will,
inevitably, be some time before these
investigations can be completed. How-
ever, the information so far achieved,
although far from complete, reveals that
the situation, particularly in Lake Erie, is
serious and is deteriorating. For this
reason, the commission has concluded that
the facts should be brought immediately
to the attention of the two governments.
And what is the situation? The situation that
concerns them is the excessive enrichment of
these waters by nutrients. This phenomenon,
technically known as eutrification, causes the
634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
prolific and rapid growth of aquatic vegeta-
tion such as algae. In others words, the
growth of algae is primary. These algae not
only seriously interfere with essential uses
of the waters, but their decay progressively
exhausts the dissolved oxygen at the lower
depths of the lake. It has been established
that the high proportion of the nutrients dis-
charged into the lakes is contained in the
effluents from municipal and industrial facili-
ties.
The report points out that while there is
yet no definite proof that the cessation of
such nutrients going into the lake will cure
the situation now existing in a hurry, they
do find that it is necessary, in order to pre-
vent further deterioration, to cut off the
source of the pollutants as soon as humanly
possible.
Recent data, the report says, "indicate an
accelerated rate of deterioration in Lake
Erie, and there is an indication of a similar
process, though less advanced, taking place
in Lake Ontario."
They give an example of the growth of
algae. Adjacent to Cleveland, the growth
increased from 200 to 400 cells per millilitre
between the years 1920 and 1930 to 1,500 to
2,300 in 1962— seven times during that
period. About 350 miles of the shoreline of
Lake Erie and 300 miles of the shoreline
of Lake Ontario in the United States are
suitable habitats for the nuisance-forming
algae called cladophora. Prolific growths of
this algae were reported in these areas in
1965. In September of 1964, some 800
square miles of algae blooms were noted on
the surface of Lake Erie. In July of 1965,
the blooms were found in the southeast
section of Lake Ontario, and some 43 miles
of shoreline between Toronto and Presqu'ile
Point were affected by the accumulation in
1964. As I said in 1965, they are now mov-
ing into Lake Ontario.
Of course, the algae growth curtails com-
mercial fishing, and recreational activities.
It imparts obnoxious odours. It impairs
filtering operations of industrial water treat-
ment plants and it lowers waterfront prop-
erty values. And, of course, it interferes
greatly with certain industrial processes and
thus becomes a very serious situation.
The second thing, in addition to the algae
accumulation, is the matter of oxygen con-
tent in the lakes. Records show that in 1929,
and I quote again: "Lake Erie possessed a
high degree of oxygen saturation, even to
the lowest depths. In the bottom layer of
the central basin of Lake Erie this was true."
This is the part which is now coming
under review. Surveys in 1959 and 1960 of
the bottom zones of Lake Erie, where pro-
nounced thermal stratification exists, indi-
cated that an area of 1,600 square miles of
the central basin exhibited low oxygen con-
centration. And in 1965, a total of 2,600
square miles, or 25 per cent of the entire
area, had an oxygen level of less than two
parts per million in the bottom layer. Be-
cause of the water stratification, the water
does not sink and the oxygen is not renewed;
that is, the top water does not sink down
and the oxygen is not renewed at the lower
level. This lack of oxygen means a change
in the whole fish life. The oxygen deficiency
is due to the decay of algae, which drops to
the bottom. The micro-organisms there eat
the algae, and in that process they clean out
the oxygen from the water.
But once that process of disintegration
takes place, the phosphates which drop with
the algae stay there and are, once more,
available for the new cycle; so the lake be-
comes almost permanently polluted.
The bottom fauna of the lake is now
changing drastically. It used to be that im-
portant fish food organisms such as mayflies
and caddis flies used to be there in great
quantities. These have virtually disappeared
from the deeper water off Bass Islands. They
have been replaced by slugworms and blood-
worms, which are inferior fish food, tolerant
of a low oxygen content and indicative of
polluted conditions. This means that the fish
life in Lake Erie has changed tremendously.
Whitefish, ciscoe, the walleye and the blue
pike have all but disappeared.
I have a report here of a speech by the
Hon. Stewart L. Uddall, Secretary of the
Interior of the United States before the
united automobile workers' conference in
Detroit last November. He says this:
One dramatic illustration of the price
of pollution bears repeating. It appears as
part of a Cleveland article and contrasts
the blue pike catch in Lake Erie in 1956
and 1963. The figures are so startling that
my first reaction was it must be a misprint,
for blue pike production in 1956 was nearly
7,000,000 lb worth $1,316,000. But by 1963
it was down to 200 lb. worth $120. That a
body of water the size of Lake Erie could
become so polluted in that short time is a
threat which cannot be ignored and except
for the size of the water body involved the
same situation exists all across our land.
Whether it be detergent foam bouncing
along on the surface of playfully bubbling
brooks or the great cloud mass of algae
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
635
which is sucking the life-giving oxygen
out of the water of our greatest lakes, the
overriding problem is one of pollution,
the time to deal with it is running out. I
have called water conservation the scandal
of our time. It is without a doubt our most
abused resource.
Stewart L. Uddali, Secretary of the Interior
of the United States.
Now this situation is being presented to
us so dramatically that we cannot afford to
ignore it. As I have pointed out a great
problem exists as the algae drops to the
bottom of the lake and makes a permanent
change or what the experts think may well be.
They are not willing to say it is absolutely
permanent, but they say it may well be a
change for years to come.
And so unless some remedial measures are
brought forward quickly, more than we have
now been undertaking, Lake Erie may be-
come, as one of the hon. members has said,
another Dead Sea.
The report does say some encouraging
things about Ontario. It points out that as
far as Lake Erie is concerned, the United
States is the big offender. In New York State
about 53 per cent of municipal wastes from
a population of 10 million receives secondary
treatment, 41 per cent primary treatment and
6 per cent no treatment at all.
In contrast to that, the Canadian portion
of Lake Erie in the province of Ontario, 1.2
million people concerned, 79 per cent of
municipal wastes in a population of 1.2
million, receives secondary treatment, 12 per
cent primary treatment and 9 per cent no
treatment. That means about 21 per cent of
the wastes going into Lake Erie from our side
is still receiving very inadequate treatment,
Mr. Speaker.
As far as Lake Ontario is concerned, about
82 per cent of the wastes receives secondary
treatment, 17 per cent primary treatment and
one per cent no treatment. That is the Ontario
side of Lake Ontario. But the problem here
is that the bulk of those wastes come out
of the sewers of the Metropolitan Toronto
area and while in ordinary times that effluent
does receive secondary treatment, because of
our separation of sanitary and storm sewer
systems in the city of Toronto, when storms
occur the valves have to be opened and all
the effluent rushes out into the lake without
treatment. And so this is a challenge-while
the figures say this, the facts are that it is
not quite as good as the figures seem to say,
particularly during a wet season.
Now as far as industry is concerned, the
commission is informed of 271 sources of in-
dustrial waste in the United States portion
of Lake Erie. The states concerned have
classified 63 of these as having inadequate
waste treatment facilities. The adequacy of
26 has not been determined.
The problem is that many of these in-
dustries that are causing the trouble are very
large industries, pouring very large amounts
of waste into the system.
Similarly in Ontario, 18 of the 29 sources
of industrial waste into Lake Erie are
reported to have adequate treatment and the
balance have inadequate treatment facilities.
So that we are doing fairly well, except for
the fact that many of the industries that do
not have adequate treatment facilities are
very large ones, pouring large amounts of
waste.
At a conference a week ago, dealing with
this very subject, we were told that the city
of Detroit and its area pours 400 barrels of
oil a day into the waters of the lake, and
similar pollution is being poured in great
quantities from that side. But this does not
mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this
side can be too proud of what has happened.
Many of our large sources of industrial pol-
lution are farther up the lakes from the part
which this survey covers and many of the
municipalities on the other lakes are also
offenders.
So it seems that we have a challenge to
speed up the process which we have now
undertaken. Dr. Vance tells us this in a speech
he made before the same conference in
Detroit: that the major challenge in pollution
and control today is in the field of industrial
waste. There are approximately 1,400 indus-
tries throughout Ontario which are under
inspection by the OWRC. The most prom-
inent problem is associated with the sub-
stantial volumes and complex types of waste
waters.
There are pulp and paper mills in Ontario,
for example, with industrial waste flows up
to 40 million gallons per day. Other similar
industries produce extremely strong chemical
wastes whose population equivalent in terms
of domestic sewage are many times larger
than the municipality in which they operate.
And so he urges speed in cleaning up this
situation.
I know that there are many of our indus-
tries concerned with this matter and spending
money in trying to clean up the pollution
that they are pouring into our rivers and
lakes. But, Mr. Speaker, that process evi-
dently, by this report, is not taking place
rapidly enough. Because of the emergent
situation the international joint commission
636
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has issued this interim report to bring the
matter to our attention. And they make cer-
tain recommendations, and I will read them
to the House:
(a) Sufficient purification of all municipal
and industrial wastes before discharge into
these waters and their tributaries to achieve
the maximum possible removal of phos-
phates, (b) Prohibition of the construction
of combined sanitary and storm sewers,
initiation of a programme of separating
existing combined sewers in communities
discharging waste into these waters and
their tributaries.
This has special reference to the city of
Toronto where perhaps the province itself
ought to be looking toward aiding in this pro-
cess of speeding up the separation of storm
and sanitary sewers.
(c) An effective system of regular
sampling of effluents discharged into these
waters and their tributaries in accordance
with a programme approved by the com-
mission.
Mr. Speaker, I lay this report before this
House today and urge upon the House that
action be taken as soon as humanly possible
to implement its recommendations, and to
clean up the kind of situation that is all too
prevalent, right across this province, in many
of our municipalities and in many of our
industries.
The United States we hope will take the
same prompt action and already we believe
that a move is going forward by which the
President and his government will make fed-
eral funds available in order to assist this
process and do it more rapidly than otherwise
might happen. So I hope this province will
move this year and move fast to clean up the
situation before Lake Erie becomes another
Dead Sea and that Lake Ontario may well
follow in its footsteps before too many years
have passed.
An lion, member: In its wake.
Mr. Young: In its wake, yes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to lay before this
House one of the great problems we face in
regard to our highways and the death toll on
those highways.
The Weekend Magazine of November 28,
1965, said this:
Only heart disease and cancer kill more
people than traffic accidents. If you are
between the ages of 5 and 29 you have
more chance of dying on the roads than in
any other single way.
Well, some of us are not between those ages
but our chances of dying on the highways are
still very high.
During 1964, the last year for which fig-
ures are available, we had 111,232 accidents
in Ontario involving motor vehicles. In these
accidents 1,424 people were killed and 54,560
were injured. Property damage amounted to
$55,452,730. What evaluations were put on
the killed and injured in the way of lost time,
lost production, disruption of homes and just
plain agony and grief, we have no way of
knowing. What we do know is that much of
this injury and loss in life and property is
avoidable and completely unnecessary if we
are willing to tackle the carnage and de-
struction more realistically.
When we examine causes of this increasing
toll on our highways two factors stand out
above all others— the driver and the motor
vehicle. Human carelessness must top the list
of contributing causes. During 1964 statistics
show that of the 189,096 drivers involved,
1,400 were suffering extreme fatigue or phy-
sical defects and 15,233 were classified either
as "ability impaired" or "had been drinking."
The rest were apparently normal. The human
factor loomed large in the total number of
accidents. Carelessness, temporary inatten-
tion, misjudgment, speeding, all these took
their toll. Better driving certainly is one
answer to the situation and, while human
perfection in any endeavour is hardly to be
expected, much can be done to improve the
skill and the attitude of the person behind
the wheel.
A start should be made with the young
driver to make sure that his skill with the
motor car and his attitude towards its use
make him as safe a driver as is possible. As
I mentioned in this House last year I believe
that driving instruction should be part of
the educational system whether we incor-
porate it into the present course or offer it as
a required subject after regular hours or on
weekends. For a long time we have taken
for granted that the young driver is an un-
safe driver but evidence is now accumulating
that young people who have had proper
driving instruction are in fact safer drivers
than their elders. So far we have been leav-
ing young people to accumulate driving skills
where they may— often from parents who
themselves are not as efficient as they ought
to be. The result has been the high accident
rate in the younger category. This must be
faced and corrected in a civilization where
driving skill is not only a universal necessity
but too often a matter of sheer survival.
Road design, of course, and traffic manage-
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
637
ment are important in cutting down the acci-
dent toll on our streets and highways. These
matters are getting more and more attention,
and rightly so. I do not propose to deal with
them today except to stress their importance.
What I do want to point out is that gov-
ernment-and that includes the government of
Ontario-is callously and incredibly shelving
responsibility for the structural safety of
one of the most lethal weapons in our civi-
lization—the motor car.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, long an ad-
vocate of safer cars, made it clear in his
State of the Union message last month that
he intended to deal realistically with the
problem of the mounting road carnage. Let
us hope he means business when it comes
to car design as well as the other aspects of
the problem. For right here we come to one
of the problems we face as Canadians:
Most of the cars sold here are designed across
the border. Perhaps present integration of
the industry will help. Only time will tell.
But the fact is that we have known for
many years how to build safer cars. There is
no mystery about it. There is an increasing
body of literature on the subject. Tests have
been conducted by various universities and
other bodies to establish what does in fact
constitute a safe vehicle. Their findings are
there for anyone to read— and for any auto-
mobile manufacturer to profit by. Ralph
Nader, in his book, "Unsafe at any Speed,"
points out, and I quote:
Dashboards and instrument panels with
projecting knobs and flanges can kill a per-
son striking them at five miles an hour.
1965 model dashboards were the most
dangerous ever devised.
Pre-1966 safety glass breaks at 13 miles
an hour, breakage point of 1966 glass is
24 miles an hour. Pedestrians are usually
killed by being speared by hood ornaments,
sharp fenders and grill projections, hooded
headlights.
Dashboards with padding added to the
upper lip are actually more dangerous
than most old unpadded types because the
padding is supported by heavy reinforced
channel iron.
"Deep dish" steering wheels kill and
injure almost as frequently as the old
style.
Mr. Nader points out that all the law-
American law, that is— requires is that auto-
mobiles carry such basic equipment as brakes,
windshield wipers, directional signals and
the like. Canadian law requires no more.
Ontario regulations under The Highway
Traffic Act require two lights in the front and
one red light on the back, two sets of brakes,
emergency brake and regular brake, safety
glass-although it does not actually specify
what safety glass is-windshield wipers and
a rear-view mirror.
The United States public health services
accident prevention bureau estimates that
43 per cent of the people who die in automo-
bile accidents die under survivable conditions.
Dr. Campbell in the CBC TV show, "This
Hour Has Seven Days" recently pointed out
the great hazards in the automobile when
he said this:
The design of the car at the present
time results in injuries because the heads
of the occupants are not protected. The
driver's head strikes the steering wheel
or the corner post and the right-front
seat passenger routinely strikes the corner
post of the instrument panel. And as it
has been said, the main problem in this
whole thing is the prevention of head
injury. Head injury accounts for some-
thing like 70 per cent of all the fatal
traffic deaths.
1964 Ontario Department of Transport statis-
tics show that 559 of the 1,424 killed in On-
tario, died of fractured skulls and that 537
people had serious injuries to the skull.
The United States public health and
national safety council says that one half of
all injury and death-producing accidents
occur within the front quadrant of the auto-
mobiles, and that one half of all accidents
occur at speeds below 40 miles an hour.
These two factors account for one quarter
of the deaths.
National safety council figures would indi-
cate that close to 200 Ontario lives per year
could be saved if people wore seat belts; and
another 200 by proper construction of the
car interiors. This, of course, is in addition
to thousands who would be saved from in-
juries of various degrees of severity.
The general services administration of the
United States government has published a
proposed list of safety specifications which
should be demanded on all cars bought by
the government. These have been watered
down because of opposition from the indus-
try although I noticed in today's paper that
they are once again coming to the fore, and
pressure is being put on the government to
include them in the specifications next year.
The GSA says that a safe motor car should
have the following features: padded dash
and visors; recessed instruments and controls
638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on instrument panel; impact-absorbing steer-
ing wheel and steering column; safety door
latches and hinges; anchorage for seat belt
assemblies; dual brake systems; standard
gear quadrant; safety glass; glare-reduction
surfaces on instrument panel and windshield
wipers; safe tires and safety rims; exhaust
emission control system to limit the amount
of air-polluting elements emitted from the
tailpipe; windshield wipers and washers;
standard bumper height: four-way flasher
that will flash all signal lights together to
warn of a hazard; backup lights; outside
rear-view mirror.
In addition to these features, of course,
the design of the car itself needs alteration.
The Italian Pinin Farina Sigma safety car
prototype which has been put together and
which will be on display in New York at
the auto show in April, has these features:
Fully rounded-off corners and edges; doors
that slide and cannot fly open in a crash;
anti-roll bars built into the roof; the passen-
ger compartment very rigid and strong with
the surrounding structure so tapered in firm-
ness at either end that initial collision
momentum will be absorbed in the buckling
of ends before the compartment is reached;
in head-on crashes the engine is forced under
a strong central area and a steering wheel
arrangement prevents it being pushed back
upon the driver.
Now this car has been put together but
as yet has no engine and has not been
tested so we do not know just what the
results of such a car might be in the pre-
vention of accidents. But this is the kind of
thinking that is going on in Europe in this
respect. And I might also add that no
American car now made contains any of
these features.
The House will recall that in 1964, Metro
Coroner Shulman recommended that all cars
should be built with: 1. Roofs that must be
noncollapsible with rollover bars. 2. Rein-
forced doors with beams to protect against
impact. 3. Trunk wall should be able to
withstand the impact of objects flying for-
ward after sudden stops. In other words, the
cardboard between the trunk and the back
seat should no longer take the impact, it
should be stronger than that. 4. Collapsible
steering wheel. 5. Interiors should be padded
with energy absorbent materials. 6. Shoulder
harnesses and neck protectors should be in
every car. 7. Cars should have two indepen-
dent braking systems; the emergency brake
should be a true emergency and not just a
parking brake. 8. Obstructions to vision
should be removed. 9. Front end surface
should be rounded. Inside knobs should be
recessed. Spikes and spears should be out-
lawed. 10. Door latches should be strength-
ened so that they do not fly open on impact.
Getting a safer car built is not an easy
task. There is too much public apathy in
spite of the tragic toll on the highways.
Accidents occur here and there. Few people
see each one. Relatively few are affected by
each. If we had the year's traffic toll con-
centrated in one spot at one time there
would be such a hue and cry that even our
governments would hear it— and heed. But
such concentration is impossible and the in-
difference continues.
Governments seem to be evading the issue
—jurisdictions are not clearly defined and
above all there is the powerful pressure of
the motor car industry to keep costs down
and profits up. To that end the flashy gadget,
the minimum material content and the con-
sumer eye-appeal becomes far more impor-
tant than safety features designed to prevent
death and injury to those using the machines.
I have here part of the testimony before
one of the American committees that I would
like to put before the House. In 1965
Senator Abraham RibicofFs subcommittee on
executive reorganization, opened hearings in
Washington on the vehicle safety issue. Each
of the four domestic manufacturers of motor
cars was invited to testify. James Roche, the
president of the General Motors Company,
was there and Frederick Donner.
After devoting a quarter of his testimony to
cataloguing past advances— this is the presi-
dent—he went on to discuss the company's
proving grounds, the rigorous company test-
ing, the need for better vehicle maintenance
by car owners and the support General Motors
gives to education in this field. He pointed
the finger to the driver and to the need for
education there.
Then another testimony by Harry Barr,
GM's engineering vice-president. He said that
Dr. Donald Hueike's investigation of 114
fatal accidents financed by a grant of $15,000
from the United States public health service,
not financed by the companies, had given
General Motors more useful information on
second-collision passenger impacts— that is the
impact inside the car— in General Motors' cars
than the company had accumulated in the
preceding 10 years.
Senator Robert F. Kennedy pressed to find
out whether General Motors had similar
investigative arrangements elsewhere in the
country. Barr said: "We have not found an-
other dedicated doctor who is doing this
type of work." Kennedy asked whether he
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
639
had tried to find people in other areas, and
after much evasiveness, Barr simply stated,
"No, I have not."
Kennedy was visibly nettled. Kennedy:
'"What was the profit of General Motors
last year?" Roche: "I don't think that has
anything to do—". Kennedy: "I think I am
entitled to know that figure. You spent a
million and a quarter dollars, as I understand,
in this aspect of safety. I would like to
know what the profit is." Donner: "The one
aspect we are talking about is safety."
Kennedy: "What was the profit of General
Motors last year?" Roche: "$1,700,000,000."
Kennedy: "What?" Donner: "About a billion
and a half, I think." Kennedy: "You made
$1.7 billion last year?" Donner: "That's
correct." Kennedy: "And you spent $1 million
on this?" Donner: "In this particular facet
we are talking about." Kennedy: "If you
just gave one per cent of your profits that
would be $17 million." And so the investiga-
tion went on.
Car manufacturers have talked of safety
and have been concerned with safety research
—but within the general structural concept
of the present cars. They have not been
willing to face up to the problem of new
structural design.
The attiude of the industry is perhaps well
summed up in the words of General Motors
vice-president, Wm. Mitchell, when he said
before the Ribicoff hearing:
The motor car must be exciting and
create a desire and not become mere
transportation or we will have just the
utility and people will spend their money
on other things.
Such an attitude indicates little interest in
safety beyond the minimum demands of the
market, Mr. Speaker.
A significant fact that Nader mentions is
that according to Ford's Gene Bordinat a
new rear end on a car model costs between
$25 million and $50 million. Twenty-five
million dollars is more than the combined
research and development expenditures of
the industry on collision safety in the past
15 years.
It is significant that we do demand safety
standards that are meaningful in rail, marine
and air transport. TCA spent millions of
dollars trying to find out what happened when
the jet liner crashed north of Montreal
some years ago. Similar investigations are
carried on after every major air crash. Yet
we kill thousands of times as many people
in car accidents as we do in the air and
yet we have not begun to look into the funda-
mental problems of car safety.
Mr. Speaker, one of the vexing problems
in car safety is that of tire standards. Various
attempts have been made from time to time
to set tire standards, particularly in the
United States, but so far without too much
success.
In 1959 the Wall Street Journal published
a front-page story which outlined the tire
industry's attempts to get the motor companies
to buy large tires to prevent overloading
which resulted in shorter tire life and in
blowouts long before the tread wore down.
This precipitated public discussion in which
the industry maintained that tire problems
were mainly in the realm of improper use,
maintenance and replacement. In other words,
tire safety was the motorist's not the in-
dustry's responsibility.
At about this time, State Senator Edward
Speno, then chairman of the New York legis-
lative committee on automobile safety, be-
gan to receive letters complaining of new
tires on new cars which blew out after a
few hundred or a few thousand miles. Speno
investigated and became convinced that the
motorist had no way of telling what he was
buying when it came to tires. No genuine
standards existed.
Senator Gaylord A. Nelson in an article
entitled "Death on Wheels" in The Progressive
of September 1965, said this:
The problem is far worse than I had
ever imagined. It seems clear that the
concern for public interest in automobile
and tire design and manufacture is almost
completely obliterated by the competitive
pressures in these industries. Quality labels
on tires, such as Deluxe, Premium and
First Line, have no meaning whatever and
there is no way to tell one tire grade from
another. Size labels on tires were never
meant to indicate the precise size. The
notion that these labels were meant to
indicate the exact size is "merely a recent
misunderstanding on the part of the pub-
lic." It is perfectly possible for a 750
by 14 tire to be larger than 800 by 14. The
ply or ply rating labels on tires have no
understandable meaning any more. Tires
supplied by the auto industry with its new
cars are not designed to carry the full
load for which these automobiles are de-
signed.
General Motors conceded that the design
guide in selecting tires was three pas-
sengers, but said that its sedans could
carry six passengers plus 200 pounds of
luggage provided the tires were specially
inflated at 28 pounds in the front and 30
pounds in the rear.
640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ford conceded it has been customary
to make tire selection on the basis of a
three-passenger load.
Mr. Speaker, it being five of the clock, I
move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: Is the member nearly fin-
ished? If so, we could let him finish.
Mr. Young: I have quite a considerable
amount more.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
May we then turn to page 6 of the order
paper under "Other Motions"? It is motion
No. 6.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 6
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
6 by Mr. Paterson:
Resolution: That, in the opinion of this
House, this government should make avail-
able long-term, guaranteed loans at reas-
onable interest rates for the development
of legitimate attractions and accommoda-
tions in the tourist industry.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Ben, that
this resolution No. 6 stand in my name to be
approved.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Paterson moves motion
No. 6 standing in his name.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, the reason
that I have reintroduced this resolution in
a slightly altered form this year is that, dur-
ing my experience in the tourist business
many motel and hotel operators, in particu-
lar, have come to me to say that they have
been unable to borrow first-mortgage and
second-mortgage money to update their prem-
ises; and that those who can are forced to
pay interest rates as high as 20 per cent.
A second reason is the economic council's
report on the tourist industry, in chapter 19
of which it details financing in this industry.
I think it underlines the basic fact that these
resorts and attractions do require more finan-
ces. In fact, I could turn to one point here
in the economic report:
True, Ontario needs more resorts of
international stature and these resorts can
be earners of foreign exchange. Govern-
ment assistance to such, moreover, is a
way of bonusing export sales without vio-
lating any international agreements.
I think these two reasons underline this reso-
lution.
In section 3 of The Department of Tour-
ism and Information Act, it states:
The objects of this department are to
develop the tourist industry in Ontario by
encouraging and promoting improvements
in the standards of accommodation, facili-
ties and services offered to tourists— and to
undertake to publicize such—
and so forth.
So it is very basic to our industry that
sufficient financing is available to encourage
this development.
I have not dwelt at this point too much
on other attractions such as ski resorts, his-
toric sites and so forth and I will not pass
too much comment on these but these are
all embodied in my thinking in this resolu-
tion. I need only to mention the McCrea
house at Guelph or the Sir John A. Mac-
donald home here in Toronto that could all
fit into this picture should sufficient money
be made available to legitimate operators to
acquire these properties and set up a pro-
gramme of continued operation.
For these reasons I would hope that most
hon. members in this House can support this
bill, certainly in principle if not in fact.
Probably most of us read the article in
last December's Independent Businessman en-
titled "Canada's Third Largest Industry
Withers without Working Capital." It points
out: "many resorts are marginal in profit";
that "many are deteriorating and many have
failed."
Last year in the debates on the estimates
of The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion, I dwelt on this problem at great length
and drew into the debate the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
and also the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Spooner) had a few comments.
As a result of our inquiries the hon.
Minister indicated that from the Ontario
development association only one loan had
been approved for the tourist service indus-
tries. I hope that this number is greatly en-
hanced in his report this year.
To me there are two ways of providing,
or making available, these long-term guar-
anteed loans at reasonable interest rates.
Either the government can set up a formula,
such as the farm improvement loan, specific-
ally for the tourist industry, made up of the
resorts, the motels, the hotels and other
attractions, and have these loans made
through the chartered banks. I would favour
this.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
641
The second method would be through the
Ontario development agency to loan these
moneys directly.
But hinging on both, and underlying all
this, is the involvement of the Ontario de-
velopment agency and The Department of
Tourism and Information. Some small efforts
have been made in this regard by sending
people out to go over the books of these
particular resorts of the tourist industry, to
help train them more fully, to continue to
•check on their operations and to see that
they are headed in the right direction. I
think all of us realize that financing is not
the only problem facing these operators.
They have other problems, and it is up to
this Ontario government, the Ontario de-
velopment agency and this department to
give this assistance.
I might make mention of our provinces to
the east where this is done. In Nova Scotia,
to encourage such expansion, the province
of Nova Scotia offers a counselling service
to prospective owners of motels, and loans
are available under The Industrial Loan Act,
administered by The Nova Scotia Department
of Trade and Industry. These loans, granted
to provide or increase accommodations
where the need is apparent and to enable
substantial improvements in existing facili-
ties, bear an interest rate of 6.5 per cent per
annum.
In the planning programme, the Nova
Scotia food services council and several gov-
ernment departments co-operate in this field
and conduct training courses for personnel
involved in serving the travelling public. To
me, it is all embodied, if and when a loan is
made, that these services should be provided
for the protection of this loan and for the
development of our industry.
In Prince Edward Island, loans are made
available and the province is almost ade-
quately serviced at this present time.
In Newfoundland, the tourist development
loan board will loan up to 50 per cent of
the cost of constructing new units, for motels
and hotels, even including swimming pools.
So the precedent certainly has been set in
other jurisdictions in our country and the
precedent has been set in the farm-loan type
of plan. I can see no reason why some such
similar financial institution and operation
cannot be set up in our province to offer
assistance to this industry.
We often get complaints about the high
rates charged at our hotels and motels. It
is certainly no wonder. If these people are
involved in second mortgages, paying up to
20 per cent interest on their debts, they have
to charge. The whole problem is that of the
loan sharks that take advantage of these
people. They are the blood suckers of our
society, bleeding our tourist operators to
death.
Last year I documented several cases of
financial troubles in the estimates of The
Department of Tourism and Information.
Since then, many more have come to my
attention from all parts of the province. No
doubt many of the hon. members assembled
here have had similar complaints. A few
months ago the federal government saw fit
to designate areas in our province where
tourist facilities will qualify for accelerated
depreciation allowances. Let us give these
areas and all areas of Ontario another boost,
by making available long-term, low-interest
guaranteed loans.
Since I spoke on this last year, I have had
correspondence with the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development and his officials.
Mr. Speaker, in an excellent letter to
me on April 21, many of the problems relat-
ing to this industry were documented in
regard to financing and other problems that
beset this industry. I do not wish to take up
the time of this House in reading this report,
and I do not feel that I can read this report
in part without destroying the whole con-
text of the matter. I would compliment the
hon. Minister and his officials in this regard,
and trust that the facilities of the Ontario
development association will be broadened
and that these facilities will be made better
known to our tourist operators, and help
them in their multiple problems.
But I do request this House to support
my resolution, that this government should
make available these long-term guaranteed
loans, at reasonable interest rates, and help
develop the tourist industry which is so
essential to our provincial economy.
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support the resolution
of the hon. member for Essex South, I do
so with, I think, a very real and very sound
knowledge of a good deal of the tourist
business in the northwestern part of the
province of Ontario.
I can agree with the previous speaker
when he says that during the past few years
tourism generally has grown tremendously.
We all realize that. It has grown in so many
ways, in so many spheres. I am sure all the
hon. members of this House are thoroughly
aware of the trailer aspect of the tourist
business, for instance, and I am sure that
642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as we travel the highways all across the prov-
ince, we see the vast number of trailers using
the roads and the vast number of boat
trailers as well.
These people who are occupying these
trailers and using these boats in the waters
of the province, must have accommodation.
They need suitable accommodation. Unfor-
tunately, many of the people in the tourist
business in the province are, owing to the
rapid increase in the industry, more or less
entrepreneurs. They went into the business
on a shoestring, so to speak. The result of it
is that they have been forced to pour most
of their earnings back into the business each
season. The result of that, of course, is
that they have had to eke out an existence
as far as they personally are concerned. They
have also been almost impelled to supply
more and better accommodation to tourists
from the United States and from other
countries and from other places in Canada.
The result of that has put them in a position
where they have had to borrow money, as
has been said, at fantastic rates of interest.
And in many cases, under fantastic condi-
tions of repayment.
It is known that many of the people in
the northwestern part of the country at the
present time are in a position where they
have to refinance each year in order to carry
out their financial obligations and to carry on
their business. This seems to be a very sad
state of affairs when one considers that the
statistics have a very sound basis of fact
inasmuch as they are contained in this On-
tario tourist industry booklet— a very good
book too, I think, which was published by the
Ontario economic council tourist industry
committee. Other departments contributed to
the book: The Department of Tourism and
Information and The Department of Econ-
omics and Development.
I think it is generally agreed, Mr. Speaker,
that the tourist industry in Ontario is now
recognized as one of the high-income devel-
oping businesses in the province. It is grow-
ing bigger and it should grow bigger, because
our province has everything to offer this
business, to increase its scope and its service
to the people with whom it will be dealing,
not only in the summer months but the winter
months as well.
Skiing we know— and I am sure that my
friend, the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. War-
drope) will agree with me when I say that in
our part of northwestern Ontario, skiing has
developed enormously in the past few years.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Does he ski?
Mr. Freeman: Occasionally, I believe.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He
slips occasionally, anyway.
Mr. Freeman: But I am sure he is very
interested in skiing as a sport and as a rev-
enue-producing industry.
I am sure that the skiing in our part of the
country, as elsewhere in the province, is
growing year by year; it has been developed
into a big business now and those people who>
have money to spend demand proper accom-
modation in which to live while they are out
of their own country or their own area, and
I would hope that many more of them come
to that very fine ski area which we have ini
northwestern Ontario. It has been said by
very expert skiers and people who have tra-
velled throughout the world, that our part of
northwestern Ontario is the best ski area
between the Laurentians and the Rockies.
Now to have this in the province of Ontario
I think is an asset that we must all nurture,
and if it requires financial nurturing I think
we should give very serious consideration to
this matter.
If you start a business and you find that
your business is growing by leaps and bounds,
but you are held in check simply because
you do not have sufficient money with which
to buy stock to service the people who come
to you for service then I suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker, that this is a form of business
strangulation. It is not only a form of busi-
ness strangulation but it must be a frightful
form of business frustration to the operator.
Where a business offers so much— and
where a tourist business, skiing and tourist
resorts, boating, fishing and various other
sports, add so materially to the financial posi-
tion of our province— I believe that it is the
duty of this Legislature, nothing less than the
duty of this Legislature, to give very sound
and very serious consideration to the problem
of setting up some system of finance. A
system that will make it possible for these
people, who are perhaps operating in a small
way within the confines of the province at the
present time, to extend their business interests
to offer better service, to offer better food
supplies, better menus and all that goes with
all this sort of thing.
I believe that the government of this prov-
ince is doing a fairly creditable job with re-
gard to promotion in the area of tourism.
But when you look at the figures which are
contained in this book which is produced— as
I pointed out— by the Ontario economic coun-
cil tourist industry committee and at the addi-
tions which were offered by The Department
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
643
of Economics and Development— I am sure
they had quite a real hand in this— the figures
are very disappointing when you compare
Ontario's financial contribution to the tourist
industry, to that of some of the other and
smaller provinces.
Some of the provinces have much less to
offer the visitor from other countries and the
visitor from other parts of Canada, than we
have here in Ontario.
So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the
words of the previous speaker, my own words,
and I would hope the words of any speakers
who are to follow us on this matter, will fall
on fertile ground and that the thoughts will
not be shrugged off, that the matter will re-
ceive the attention of the Cabinet and of the
hon. Ministers of the departments involved
presently, and other departments who should
be involved such as Lands and Forests— very
definitely involved in this matter, very cer-
tainly involved.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that some real
deep-down thinking be done on this matter
—not ten years from now or 20 years from
now, but this year, 1966, so that we can this
year and next year and in the years to follow
bring an even greater number of people from
foreign countries and visitors from other prov-
inces of Canada to visit Ontario and I would
hope leave with us some of their dollars to
add to our gross provincial product.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development will
agree with me that the contribution of the
tourist industry in the past several years has
added enormously to the gross provincial
product and I would hope that he would use
his influence together with the other hon.
Ministers in this government to see that
something of a sound constructive nature
was done. Thank you.
Mr. R. Welch (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to participate in this particular
debate, coming from that part of the province
which is so rich in the historical treasures
about which we hear so much from time to
time, and to recognize along with the other
speakers, the hon. member for Essex South
and the hon. member for Fort William in a
very real way, the importance of this par-
ticular industry.
We are all well aware of this, I am sure,
because of the copies of the report which
have been made available to us, to which
reference has already been made during the
discussion on this particular resolution. As
you know, the Ontario economic council
several years ago did appoint this tourist in-
dustry committee to study and to present its
findings with respect to this industry, which
according to them is providing some 10 per
cent of the gross provincial product and
which is a very real and important factor
insofar as the returns on investment are con-
cerned.
I would like to say at the outset that I
doubt very much that there would be any
basic disagreement between any of us in this
House with respect to any policy or any sets
of policies or any programmes which would
encourage this industry to grow even further.
I would hope that any discussion I contribute
to this debate this afternoon would be seen
in the light of this— that we must all work
together to develop this particular industry.
The purpose of the committee as we were
told, this particular tourist industry com-
mittee which was established by the council,
was to assess all aspects of tourism in the
province and to formulate certain recom-
mendations concerning at least these two
things.
First, there was the relative effectiveness
of current government assistance and partici-
pation in the tourist industry. This was a
very major part of the study.
And then too the report was to contain an
evaluation of the strength and the weaknesses
within the industry itself. In December of
last year we were all sent copies of the
particular report, which received a great deal
of publicity.
The underlying themes to the report— and
1 think we should keep this in mind as we
discuss the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker
—the underlying themes to the report are that
more money must be spent, but it is a matter
of priority as to the areas which demand
the money first. The report is very definite
in its emphasis on the need for money to be
spent on research into what tourists want,
how these wants can be met, and then the
money which has to be spent on the whole
subject of promotion to get people to actively
involve themselves not only in the industry
itself but as customers, so to speak, of the
industry.
The matter which the hon. member for
Essex South has introduced as the subject-
matter of the resolution is dealt with in the
report itself. He has already made some refer-
ence to this by quoting sections from pages
49 and 50 of the report which has to do with
the whole question of financing the industry.
As an introduction to this particular section
it is interesting to read that during the public
hearings of the tourist industry committee
many references were made to the problem
644
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of credit availability for the tourist operators
of Ontario, and during those hearings ap-
parently much was said about the lack of
funds which were available to finance new
tourist facilities.
Then the report goes on to point out—
and I think this is something very significant
and something that I would like to adopt as
the theme of the few remarks which I have-
that simply having a desire to get into or
expand a particular line of business is really
not a total justification for securing such
financial aid.
There must be a proven market with
demonstrated potential of profit and ack-
nowledged managerial know-how, and given
such there are already some avenues of
access to aid, Mr. Speaker.
In the course of chapter 19 of this report
there is a summary of the type of government
assistance which is now available, subject of
course to the conditions which are laid down
by the particular pieces of legislation which
authorize government either at the federal or
the provincial level to involve itself in this
type of financial programme.
I think this particular report is of interest
naturally to me and it will be of interest to
my hon. colleague from the riding of Niagara
Falls (Mr. Bukator) because there is much
said in this report about the development
and the potential of that particular area.
But as one looks at the highlights of this
report— and I go back to it because I think
anything we say must be seen in the light
of this— the highlights of this council's report
may be summarized along these lines:
That Ontario needs to adopt the hard-sell
tactics of private enterprise, says the report,
to sell tourism; it also goes on to point out
that the tourist promotion budget of $1
million a year is not an adequate sum of
money. Once again returning to the ques-
tion of promoting those particular facilities
and those particular assets which we now
have, the report goes on to highlight the
fact that apparently we in Ontario are very
timid about advertising the attractions which
we have, and if we were to promote this in
a more active way it certainly should bring
very real results.
It also goes on to point out very sig-
nificantly, and this goes to underline what
the hon. member for Fort William and the
hon. member for Essex South have im-
pressed already on this House in their very
able presentations, that for each dollar which
is invested by government in tourist pro-
motion, a minimum of $20 in tax revenue
is being generated, and I think this is a
pretty good return in the concept of eco-
nomics.
Tourists are not staying, says the report,
long enough, and travel agents are enticing
our people elsewhere, namely, abroad. Then
they talk about more imaginative promotion
being needed for our two show windows,
Niagara Falls and Upper Canada Village. I
will leave the promotion with respect to
Niagara Falls in the very capable hands of
my hon. colleague who represents that
riding.
The recreational potentials of inland
waters, river and canal systems have hardly
been tapped, and I might say by way of
digression, coming from the city of St.
Catharines, the county seat of the county of
Lincoln, we of course have the Welland
canal.
This attraction is an amazing engineering
|feat, yet up until a year or two ago it was
difficult for tourists from many parts of the
country to even find some suitable place at
which to watch the locking system of the
canal.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority along
with the city of St. Catharines have become
quite active through road signs, promotional
material and directional maps to indicate the
location of some of these locks and have
constructed a landing place where people
may stand and watch ships being locked
through lock No. 3 of the Welland canal.
It would seem to me that if this canal
were in other parts of North America, par-
ticularly those south of our national border,
there would be great schemes to make sure
that thousands of people were paraded up
and down the canal in buses or miniature
railroads to see this great and wonderful
feat. Notwithstanding comments made re-
cently that it is becoming outdated, I can
assure this House that even as natives of
this area we never cease to be amazed at
the attraction which it holds, and also at the
wonderful lessons in geography for our
young people as the ships from all parts of
the world use this particular waterway.
Here is an excellent example, one of
thousands, Mr. Speaker, which can be the
subject matter of more active promotional
displays and all the other programmes which
are associated with publicity in this line.
Travel, said the report, should be encour-
aged on out-of-way roads where the tourists
can see the sights— and also leave with
them as they are visiting in this area some
of their currency.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
645
The report summary goes on to highlight
many other matters, and I am sure we would
be all agreed this is a very important part
of the economy but should be an even more
important part of the economy of this prov-
ince, contributing so significantly now to our
gross provincial product.
Having said all these particular matters the
next thing is to ask what has the government
been doing about it already. I say in fair-
ness—and I am sure the hon. member for
Essex South indicated this in his remarks,
as did the hon. member for Fort William—
that we have been somewhat active in this
particular field now.
The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion has its development branch and it is
my understanding that one of the main func-
tions to be performed by this branch is the
whole question of research. I think we have
to understand what the interests of our
visitors might be. What are the sort of
things in which they would be interested in
seeing? What about our own people? Are
we developing the right type of facilities?
Because we have in the motion itself refer-
ence to legitimate attractions, and I think it
is very necessary.
Regardless of who loans the money there
is a great responsibility on the lender,
whether he be lending himself or simply
guaranteeing loans, and particularly if it is
government, because we are loaning or guar-
anteeing the credit of the people of the prov-
ince, that we be satisfied that we are investing
our money and that we are involving our-
selves in the credit for very responsible and
also very worthwhile projects.
I think that the development branch of The
Department of Tourism and Information, and
in particular the research facilities of that de-
partment, are being geared for this type of
work in co-operation with The Department of
Economics and Development. I think in fair-
ness to The Department of Economics and
Development we should also point out— be-
cause some reference was made by my hon.
friend from Essex South of the need for some
counselling services— that this has in fact en-
gaged the members of the Ontario develop-
ment agency for the last two years in a very
concentrated way.
There have been these on-the-spot consul-
tations where the Ontario development
agency— as we know, an agency formed in late
1962— has had this as one of its very major
programmes. For the past two years it is my
understanding that it has been increasing its
activities in the field of tourism, particularly
with respect to these consultative services.
No doubt this was what was meant by my
hon. friend from Essex South when he made
reference to the summary in the form of a
letter from the hon. Minister of this depart-
ment. The agency has co-operated, Mr.
Speaker, with the regional development asso-
ciations which are outgrowths of the work of
The Department of Economics and Develop-
ment, and The Department of Tourism and
Information, the boards of trade and cham-
bers of commerce and other interested
groups, and the tourist groups themselves—
and we must not overlook the importance of
working with these associations.
The Ontario development association has
formed consulting teams and has sent them
to many areas and has invited tourist and
resort operators to discuss their problems
with them, and I understand that during the
last year such consultations have been held
in places like Niagara Falls and Barrie and
Cornwall. There is quite a list, Elliot Lake,
Fort William and Port Arthur, Trenton and
Stratford and Guelph, and many other places
which are here, and in some places like North
Bay, and Kirkland Lake and Timmins, and
Sault Ste. Marie, I notice they have had two
such consultations with the people in this
very important industry.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, to these on-the-
spot consultations, many tourist operators, I
am told, have visited the offices of the On-
tario development agency here in Toronto,
and as a result, the Ontario development
agency consultants have had an opportunity
not only of reviewing financial statements, but
also the actual operations of a large number
of tourist operators in Ontario.
Being interested in this particular resolu-
tion and the financial aspects of it, or the
credit aspects of it, it was interesting to read
—not only making reference to the report of
the Ontario tourist industry, to which I have
already referred— that the growth of this in-
dustry has been very significant and it has
been this rapid growth itself which has devel-
oped many of the problems.
Among those, I am told, and I am sure we
understand these, we have the whole prob-
lem of under-capitalization and low earnings.
Such matters as weather and the length of the
tourist season, perhaps, have influenced the
fact that for a very short period there has to
be a great return, although as the hon. mem-
ber for Fort William said, we are moving
into the situation where attractions and facili-
ties have to be provided for this type of thing
all year round.
In addition to these particular matters to
which reference has already been made— that
646
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is, the research facilities and the develop-
ment branch of tourism and information and
the consultations and the advice of the On-
tario development agency— I am sure that we
look forward, as reference has already been
made in the Speech from the Throne, to the
establishment of the Ontario development cor-
poration. We are not yet able to discuss the
particulars of this, because the legislation is
not before the House, but I would hope that
this would be in some corporate way, simply
an extension of the work which the Ontario
development agency has already carried on
and that it would be a very real and helpful
factor to those who participate in this par-
ticular industry.
I think it also should be pointed out that
as we attempt to give credit— I was going to
say to give credit where credit is due, but
that is the whole point of the resolution; I
meant to say to summarize the type of help
which is already available — the industrial
development bank is very much involved in
this and I am now making reference to
chapter 19 of the report of the Ontario
economic council.
The second area of conventional financing
available to the industry has been in The
Federal Small Business Loans Act and there
is some reference in this report to the amount
of financial assistance which has been forth-
coming from that source. There has been
the Ontario development agency and of
course, the whole question of private finance.
Unfortunately, and one would have to
agree, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there is in
many cases a type of private financing which
has resulted in some very substantial interest
rates having to be paid by people who have
not been able to find money through the
regular lending institutions.
The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion has been attempting to help our tourist
operators in bookkeeping systems, workshops
for hotel-motel operators. One has just been
finished in Ottawa and one planned for
North Bay on March 11 and 12.
All this really points to the fact, Mr.
Speaker, that we are agreed on the impor-
tance of the industry, not only from the stand-
point of our motel and hotel operators and
facilities for people who are going into various
parts of our province, but also satisfying
ourselves that we are developing properly
on the basis of good research and study with
respect to market and numbers of people
available and the interest of those people
once they are in our industry. References have
already been made in this debate, and in
debates up to now on the Speech from the
Throne, about the increasing number of hours
that will be available to our people through
shorter work weeks and working conditions
which will enable people to travel more in
our province, to know more about our prov-
ince and to appreciate more of the history
of our province, and that we shall see an
even greater development and an even greater
growth in tourism in the years to come.
The government should be ahead of the
situation, so to speak, in these research pro-
grammes and in these studies and in these
advisory capacities, to make sure that if, in
fact, it is the decision of government to be-
come involved in some credit arrangement
ways, that we are satisfied that the credit of
the province is being pledged with respect
to operations which are sound insofar as
business principles are concerned.
In summary, I think it is sufficient to say
this, Mr. Speaker, that if the tourist industry
—in the opinion of some who have studied
this and who are far more knowledgeable
than I— is to attract a larger measure of sup-
port from the financial community, it must
improve its performance. This is, of course,
a generalization which is dangerous, because
there are a good many in this business who
are doing extremely well here.
First and foremost, the skills of many
tourist operators must be raised to a more
satisfactory level, approaching that of the best
operators in the industry. Reference has
already been made to the efforts of govern-
ment to stimulate and to assist in this regard.
For if one reads the estimates of the depart-
ments of economics and tourism as they
were introduced by the Ministers last year,
and studies some of the reports that have
already been published, maybe the first
priority is not so much with respect to finan-
cial assistance, as it is with the need for
managerial skill, and the impression insofar
as the people are concerned who wish to
inaugurate activity in— or rather the need
that people must have with respect to sound
business training and to understand that this
is a very important business— that there are
many aspects of it which must be studied
carefully, with respect to all sorts of con-
ditions under which these people must oper-
ate.
I would hope that if we develop this in this
orderly way, in keeping with the tone and the
theme of the report which has been placed
before us by an objective group such as the
Ontario economic council, there will be great
benefit to the economy of this province of
opportunity.
Mr. E. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, this is a subject that I am not going
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
647
to have too much trouble talking about. I am
acquainted with the tourist industry. I guess
I have been for some 50 years.
I recall the first investment that the prov-
ince of Ontario made to the Niagara parks
board, back in about 1895, when the province
lent that board $525,000 to purchase 157
acres of land, which was made up of the
land from the Clifton hill to the Horseshoe
Falls, beyond the Horseshoe Falls to the
Dufferin Islands and just a little bit up the
river nearing Chippawa. That land was pur-
chased at that time for $525,000 which the
government lent them, and they found that
they did not have sufficient money; they came
back to this aggressive government and they
borrowed another $75,000.
They were thinking into the future. They
were looking to better conditions for the
travelling public, because at that time the
tourists, who came in by train and by wagon
and by horses, were being taken by these
establishments along the escarpment. When
the tourists got to the Falls in those days,
they found pickpockets, and they found
people there who would not let them get to
see the Falls because they claimed they
owned the land. So when the parks commis-
sion took over, then and there they established
a wonderful policy for the people of the
province. They and, yes, the people of the
world, have enjoyed that wonderful area
for these many years.
This commission with that small amount
of money, found themselves in a position
where they could establish and operate con-
cessions along the way, which paid them
well, and do even to this day. As a matter
of fact, I get up in this House annually to
tell you of the net profit that they make.
They sometimes show a better net profit
than the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)
himself. $700,000 is no problem for the parks
commission to show on their books as a profit
for one year's operation.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): It
keeps the government going.
Mr. Bukator: They are an efficient body
who do an exceptionally good job, Mr.
Speaker. Now the only reason I have said
that is that some of the hon. Ministers visited
that area, considering the possibility of pur-
chasing another 133 acres of land from just
within a stone's throw of the Horseshoe Falls,
to the village of Chippawa. There was a
time that particular area was a golf course;
it belonged to the late Sir Harry Oakes. Some
of the hon. members and some of the hon.
Ministers who are here now were there look-
ing these lands over. They were approached
by the parks commission. The parks integra-
tion board, I believe, was there about a
year ago— maybe two years ago, time passes
very quickly— but they were there at my
request, I might say. They honoured me
with that visit; they looked these lands over
like a group of experts who knew the value
of property by just one look. I have been
in the real estate business in that area for
some ten years and I think I know the value
of property too, and I would say this, that
if property like that could be purchased-this
133 acres, right on the escarpment, overlook-
ing the Horseshoe Falls— could be purchased
by private enterprise for $1 million-
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
The hon. member would have to look pretty
hard from there to see the Falls.
Mr. Bukator: The hon. gentleman lives in
Dunnville and he sees the Falls quite well
when he comes down. It would not be too
difficult for them to walk that half mile or
drive a half mile, but the Niagara river is
just above that property. I live on it and I
can see the spray from the Falls and I can
see the lights at night. I enjoy that and I
am a mile beyond the property I am talking
about. But this bunch of pros, the Cabinet
Ministers who belong to a board, come into
that area and look the situation over and say
it is too much money. It is a good thing
their predecessors did not look at things
that way, because we would not have the
park that we have today.
So I suggest that they take another look,
because the son of the late Sir Harry Oakes
still has this property for them and is willing
to sacrifice it, in my opinion— as one who is
in the real estate business in that area— is
willing to let the government have it for just
$1 million.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): I will sell my
house for less than that.
Mr. Bukator: Well, I am talking about
acres of land that the hon. member's chil-
dren—if he has any, or maybe he does not—
and his children's children can enjoy; 133
acres.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: The hon. member for Wood-
bine needs a hole in the head more than
Harry Oakes' son needs a million, I can
assure you. I am talking about the future
of this great province of ours. I am talking
about the park system that we should enjoy.
648
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am talking about what this province has
done recently by spending $5.5 million in
Montreal for an exhibition, for the Centen-
nial. I think that is good. I saw in the papers
yesterday diat it is not $5.5 million, it is
now $7.5 million. And what is it going to
cost to put the exhibition in? What is it
going to cost to maintain that during the
exhibition?
That is a hidden cost and no doubt we
will never know. But I venture to say at
this time— and prove me wrong if you will—
$10 million will not cover the cost of our
contribution to that exhibition in Montreal.
And here we have a recommendation from
this particular council— and the hon. member
for Lincoln has brought it to our attention—
they tell us that there has to be more done
in that area; otherwise private enterprise will
have to get in there and will benefit by what
nature provided.
And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the
right people should begin to produce a Cana-
dian-made souvenir that the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development I believe,
has been promoting. You can walk into the
city of Niagara Falls, Mr. Speaker, or any
other tourist area and pick up a souvenir,
if you will. We did last summer, when we
were up on the Hudson Bay and I found
a beaded belt, a lovely belt that I took home
to my daughter. After I purchased it one
of the men on that particular tour said to
me, "Did you see where that was made?"
and I said it must have been made by the
Indians. It was a souvenir made in Japan.
I have had people come into my office,
talking about purchasing property in that
great riding, that great county of Welland.
The hon. member is not here, I had to say it
for him. The souvenirs that one picks up
on the stands of those stores, including the
parks commission stores, are going to be
either from Germany or from Japan or from
some foreign country. They tell me that the
souvenir of the mountie— who is typically
Canadian and is doing such a great job
representing something Canadian— is made
in Japan, and because it happens to be made
there, the makers even put slanted eyes on
them. A great Canadian product.
I suggest it is about time that this gov-
ernment made some investment in private
enterprise and in people with imagination
who have the ability to develop more
souvenirs such as those mentioned in this
report.
I have been talking pretty fast. If I had
slowed down I could have adjourned this
'debate at six. When I get excited about a
subject, I just go on and on. However, when
I get to the Skylon that will take a good half
hour.
An hon. member: We are enjoying it.
Mr. Bukator: I am glad that the hon.
member is. Maybe I should read a little out
of that report because I think it is quite
good.
An hon. member: That is why we printed
it.
Mr. Bukator: That is why the government
printed it. As a matter of fact, it was only
a day or so ago that I had one, I sent for it
and the department was good enough to
send me this one. I knew I was going to
speak tonight.
An hon. member: Where was it printed?
Mr. Bukator: It says "Top Show Window"
and I suppose it was printed some place in
the province: "The Niagara parks system is
a key foundation stone to the province's
tourist industry."
An hon. member: Would the hon. mem-
ber repeat that?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, it is worth repeating.
"The Niagara parks system is a key founda-
tion stone to the province's tourist industry."
Do I have to read beyond that? Eleven
million people, according to the govern-
ment's statistics, not mine, come into that
area to see that mighty Niagara. It used to
be a lot mightier before Hydro took the
water off; at night it looked like a canyon.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Eleven million people come
in to see the Falls and they spend possibly
a day looking over these beautiful parks
from lake to lake that the parks commission
developed, and here I would like to boast
a little bit.
I sat on the commission for six years, and
among the areas that were developed in my
time were the golf course, and the little
park at Chippawa, and this is all good. I
tried to persuade the former Prime Minister
of this province to purchase another 3,300
feet at the Fort Erie end but because his
time was limited in this House and the new
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) is not
looking at parks for the time being anyway,
this will have to lie there until some private
enterprise picks it up and no doubt makes a
lot of money out of it.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
649
That is another area, just across from
Buffalo— 3,300 feet of lakeshore property
that can be bought for less than $200,000.
This is where the government should con-
tribute and help organizations of their own
that are doing a good job and making a fair
amount of money.
I would suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker,
that if the hon. Prime Minister or some of his
hon. colleagues would get together with
them and say, "Purchase it," they could buy
it anyway, because in 1934 when a certain
party took over in the province here, they
developed those parks and spent many
millions of dollars. When I was appointed to
the commission back in 1950 or 1951 they
were in debt some $5 million or $6 million.
In 1956 I was through on the parks com-
mission and they had repaid their debt of
well over $5 million, paid it off in full. Since
that time they have found that the water
rights that they were getting as a commis-
sion had to go into the parks integration
board. They are taking some $600,000 a
year, putting it into the parks integration
board's fund at that time. Now I guess it
goes into the consolidated revenue fund,
because the park has more money than they
know what to do with.
I would think that this government should
assist them in view of what this particular
council said. I also think that the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development should
take a good look at the possibility of com-
mercializing this one establishment and one
only. If it is true that 11 million people
come into Niagara Falls— and who am I
to doubt the statistics, the facts that are
presented to us by the government and the
parks commission?— and if it is true that the
Skylon is being built to the tune of $11
million by private enterprise, and if it is
true that they have an exhibit area, an ex-
hibition area where 11 million people can
come in and look for nothing— no admission
charged to go to the exhibition area— and if
it is true that this government is spending
$7.5 million, $10 million in Montreal in
my opinion, would it not be good business
for this government to spend some money to
rent a space in that area so that when 11
million people have looked at the Falls, have
gone into that exhibition area, where there
is no charge, they can be directed throughout
this province to see more of the province
through the government's exhibitions?
Where are they going to get these con-
cessions and what are they going to do with
them? I would like to ask, what does this
government do with that excellent exhibition
in Toronto, the Canadian national exhibition?
When it gets through with that particular
display is it dismantled— does it go on the
junk heap? I imagine it does. Some of it
you could keep to another year.
Some of us would like to see a nice picture
of the hon. Minister of Economics and Devel-
opment and, yes, the hon. Prime Minister
himself in this lovely exhibition ground, with
ceilings as high as this House has.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): That
would be the day!
An hon. member: You do not want to scare
the people.
Mr. Bukator: I say to you gentlemen— and
I think I am entitled to, at least if nothing
else, it is still a free country— that if the hon.
Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers
cannot see the good business of putting an
exhibition in that area to let this 10 or 11
million people see it for nothing, to show
them the rest of the province, you are playing
nothing short of politics. You are doing it
because there is a Liberal member in that
riding. No common sense or business would
deprive you of doing it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I went into the hon.
member's riding and opened it.
An hon. member: A good Liberal member.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Now then, in view of what
the hon. Prime Minister has said— he said "I
went into your riding and opened it," and he
did— I might say that under those circum-
stances with a little bit of backfiring, I might
say politically, he handled himself exception-
ally well under the circumstances.
I have said it before, and I say it to him
again: "We are still proud of you. You are
not a bad sort of politician." But I am going
to tell you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the
hon. Prime Minister, he is a lousy business-
man if he does not see the good of putting
that exhibition in there.
An hon. member: Now you are talking;
now you are getting to it.
Mr. Bukator: And I might repeat, he is a
lousy businessman if he does not see the good
of putting an exhibition in an area where 11
million people will see it— at no charge.
I was told that you might want three or
four minutes before six and I would like to
adjourn this debate because there is lots more
to be said by myself and others.
650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There would be a charge
to the government, though.
Mr. Bukator: You would have to pay the
rental, yes, naturally. But I would think that
in view of what you are spending in Mont-
real because of the Centennial— and I think
this is good business— I would think that this
particular area warrants consideration, if
nothing else.
An hon. member: We will ask you about
that later in the Budget debate.
Mr. Bukator: I doubt it very much. I do
not think that I speak from both sides of my
mouth like some people do.
An hon. member: I meant the hon. Prime
Minister.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, I might say I
have enjoyed this portion of the debate be-
cause I think on this particular subject I
know what I am talking about.
Mr. Bukator moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, at 8 o'clock we will resume the
Throne debate.
It being 6 o'clock p.m. the House took
recess.
No. 23
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 17, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk; Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 17, 1966
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Young, Mr. W. B. Lewis,
Mr. Sargent, Mr. Grossman 653
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 683
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 683
653
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The first order. Resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the Speech of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the open-
ing of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, just
prior to adjournment I was discussing the
problem of tires and tire safety and had
quoted Senator Gaylord Nelson, in his article
"Death on Wheels," when he pointed out
certain deficiencies in tire standards and had
said that the industry makes its tire selections
on the basis of a three-passenger load.
Two years before this, in September, 1963,
Senator Speno's committee had visited Akron,
Ohio, the home of four of the five big tire
companies. They attended a dinner given in
their honour by these companies. Speno
made a hard-hitting speech in the matter of
tire safety and he wound up by proposing
minimum safety performance standards for
the new automobile tires. He urged co-
operation in achieving this end on the part
of this industry, but he made it clear that if
the industry would not co-operate, then the
New York Legislature would do its job by in-
troducing legislation to force the issue.
The 1964 report of the committee, which
is written in a rather interesting fashion
and is entitled "Safe Tires Save Lives," says
this:
There was absolute quiet in the large
room until the speech had been concluded
and the listeners had recovered. One work-
ing newspaperman who had covered the
tire companies for many years had been
invited. He spilled both his coffee and his
after-dinner liqueur over the man seated
to his left.
The report further states that:
Some top executives and chief engineers
were questioned about the lack of such
standards and the possibility of establishing
them. They expressed interest in what they
Thursday, February 17, 1966
admitted was a novel proposal for a highly
competitive industry in which the only
co-operation among companies had been
agreement on loads and on sizes so that
tires could fit the rims of any American
passenger car.
Minimum safety performance standards?
We have never faced up to it, one industry
executive said.
But the tire industry finally did decide to co-
operate with Speno in order to have some say
in the drafting of the legislation. The bill
was introduced. Ralph Nader, in the current
Consumers' Report, describes what happened
then. He says this:
Late in 1963, however, the automobile
industry told the tire companies crisply that
there was to be total opposition to any
tire legislation. There followed what veteran
observers in Albany called some of the
most intensive and improper lobbying ever
seen on those legislative battlegrounds.
The Senate passed the bill, but the lobby-
ing paid off in the assembly where the bill
was never brought to a floor vote.
Senator Speno told me a week ago that they
were still struggling to get it to the floor of
the assembly.
Senator Gaylord Nelson took up the battle
in Washington, where it is now being pushed
with real enthusiasm on the part of some of
the people there. He recently introduced a
bill to establish an actual system of tire grad-
ing and labelling and to ban unsafe tires.
The bill is still stalled in the machinery
there, as it is in New York.
Public concern, however, is rising and
complaints are pouring into his office from
motorists, automobile clubs and tire dealers
across the country.
One California tire dealer wired:
YOU ARE RIGHT. MANY MOTORISTS ARE
RIDING ON A TIME BOMB.
Complaints of a similar nature were pour-
into the offices of the federal trade commis-
sion which finally decided to hold hearings in
January, 1965. Nader recounts the results:
These hearings visibly shocked some of
the FTC commissioners. Chairman Paul
654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Rand Dixon told the Senate commerce
committee, which began hearings in May:
Our hearing contains substantial testimony
as to the inadequacy of these rubber
manufacturers association standards. The
specific safety problems relate principally
to the matter of tire size and the so-called
practice of overloading, which are inter-
related. Overload is the situation which
exists when the curb weight of the vehicle
plus the designed load capacity in terms
of passengers and luggage exceeds the
load-carrying capacity of the tires with
which the vehicle is equipped. One tire
manufacturer stated that over the years
vehicle manufacturers in an attempt to
cut costs have cut down the amount of
the tire they are designing into their
vehicles and that some vehicles are over-
loaded when they are empty. Repeatedly
the problem of overload was placed back
to the automobile manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, Dixon later told the Senate
commerce committee that:
The replacement tire market provided
a great deal of consumer confusion and
deception. We believe confusion and de-
ception are inherent in the existing situa-
tion, where tires may be designated as to
quality— that is premium, first line, second
line, and so on— regardless of the tires' in-
herent quality of safety, where the price
of the tire has no discernible relation to
its quality or safety, and where many of
the descriptive terms employed, such as
"ply rating," "100 level," and other grade
designations, have no real meaning or
definitive value in the absence of uniform
standards.
But in spite of these revelations, legislation
has been blocked and little has been accom-
plished. The industry points to the need
for the consumer to be able to choose the
kind of tire he wants as if he is in any posi-
tion, without any standards, to do this. The
power of the opposition to tire standards is
outlined by Nader in this way:
The industry knows that the political
success of any administration more and
more is being measured by its success in
promoting economic growth. Automobile
production utilizes 21 per cent of all
steel, 49 per cent of all lead, 61 per cent
of all rubber, 32 per cent of all zinc, 13
per cent of all aluminum, and 58 per
cent of all upholstery leather sold in this
country [USA1. One business in every
six is classified as automotive. One
worker out of every seven is employed
directly or indirectly in producing, supply-
ing, servicing, financing or transporting
automobiles. Automobile spokesmen never
fail to cite these figures whenever they
want something from government or want
to block government action. As a privil-
eged institution the automobile industry
has made an impressive record in Washing-
ton. Hearings reveal abuses but legislation
almost never follows.
In Canada we have not even begun to solve
this problem or even to move toward safe
tire standards. There seems no good reason
why this government should not introduce
legislation designed to provide safe tire
standards. I call this to the attention of the
government and hope some action will take
place. It is long overdue and desperately
needed to supply protection for Ontario
citizens.
Not long ago the hon. member for Hamil-
ton East (Mr. Davison) experienced a tire
blowout with a car that had not yet gone
3,000 miles.
The industry, according to the findings of
the United States committee, sets its higher
standard at the level of a car carrying three
occupants. Fortunately, the majority of cars
carry one or two persons most of the time,
but danger comes when the family loads up
the car for a holiday trip and drives at higher
speeds on what should be a carefree vaca-
tion.
They do not raise the pressure of the
tires, as the industry says they should do at
times like this. They do not know about it,
or forget.
The tires which come with the car
evidently are not designed for this kind of
use except under these circumstances. Since
standards are absent there is no way in
which the driver with confidence can re-
place those tires with something better.
Ontario people should not be forced to ride
on time bombs. The remedy lies within the
power of this Legislature.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the
Legislature a week ago, and I guess it is
just a week ago tonight, it was my privilege
a week ago Wednesday to attend a hearing
of the New York legislative committee on
motor vehicle and traffic safety and to meet
informally with the committee members and
their staff before the formal hearing.
For some time I have been interested in
this committee and what it has been doing in
the field of automobile safety, and when the
invitation came for me to see at close quar-
ters what they were doing, I gladly accepted
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
655
it, and I might say the experience was an
extremely rewarding one.
The New York committee, first authorized
in its present form, was set up in 1959. It
has issued several reports— and I have some
of them here— on various aspects of the motor
car problem and has played an important
role in progressive legislation in this field.
In the foreword to one of their reports called
"Death or Life," Governor Nelson A. Rocke-
feller says this:
Under Senator Speno's leadership, the
committee has played a major role in
giving New York state national leadership
in traffic safety work over the past four
years. Senator Speno's committee has
worked closely with my administration in
pioneering traffic safety legislation. The
committee's seat belt legislation and ne-
gotiations with Detroit through which auto
manufacturers have agreed to supply the
safety device nationally are of unparalleled
importance, because seat belts reduce fa-
talities and serious injuries among users
by at least 35 per cent.
Another example of New York leader-
ship is the statute regarding driving while
impaired by alcoholic beverages.
Signed by Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor
of New York.
In 1965 the state Legislature appropriated
a sum of money for a feasibility study of a
programme to design, fabricate in prototype
quantities, develop and test a prototype car
embodying all feasible safety devices and
features and practical for a limited mass
production. The first stage of that feasibility
study has now been completed. I have the
report here of the Fairchild-Hiller Republic
Aviation Division in Farmingdale, Long
Island, and I have made a copy of this
available to the Minister for his information
and perusal.
At Wednesday's meeting in Albany this
study was discussed in some detail and its
results assessed. At the meeting were repre-
sentatives of the states of Iowa and Illinois
as well as Howard Grafftey, the Conservative
member of Parliament from Brome-Missiquoi
—and I might say that the Conservative Party
is now engaged in a real drive in Ottawa
to bring the government into knowledge and
into activity in this field. They are being
thoroughly backed by the national leader,
John Diefenbaker, and I would hope that
pressure will find its way through to the
hon. members of this Legislature who may
belong to the same party.
Now the feasibility study-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Do they be-
long to the same party?
Mr. Young: Well, at least it is under the
same banner and the same name, but they
are in Opposition in one House and govern-
ment in the other, so we shall see what
happens.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): I wonder if
the hon. member would permit a question.
Mr. Young: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber has read the report of the committee
that was set up in this Legislature to review
the same things that he is talking about.
I might inform the hon. member that 90 per
cent of the recommendations have been put
into the laws since.
Mr. Young: I am very happy to know
this, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware that a
committee of this Legislature has ever been
set up to study the possibility of safe cars
and to build the prototype of a safe car,
but if the hon. member knows of information
which I do not possess, I would be very
glad to hear from him at some future date
about it.
An hon. member: Now!
Mr. Young: Perhaps, or at some future
time.
In any case, I might say that the feasibility
study started first inside the car. They did
not think as much of the car itself as the
possibility of saving life inside and outside
the car in accidents involving it.
They begin with the premise that the
injury-producing mechanism in automobile
crashes is the relative acceleration of the oc-
cupant as related to the auto passenger com-
partment and its fixtures. In an impact crash
the unrestrained occupant becomes a missile,
free to accelerate in an infinite number of
directions.
The second premise is that the conventional
seat structure protects the occupant from
below and behind except for the head and
neck. They want to take a look at how the
head and neck can be protected and also
how they can provide protection in front.
They also work from the premise that the
specific injury produced may be modified by
many factors. The most severe damage is
produced by accelerating into rigid small area
surfaces which concentrate impact pressure.
Examples would include knobs, hard metal
edges, gearshift levers, rear-view mirrors,
656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
steering wheel hubs and so on. Rigid flat
areas may not penetrate or fracture locally
but they do a great deal of injury to limbs
and ribs and other parts of the body. Ejec-
tion at any speed increases injury or death
potential approximately four to one. Any-
body thrown out of a vehicle is in four
times as much danger as the person who re-
mains inside.
Now what does this study find? It finds
that it is feasible to design and build proto-
type safety cars which would greatly reduce
injuries and fatalities and which would also
be practical to use, comfortable to ride in,
attractive in appearance, and at least as
economical in daily operating costs as
today's conventional automobile.
For a designed crash impact speed of 50
miles an hour, it is considered possible to
reduce occupant injuries and fatalities by
more than 50 per cent as compared to
today's conventional automobile. This de-
signed speed would reach between 70 per
cent and 80 per cent of injury-producing
accidents.
It is estimated that the car can roll over
at 70 miles an hour without loss of life in-
side providing the seat belts are fastened
and providing, of course, it does not hit a
rock or a tree or something of that nature
to cause an extra crash.
The estimated improvement is based on
theoretical design possibilities in preventing
injuries when a crash occurs. Further gains
in design to prevent accidents from occur-
ring, to reduce injuries to pedestrians, and
to prevent non-operating accidents are to
be studied.
Initial design concept stresses improve-
ments available from aero-space engineering
design. We have done tremendous things in
the whole concept of aero-space design and
this knowledge is now being used in respect
of cars.
A total of 134 design features are under
study. The car is about the size of the
three low-priced popular American cars.
Later phases of the study will show how
graded levels of safety can allow car users
or government agencies to balance safety
against production costs, and those studies
are going forward and will be complete in
1966.
I want to list some crashworthy features
that are built into this car concept:
Front collapse structure controls crash
deceleration to reduce impact felt at the
seats. In other words, the front of the car is
built so that the crash impact is gradually
absorbed before it reaches the seat area of
the car.
The swinging gate front bumper turns to
equalize impact on the other car. The
bumper will bend back and, like a plough-
share, deflect the impact of the crash.
Engine mountings and inclined firewall
cause the engine to be deflected downward
in the crash, protecting the front seats; so
the engine goes under the car instead of
through into the front seat.
Combined door pillars, roll bars and bulk-
heads provide a strong passenger-surround-
ing structure. Deep side frame is externally
cushioned for controlled deceleration in a
side crash. Door posts are shaped to restrict
climbing of front bumper of opposing veh-
icle in a side crash. The roll bar frames are
curved to avoid destructive jolt forces dur-
ing rollover. Front bumper face is vertical
to avoid overriding another car. Controlled
collapse column steering wheel has broad,
cushioned upper face.
This is somewhat different to the one the
industry is now offering. It has a very large
centre, well cushioned, and the steering
wheel itself will give about one foot— instead
of the eight inches that is proposed in the
1967 cars.
Contour seats provide lateral support in
side crash. Seat belts are attached to strong
seats and they do not clutter the floor. They
expect to have them attached to the ceiling
by a magnetic device and fastened down
over the body. When they are unfastened
they back up to the magnetic top and will
stay there and not clutter up the seats.
A foot-thick, energy-absorbing cushion in
the door; they are thick and with absorbent
structure. Space ahead of driver and front
seat passenger allows a two-foot-thick crash
cushion. Near-flat, resilient windshield
cushions occupants and struck pedestrians
equally— a protection for both.
Cushioned basinet, with covering net,
fastens firmly to rear or front contour seats
and a harness is provided for children. Gaso-
line filler pipe is located within the frame
protection to prevent crash fire. Near-flat
windshield glass reduces distortion and pro-
vides 95 per cent wiper coverage.
A mirror pylon on the roof provides
panoramic rear vision, and high forward
vision mirror looks above the cars ahead
over the crest of a hill. This pylon will snap
off in case of a roll-over.
Large-face instruments placed far forward
reduce eye focusing and driving problems,
particularly with bifocal glasses. The speed-
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
657
ometer indicates stopping distance in dry or
wet weather. An anti-lock brake system pre-
vents uncontrolled skidding.
Non-operating safety features: door pad-
ding shaped to prevent injury in door closing;
and the trunk lid opens from either side so
that the person does not have to stand behind
the car to open it. He opens it from either
side.
I have graphic illustrations of this car here,
if any of the hon. members are interested in
seeing the various features of this car— or
anybody who wants to have a look at them.
They are available and they will be here
over the next period of time for you to see.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this
House would seriously look at what is
happening in New York state in respect to
car safety. And I would hope that we would
seriously examine the report which is now
available from the committee. I have an
extra report or so available, if anybody wants
to look it over. I would refer this particularly
to government hon. members who might be
interested in really making this thing a
matter of government policy and building it
into, perhaps, a non-partisan crusade in this
Legislature.
If, as experts confidently think, we can
save, through improved car design, 50 per
cent of the people now being killed or
maimed on our roads, then it behooves this
House to move as quickly as possible to
achieve this desired result.
A prototype car can be built within eight
months and the testing would follow. The
New York committee plans to build ten cars
for testing purposes. Right now, they are
going through the painful process of raising
about $4 million in order to complete this
project. The initial appropriation was only
for the feasibility study.
Word from Albany indicates that the Legis-
lature there is now at the point where they
are ready to make a good-sized state appro-
priation and they are hoping for federal funds
and other help for this.
The committee has indicated they would
welcome Ontario's participation insofar as
Ontario wants to participate, and as the next
stage of the work is important, I would hooe
that we would look at this seriously. On Feb-
ruary 8, I asked the hon. Minister of Trans-
port the question:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. Minister. Has he considered the
possibility of co-operating with the state
of New York in their project of develop-
ing a safer car?"
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been
given to such action. The project men-
tioned by the member is being financed by
a legislative appropriation by the state of
New York.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
a supplementary question of the hon. Min-
ister? Would the hon. Minister welcome
overtures from the state of New York in
regard to such co-operation? Or even seek
such?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is rather hypo-
thetical. I would hardly know how to
answer it. I would say that The Depart-
ment of Transport has had a continuing
concern with the many aspects of highway
safety as regards also vehicle design and
maintenance. If as a result of this project
some useful findings should come out of it,
I can assure the House that our department
will give them very careful and detailed
consideration.
Now the New York committee, as I indicated,
is very interested in having our co-operation
and will be writing the hon. Minister in
respect to tills, I hope before too long, as
soon as they clear away their own problems
in connection with it.
I would hope that when this invitation
comes the hon. Minister will give "careful
and detailed consideration" to the communi-
cation and work out ways and means of
initiating such participation.
There is no question that concern is grow-
ing among the legislators to the south of us
about the mass slaughter on the highways.
Popular pressure for a safer car is increasing.
People are now finding out for the first time
that it is not only possible to build a relatively
safe car, but that such cars can also be
beautiful, they can be powerful, and they can
be in the low price field. The present estimate
is that the prototype car outlined in the
report can be built at about ten per cent
higher in cost than the present cars of com-
parable size. They hope that price can come
down with mass production. But this will
leave it still a competitor in the big three
range.
The old device of the car manufacturers, to
point the finger at highway design and driver
carelessness, is no longer working as it once
did. The actual structure of the car itself
is coming in for wide criticism. Politicians
are beginning to sniff votes in the issue, as
well as coming to the realization that if the
industry is not going to do the job, then the
public authority must do it. This attitude is
658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
now being reflected by the increasing millions
which the industry is pouring into advertising
to tell the public just how concerned they
are with safety.
There is no question in many minds that
the startling facts brought out in the recent
Albany hearings played a significant part in
the announcement of the industry that a
collapsible steering column is being intro-
duced into the 1967 cars. The industry was
there in full force, listening and sampling the
air of determination which is growing among
the elected representatives around the capital.
The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that govern-
ments do move in to set safe standards in
house construction, in aircraft manufacture,
in rail transportation. The time has come
when governments also must insist upon
building into motor transportation those
features which will save life and limb, and
curb the disastrous events which are making
a shambles of our highways. One thing is
certain, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said:
If we could combine all the accidents which
occurred on our highways last year into one
time and one place, the death and suffering
and property loss involved would galvanize
us all into instant action to prevent this
awesome disaster happening again in the
future. But the accidents occur only one by
one, separated in time and space. Only a few
people are affected by each one and their
voices are muted and small. Too often they
do not realize that a safer car might have
prevented the tragedy and they have been
brainwashed into thinking that the fault lies,
not with the car, but with the driver or with
the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) for not building safer roads.
I hope, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Edwards: That is not possible. He is
doing a good job.
Mr. Young: Sure, I agree he is doing a
good job, but I am simply saying that industry
too often points the finger at either the driver
or the road and it should now be pointed
directly at car construction as well.
Mr. Edwards: Then why make that point?
Mr. Young: And so I hope, Mr. Speaker,
that on all sides of this House there will
be a determination to move on this matter.
Safer cars can save thousands of our people
from death and suffering over the decade
following their introduction. It is not good
enough for the industry to give us windshield
wipers one year, seat belts another, and now
collapsible steering wheels.
Widespread research in many institutions,
and in a wide variety of jurisdictions, has
established that it is possible and feasible to
build a car which can cut drastically the
human and property toll in accidents. The
car ought to be built now and it should be
tested and put into production at the earliest
possible moment. And this House can, in a
non-partisan spirit, contribute to that end.
We do not have to go through all the
process of research. That has been done.
There is no reason why Ontario should dupli-
cate the work done by New York and
California and other places. We are doing
research on automobile corrosion, which can
be shared with others as we share in their
efforts to save life through car design. The
recent agreement which internationalizes
our motor industry may give us the vehicle
through which we can find the areas and
avenues of co-operation.
It also may provide us with an answer
regarding costs. Since eventually Canadian
cars, we are told, should drop in price to
the level of American ones, if in fact the
safety car proves to be slightly more ex-
pensive than present ones, then our prices just
will not go down quite as far as they other-
wise might have— and we still will get a
safety car at a price lower than we are now
paying for the conventional one.
Mr. Speaker, we must not fool ourselves
into looking to the industry for this safety
car. The industry has had the knowledge
and the ability to build safe cars for a long,
long time but they have not done it. This
has something to do with yearly model
changes, with freedom of design, fear of
sales resistance after the buyer has been
conditioned to look for the fancy chrome and
the lethal gadgets.
A safe car does not necessarily mean an
end to these things. It will certainly present
a greater challenge to design engineers and
colour experts. Further research would also
unearth different methods of accomplishing
the same safety aims. The important thing
now is that we no longer allow ourselves to
be lulled by the siren song that cars are
becoming safer and safer and that, in the
"fullness of time," the safe car will eventually
roll off the lines in Detroit.
Just as seat belts and other safety features
were forced by government action, so the
pressure is now building up for a capsule in-
side the automobile, and for construction
features designed for people, rather than for
the profit of the industry.
Mr. Speaker, the New York committee will
welcome our co-operation. The hon. Minister
has before him the results of their study, and
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
659
the plan of what they hope to do when the
financial means are available. He will also
have an invitation to participate in the
project.
I would suggest, therefore, that this House
move toward that kind of co-operation. The
international agreement makes our automo-
bile industry one on both sides of the border.
It also gives us a united governmental con-
cern with the industry.
I would urge upon the hon. Minister and
upon this House that an all-party committee
of this House be appointed to meet at an
early date with the New York committee to:
(a) Examine in depth and detail their safety
car programme to date; and (b) explore ways
and means of co-operating with them in their
further development of the safety car.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken
so long in the presentation of this subject.
But it is one of vital concern to this province
and to those responsible for its government.
We must not continue to kill and maim our
citizens at the incredible rate we are now
establishing. Improved highway design and
driver education must be stepped up— yes,
we agree with that. But car design must
have our immediate attention and our whole-
hearted concern. This House must face its
responsibility in this field and face it with-
out delay.
Mr. W. B. Lewis (Humber): Mr. Speaker,
once again I consider it a pleasure and a
privilege to have your permission to partici-
pate in the debate emanating from the
Speech from the Throne. I wish you every
success in this session and many sessions to
come.
Tonight I would like to speak to you about
the progress that has been achieved, and
predict the progress for the future of Metro-
politan Toronto. When the year 2000 arrives,
few will be around to say whether I was
right or wrong in what I have to say about
what Metro will be like 35 years from now.
History is not only a record of events of the
past, but it is also a basis from which to fore-
cast the future. What has happened so far
in the 20th century indicates that our gener-
ation has witnessed more mechanical, tech-
nological and scientific progress than any
other generation since the beginning of time.
We saw the automobile invented to change
the whole economic and social structure of
the North American continent. In 1965, a
record nine million motor vehicles were
produced in the United States. This means
about 800,000 to 900,000 were produced in
Canada, and that 60,000 to 70,000 of these
were domiciled in Metropolitan Toronto. It
is no wonder that our highways are plugged
and our expressways are filled the day they
are opened.
We saw the Wright brothers invent the
airplane, McCurdy make the first flight in
Canada, Bleriot fly the English channel, and
now you can fly from New York to Los
Angeles in the morning and return the same
evening.
We saw Marconi discover the wireless, and
the radio develop from a peanut tube con-
traption into a receiving set no bigger than
a cigarette box which can receive communi-
cations from all over the world.
Television has been around for only about
15 years but now, in colour, you can see a
baseball game in New York and, by a twist
of the dial, see a football game in Los
Angeles. The Telstar is in the stratosphere,
with television programmes and commercial
communications being bounced off it from
New York to London and Paris, and vice
versa.
We went through World War I, which was
to be the war to end all wars, only to see it
followed by World War II— to say nothing
of Korea and now Vietnam.
In recent years we have seen the British
Empire evaporate, and the British common-
wealth of nations become a loosely knit
organization— and a half dozen countries leave
it as they gained their independence.
We saw the atom bomb invented, and now
a half dozen countries know how to make
the nuclear bomb; so that all that prevents
a major war is that major nations realize
that one hydrogen bomb can demolish a
whole city in one blast.
A few months ago we thought it was a
miracle when two astronauts spent eight days
in the stratosphere and one of them had the
temerity to get out of his capsule and go for
a 20-minute walk. What was the miracle
yesterday is commonplace today. A few
weeks ago, two astronauts in Gemini VI
travelled around the world 206 times in 14
days for a distance of over 5 million miles,
and were pursued and met in space by
Gemini VII and travelled around the world
at 17,500 miles per hour— four times in tan-
dem, one to ten feet apart— and landed
within a few miles and a few minutes of
their prearranged schedule.
In the light of these miracles, how can one
say what will be the conditions under which
we will be living in the year 2000? So far
as our cities are concerned, it is not very
long ago that there was a great exodus to
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
suburbia. Now the tide that went out is
coming in, as the people want to be closer to
the centre of things and avoid a couple of
hours of driving every day, bumper-to-
bumper. Our back-to-downtown movement
is said to be a direct result of the new
$30 million city hall, which has re-established
the city's core as a place where exciting
things are happening.
Other soaring structures are being built:
The 55-story Toronto-Dominion centre, the
35-story Simpson tower, 29-story Richmond-
Adelaide centre, and the recently announced
$250 million Eaton project, which the mayor
of Toronto says will be as good as Rockefeller
centre— maybe better. The whole skyline of
Metro Toronto is rapidly changing.
Only two cities in North America— New
York and Los Angeles— are growing faster
than Metropolitan Toronto, which increases
its population by 65,000 people every year.
The factories, the schools, the office buildings,
the apartments and the homes needed to
house and provide working space for all of
these new Metro Torontonians rose to about
$700 million in building permits in 1965.
Not only are more apartments being built
than ever before, they are being built faster
than ever before— largely through the exten-
sive use of climbing cranes which, with free-
dom to swing their buckets a full 360 degrees,
are to be seen reaching out over every part
of the horizon.
It is only a few years ago that the popula-
tion of the North American continent was
equally divided between those who lived in
the country and those who lived in the city.
Now 70 per cent of the population live in
urban areas. This is giving rise to metro-
politan cities of one kind or another— Toronto
and Winnipeg in Canada, Miami-Dade
county in the United States, Greater London
in England, with its 8 millions of population,
and Tokyo with 10 million in a much smaller
area.
We used to think that metropolitan cities
were something new. We now find urban
developments that stretch out for hundreds of
miles. The best example is Boston-New York-
Philadelphia - Wilmington- Baltimore -Wash-
ington. In the past decade, pessimists
predicted that the U.S. automobile explosion
would eventually overtake the country's high-
ways and bring traffic to a full stop. They did
not allow for modern enterprise and inge-
nuity.
On the east coast, the continent's most con-
gested traffic corridor, which I have just
described, has a system of thruways upon
which a motorist can whip along the 435
miles between Washington and Boston with-
out ever encountering a stop light. You can
travel from New York to Chicago, a stretch
of 840 miles, through New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, where theie
is nothing to make a motorist stop except
fatigue, an empty gas tank, a toll station, or a
state trooper.
Here in Ontario we have a similar devel-
opment running from Oshawa to Niagara
Falls which certainly, before the year 2000,
will constitute an urbanized corridor of about
160 miles, extending back from the lake for
15 or 20 miles— this will include about one-
fifth of the population of the whole of Can-
ada—of which Metropolitan Toronto will be
the axis.
To solve some of the riddles which such a
development will create, the provincial gov-
ernment is now giving consideration to the
establishment of regional governments, each
of which will involve many municipalities, in
order that the common services which they
require can be provided.
We now find that the financial resources of
the whole of the Dominion of Canada are
necessary to provide schools for the training
which is essential for any young person who
seeks employment in a society where you
have to have a BA today to get a job as a
stockkeeper in General Motors. Many of the
skills which are being taught today will be-
come obsolete tomorrow.
Machines will take more and more work
from the hands of men. Cybernation— a new
$10 word— which means the marriage of
automated machinery and electronic com-
puters, is only in its infancy. And the day is
not far off when computers will take over
many of the thinking functions of professions
and executives. If hon. members think this
prospect is remote, they have only to witness
the development in man's conquest of outer
space to stimulate your thinking.
At the beginning of the century, when it
took five and a half days to cross the Atlantic
in a steamship, it was considered a remark-
able speed. Now you can fly across the
Atlantic in about six hours. And before very
long you will find that, so far as the clock is
concerned, you will be arriving at your des-
tination before you have left your point of
departure.
It was only a few years ago when one
would have been accused of the wildest kind
of imagination if he suggested that it was
economical to pipe water from Lake Huron
to the city of London and southwestern
Ontario. Now this is in the process of being
completed. And other pipelines, between
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
661
such places as Lake Ontario and Brampton,
are being financed by the Ontario water re-
sources commission, involving such sums as
$67 million. And we hear of projects to re-
verse the flow of rivers now flowing into the
Arctic ocean, so that they will flow south
into southern Canada and the United States
as our previously considered unlimited
supply of water is disappearing or being
contaminated.
Perhaps the more pertinent observation as
to what Toronto will be in the year 2000 is
raised by a consideration of the recent
Goldenberg report, which proposes that the
Metropolitan Toronto area be shrunk from
13 municipalities to four cities. This would
involve an increase in the size of the city of
Toronto, and increase its population by
about 25,000 and its assessment by about
$400 million.
The continuance of the dominance of the
city of Toronto as a continuing municipality,
enlarged in the manner indicated, is contrary
to the conclusions which were arrived at by
the Greater London commission in England,
which concluded that that area involving
about ten million people should be divided
into 32 boroughs of relatively equal size—
of 200,000 to 300,000 population-with no
one municipality dominating the whole area.
We now have a barrage of different ideas
as to how this metropolitan area should be
reconstituted. Goldenberg's suggestion is
four cities. The hon. Prime Minister's (Mr.
Robarts') is six boroughs. And the city of
Toronto still desires to dominate the situa-
tion, insisting that there is no solution short
of amalgamation.
The population of this area today is about
two million. By the year 2000, it will be at
least four million, and the borders of the
urban area will have expanded north to
Richmond Hill, east to Oshawa, and west to
Oakville. Either an expanded metropolitan
government, or some other form of regional
government, will have to be established to
provide the necessary services.
By the year 2000, our subway system will
be extended to the Etobicoke river on the
west, to the Rouge river on the east and to
Richmond Hill on the north. Already the
provincial government, together with the
CNR and the CPR, have arrived at a system
for commuter trains which will run from
Dunbarton on the east to Burlington on the
west and, when expanded, will extend in an
arc from Oshawa, Uxbridge, Newmarket,
Bolton, Georgetown, Guelph, Milton and
Hamilton. This system will be computer-
operated, running at speeds of up to 80
miles at convenient times. The provincial
government is risking $12 million on this
venture, with an annual subsidy of up to
$2 million, because that is only about a third
of the cost of building a single mile of
elevated expressway.
Instead of the passenger buying a ticket
or paying a fare, he will pull out a plastic
ticket and shove it into a slot of a commuter
computer which will electronically control a
gate to the platform. If everything is in
order, the ticket will pop back out and the
gates will open. If, however, the ticket's
magnetically inked code shows the ticket
has expired, the computer will gobble up
the ticket and the gate will not open.
Automobiles will not cease to be manu-
factured, and the expressways and parkways
will have to be built to accommodate them.
The logical development of our expressway
system will include the Gardiner expressway,
the Don Valley parkway, the extension of
400 south to the expressway, east of the
Prince's Gates at the exhibition; and, despite
all the opposition to the contrary, the cross-
town highway to connect 400 with the Don
Valley will have to be built.
It may well be that, instead of the Spadina
expressway coming south to meet the St.
George subway station at Bloor street, that
will go directly south through Christie park,
Trinity park, the old Cosgrave brewery,
Stanley park, and south to the expressway;
and, in its course, connect with the Bloor
street subway and Queen street subway, run-
ning from Trinity park underground to Sher-
bourne street, but avoiding the downtown
traffic on Queen street.
It is not a question of whether highways
or subways should have priority; both are
necessary and essential. And, despite all the
arguments that people should be derricked
out of their cars and put on the public transit
system, people will only leave their cars at
home when the transit system is more con-
venient and an economic way to travel, or
when our highways become so clogged with
traffic that public transit is faster than the
automobile.
We used to hear imaginative suggestions
for the building of highways under our
streets, and using the streets for pedestrian
traffic. Now we hear the opposite: That the
streets shall be made available for the motor
vehicle traffic, and that a series of pedestrian
tunnels will be established in the downtown
area, involving moving sidewalks and esca-
lators, to join up the Simpson tower and the
new Eaton complex, the city hall, the south
side of Queen street, the Richmond-Adelaide
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
building, the Toronto-Dominion centre, the
Royal York hotel, and the subway station
at Front street— so that future generations
of Torontonians may arrive downtown, shop,
eat, be entertained, and leave for home again
without once setting foot on a street.
In case the hon. member for Bracondale
(Mr. Ben) thinks that this concept is too
imaginative, Montreal is already ahead of us,
with two underground blocks involving the
new CNR station, the Queen Elizabeth hotel,
and Place Ville Marie, each lined with
modern and up-to-date stores and restaurants,
all of which are doing a thriving business.
Since 1953, when the metropolitan corpor-
ation was established, this city moved off a
static plateau into a vibrant and explosive
residential, commercial, and industrial
metropolis. The memory of man is so short
that we can scarcely remember what the city
looked like before that important event took
place. With an ability to build a $100 million
water plant, a $100 million sewer system, a
couple of hundred new schools, expressways
and parkways and subways, aged persons'
homes, and low rental apartments, we moved
into a new era, the momentum of which still
continues.
Today we stand on the threshold of devel-
opments beyond the expectation of our most
imaginative citizens. Sufficient to say that
if Rip Van Winkle lived in Toronto and
went to sleep for the next 35 years he would
never recognize the place when he woke
up, any more than we who are here today
can remember what it looked like 35 years
ago. So there you have it— one man's guess
as to what the future will bring forth.
But one thing is certain, and that is that
the most imaginative of us all will have to
dream in technicolor to foresee what will be
around in the year 2000, and I would like
to be here to see it. Thank you very much.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
I know that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) would like me to, and I know that
our hon. leader (Mr. Thompson) would ex-
tend to the visiting young Liberals from St.
Paul a warm welcome to the House tonight.
Mr. Speaker, as custom requires, I deem it
a pleasure to extend to you my best wishes,
and I hope that you will continue to be as
good an umpire as you were a hardball
pitcher some years back; and to extend to
your Deputy Speaker, the smiling Irishman
from Eglinton (Mr. Reilly), our congratula-
tions on his appointment; and to say to the
House that in this back row I congratulate
the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith)
and the hon. member for Bracondale (Mr.
Ben) who, as the hon. member from St.
Thomas says, will continue to talk over your
heads in much stronger fashion in days to
come.
Mr. Speaker, about the recent happenings
of the night before last, I would like to say
that I have had many calls about it. The
principle involved here is a very serious one
to the people of Ontario progressively, be-
cause we find that the people we engage to
serve us are becoming our masters. We are
devolving into a form of police state, not
realizing what is happening a little at a
time, and are gradually being hoodwinked
by the master PC government. They keep
feeding this stuff to us in little pieces and,
rather than make an issue of it, we accept it
with a shrug; one of these days we are going
to wake up and find we are past the point
of no return.
A man phoned me tonight and said that
in the past three years he had paid $600 to
the sheriff of York county in eviction fees and
he is still in his house. I do not know the
bill for eviction, but I imagine it would be
around $1,000. That is not important. But
they had to hire 31 people to put a man out
of his house. The fact is that when you look
back— last Christmas we had spot checks. If
these things had happened 20 years ago, we
would have thrown them out of the country,
but now we are going to have to carry cards,
and we are getting a bit like Russia. The
eviction programme is part of all this. It gives
the law and the government such powers
that police can invade your home, and break
down your doors like in pre-war Germany.
These are great pictures to appear from
democratic Canada in the world press, from
the city of Toronto.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there could have
been a much nicer way for this to be
handled. We seem to forget that the dignity
of the individual is still important, whether
he lives in Forest Hill or Cabbagetown; do
not forget that.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak tonight
about a miracle. Miracles do happen. They
tell a story about a professional gypster who
fell in a downtown store and sued the store
for $500,000 for damage to his back because
he could not walk. After the trial the defence
attorney went across to him, when he had
been awarded $250,000 damages, he said to
him, "We know that you are a professional
con man, we know that you have taken us in
this case, but we are going to make it our
life's work to see that you do not ever enjoy
that money; it will keep you in a wheel-
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
663
chair." And the winner of the award said,
"Well, now that we are being frank, I will
tell you something. Tomorrow morning I am
having a big Cadillac ambulance come to
my home with a beautiful nurse; and they
are going to take me to the airport and I am
going to fly in a jet to Paris, France; and
there, at Orly Field, I am going to have
another big Cadillac ambulance meet me
with a beautiful French nurse—"
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Is this a sup-
position?
Mr. Sargent: "—and I am going to have
them take me to the shrine at Lourdes, and
there you are going to see the damnedest
miracle ever."
Mr. Speaker, I am going to make that a
motion to this House tonight; and if it ever
comes to a vote there, too, you will see the
damnedest miracle ever.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the Throne
speech was a hard-to-stomach menu. There
was the old garnish— half-baked approaches
to revisions of The Municipal Act, and its
failure to cut the education costs off real
estate to give the homeowners some relief,
the people on fixed incomes; the soup, with
the watered-down Medicare plan; the vege-
tables, in the form of grants to municipalities
for transportation subsidies as promised by
the hon. Prime Minister, did not appear; the
meat course was as tough as a pair of
hobnailed boots — ignoring agriculture and
providing nothing for the impoverished
farmer; and no investigation of gasoline
prices or action on lotteries.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Edwards: Who gave the first two per
cent to the municipalities in this province?
Was it not Mitchell F. Hepburn?
An hon. member: The druggists did that.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I do not remember that
far back, Fred.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. member had better
read it.
Mr. Sargent: In fact, Mr. Speaker, this
whole presentation of the Throne speech was
a $2 billion tab presented mainly for the
"haves" and against the "have nots." I wish
to show this House tonight, in spite of the
lack of intelligence on my left here, if I can
get through it, three glaring cases of dis-
crimination. And whether I can get it across,
whether you can hear it— it will be in Hansard
anyway— time will show that the people of
Ontario will get a chance to know what I am
talking about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, there is not
an hon. member in this House who is not
aware of all our talk about poverty on the
farm; and this is my theme tonight— the lack
of regard of this government for agriculture.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The hon.
Minister is not in his place.
Mr. Sargent: My hon. colleague from Sud-
bury says the hon. Minister is not here, and
these remarks are geared to the hon. Min-
ister and the hon. Prime Minister.
An hon. member: Neither one of them is
here.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: We have heard the story of
the fact that the family farm is going to
disappear within ten years; we have heard the
story of the fact that there are many farmers
making less than $2,000 a year in this
dynamic province; and, Mr. Speaker, we
accept these as facts. There must be a reason
for these if they are facts— and there is a
reason. It is the growth of the octopus known
as the packing houses— a great friend of this
government, as we will show shortly. It is a
matter of record that livestock production
occurs on three-quarters of the farms of this
province, and accounts for about half of
their farm cash income. And farmers, there-
fore, sir, have a very great interest in a
competitive processing industry. But is it com-
petitive? Let me give a few actual happen-
ings that are current.
Recently a farmer sold six steers for $609.
The same meat will cost the consumer $1,614.
Even if it were sold for stewing beef, this is
the margin. In 1956 farmers received 25
cents for a pound of beef which cost the con-
sumer 81.6 cents. In 1963, the farmer got
only 18 cents a pound for beef which cost the
consumer $1.03.
Mr. Speaker, farmers everywhere — and
there must be farmers in this House— blame
monopoly control and the prices set by the
packing houses as their greatest enemy.
664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: What is the price of
pork?
Another hon. member: Getting through, eh?
Mr. Sargent: One farmer told me, Mr.
Speaker— and you will appreciate this— that it
is a fair statement to make that the high
standard of living that we enjoy in this coun-
try is because of the low standard of living
on the farm. He further said the time would
come— it is not too far away— when farmers
of this province would work the land the way
the communists do, working for someone else
and maintaining low production.
A clipping I have here, dated January 17,
is indicative of the magnitude of this problem.
An hon. member: What year?
Mr. Sargeant: This is headed "Canadian
meat packers top $1 billion in sales." It re-
ports that the annual sales on the slaughter-
ing of meat and packing in this country is
$1 billion, half of the budget of this province.
It is the fourth largest manufacturing indus-
try we have in Canada. To shorten this down,
the fact evolves that the whole villain in this
piece, insofar as the trouble with agriculture
is concerned, is this octopus of the meat pack-
ing industry.
I intend to show, regardless of the lack of
intelligence and courtesy down here— because
this is important to agriculture— that this gov-
ernment has discriminated against the farmers
of Ontario in favour of their friends in big
business in the large packing houses.
These companies control, because of their
size and their dominance in the field, the cost,
the price, of livestock, beef, pork, mutton-
meat in all its forms. They similarly control
and set prices for this industry on all poultry,
and control all the feeds and fertilizers. They
control the canning industry. They control
the cash crops. They control hides and
leathers, and almost everything in the home
today as we know it in Canada. They even
have their own supermarket chains to finish
off the deal.
Mr. Speaker, if you can have a group of
supposedly intelligent men, knowing what is
facing agriculture today, what they have to
fight to stay in business, and hearing the
bickering that is going on, I think it is an
insult to the intelligence of the farmers of
today.
Repeatedly, in excerpts from the restrictive
trade practice commission report, we read
"'The control of prices must be maintained
by the packing houses"— by one in particular.
I quote a paragraph from a directive from
the head of the packing concern to his sub-
ordinates:
In the final analysis we all pretty well
agree that the way to control these people
is by doing an effective selling job. We
realize it is not easy, nor will it be done
overnight.
The last time—
and I am quoting:
—I was in Montreal, they were determined
to establish where these people were sell-
ing their product, and to take such action
they guaranteed they were not getting
profitable prices.
Mr. Speaker, I could speak for hours on the
inequities foisted on agriculture by this
octopus, but I want to lay the reasons before
you to show why agriculture is in trouble
today, because they have been at the mercy
of these packing houses all through the years
—and it is getting progressively worse.
Is it any wonder, hon. members of this
House, that in 1960 the need to fight this
octopus brought about the organization
known as FAME. Here we have a group of
sincere, knowledgeable people, respected in
their field, and worried; and they want to
protect their homes and their farms. They
conceived the concept that the livestock pro-
ducer would have a purchasing power that
was capable of taking such farm livestock as
was offered on the market, or by private
sale, to maintain prices at a stable and suffi-
cient level and thereby raise their price level
on such farm products.
They felt that a farmer-owned plant, or a
system of plants processing such livestock
and selling it direct to the consumer or large
retailer, would provide such purchasing
power as to keep their market constantly at
a higher level. Its objective would be to
keep up price levels rather than make profits
for the association, to realize a long-
cherished dream and goal to gain a fair and
more stable share out of the consumer food
dollar for the Canadian livestock producers.
This was their goal, the vision of the or-
ganizers of FAME. And, Mr. Speaker, some
13,000 farmers in Ontario, many of them
from my area, put their money where their
mouth was and raised $2.5 million of their
own money— not coming to the government
for help— to prove something, to protect
themselves, which the government would
not do; and the government has not helped
them one iota since they started. They were
trying to protect their industry, to keep their
heads above water.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
665
At the same meeting in Stratford last
week-
Mr. Edwards: You know, for years the
two Opposition parties have been trying to
make capital of this thing-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member cannot
make a speech; he may ask the member a
question.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. member is in a
good farming area. I think he is concerned
with the lack of help for his people and
wants to get into the act some way, and I do
not mind a bit.
Last week I spoke to more than 500
farmers at a meeting in Stratford. Was the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart)
there? No, he was not. Were any of his
staff there? No, they were not.
And so, Mr. Speaker, these 500 farmers
are in trouble. The facts came out at the
meeting showed that in Ontario there are
60,000 livestock producers; and if you take
the net worth of their farms and their plants
as being $40,000 each, at a conservative esti-
mate, we have a gross worth of $2.4 billion
that they want to protect. The production
of these 60,000 livestock producers is $300
million a year— that is a lot of production—
and of the 13,000 shareholders in FAME,
their production is about $65 million a
year. So we are talking about no small
group here.
From the very outset, FAME was doomed
to have trouble and many headaches. Natur-
ally the big packing houses were not going
to accept this growth of opposition to them
without hitting back, so their public rela-
tions firms jointly began spewing out the
most defamatory remarks about this crazy
idea to go into the packing house business;
and almost everything was done to prohibit
or stop the successful consummation of this
concept.
Even at government level, Mr. Speaker,
they had difficulty in getting a charter
through the securities commission. I can
just imagine the packing groups coming to
this government and saying, "Now we have
always been a great friend of this govern-
ment; we must find some way to block this."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I think this
man had better-
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would ask members to desist from inter-
rupting the member speaking, no matter
how provocative his speech might be. The
member has the floor, and he is entitled to
keep the floor and not be interrupted by
other members with interjections.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if you think
that this has been provocative, wait for a
few moments.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that from the very
outset of this whole programme, the Ontario
federation of agriculture endorsed this 100
per cent— it is a matter of record— but at no
time along the line, Mr. Speaker, has this
government, this hon. Minister, or any of
his department, gone to FAME and said,
"Can we help?" At no time did they get
support from the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture.
Now what is his job? I have here a report
from the Toronto Globe and Mail— his friend
—page 6, February 8, 1966, which reads as
follows:
There appears to be about as much prin-
ciple in the Ontario bean policy as there is
pork in the average can of pork and beans.
The Department of Agriculture has not for
some time offered much in the way of
leadership to the farmers of this province
—in fact, it has been chiefly notable for its
lack of leadership— but in this year's bean
fiasco it has reached a new low.
It is quite a long epistle on the shortcomings
of this government in support of agriculture.
It goes on to say:
Two members of the farm products mar-
keting board have resigned on the grounds
that Mr. Stewart has reversed an important
principle he supported only last year.
And finally, it says:
But the greatest fault lies with Mr.
Stewart.
Then it goes on to say, in effect, that he is
not capable of handling the job.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have established
the fact that this government is no friend of
agriculture. That is established.
An hon. member: You have established it!
Mr. Sargent: Not having been involved in
big business operations before, it was natural
that they should make some mistakes, and
they made them king-size. Let no one in the
government talk about business ability— if
ever I saw a corporation with a board of
directors bankrupt for personnel like that
front bench over there! I think you should
not talk about business ability.
Such things as the FAME group had to
666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
contend with— lack of direction, lack of
skilled people, such things as amortizing a $3
million debenture debt over a period of less
than three years instead of 20 years, making
it inside of three years. They made the mis-
takes that all big business makes. The fact is
that these things happen every day in big
business, but no one knows about them. But
here is a group of sincere, worried people,
with no outside help, no big business help,
with the press of the packing houses shooting
barbs all the time; they are bound to get into
trouble, and they did.
Mr. Edwards: The price of pork is still
going up.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, we had FAME,
in 1963 and in 1964, getting into dire trouble;
and in 1965 it was looking for ways to keep
this concept alive. And all this time the pub-
lic relations men of these big firms are shoot-
ing them down. However, at no time, Mr.
Speaker, was there any evidence of anything
dishonourable in the directorship of this, at
this point.
So about November 25, and I hope that is
the correct date, this group approached the
hon. Prime Minister of this province for help,
and you know what happened. The hon.
Prime Minister, smiling John, told them with
tears in his eyes, "I am sorry, fellows, I can-
not help you. I could not possibly help you.
If we did it for you we would have to do it
for somebody else. Awfully sorry." He said
he had no authority to help them; he would
be setting a precedent.
Now I have a clipping here—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
What would you have done?
Mr. Sargent: Here is a clipping. I will tell
the hon. Minister what I would have done, in
a minute. I have a clipping here, gentlemen,
from the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is a
cartoon of the gala opening of the Toronto-
Burlington commuter service. It has Mayor
Copps and his group on the stage, with guns
in their hands, and on the wall of the station
is a big wanted poster here with a picture of
"Cheap Charlie MacNaughton." "Cheap
Charlie" they call him. Well, I think now
we should call him "Cheap John" over here.
I have a very interesting parallel to tell
you about this. It is a story about a couple.
They had raised three sons. One became a
doctor, one became a lawyer, and one became
an engineer. They had put the boys through
school and they all became very successful
men. One day the father called the boys
home and, "Boys," he said, "your mother and
I have had a rough time. We think we would
like to have a little trip around the world.
Could you give us a pot of money to enjoy
ourselves? We would certainly love to see
the world before we pass on." So the boys
talked it over and then the doctor son said,
"No, Dad, I could not possibly, I have obli-
gations. I have had a lot of trouble. I could
not possibly help you." The other two sons
also said they could not come through and
help their mother and father. So finally the
father said, "Well, I think I had better tell
you. If that is the way you feel about it, I
had better tell you that your mother and I
have been so busy, with our noses to the
grindstone, that we never had a chance to
go out and get married." And the boys said,
"Do you know what that makes us?" And
the father said, "Yes, and cheap ones, too."
Well, that is my opinion of the way this
government behaved. I do not wish to imply
that the hon. Prime Minister was telling an
untruth, but he was evading the truth. He
was hypocritical in his attitude to these
people to say he could not help them, be-
cause he has set many a precedent for causes
just and unjust, dipping into the public till to
help people with public money, without
authority. Did the hon. Prime Minister tell
this FAME group that he and his govern-
ment have set aside millions of dollars of
credit for sick industry in the metropolitan
area? If the industry gets sick, he sets credit
of money up towards them and he gives them
skilled help. Did he tell them that? He said
he could not do it, he had no authority. There
was no precedent. This is hypocrisy.
There are 13,000 farmers involved, and you
tell them you had no precedent, no authority
to do this, but you do it for industry. I refer
you to past happenings in the ODA where
this credit has been used for political pur-
poses, for a slush fund. I can prove this. We
have seen the books of this company, Fairfield,
and the records state very clearly that the
money was used for political purposes. I make
this offer to the House: Any time the govern-
ment wants to establish a commission to find
the truth, we are open to do business with it
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia
the government of that province took public
funds and started a concept like FAME to
help the farmers of that province. Last year
they showed a profit. But this hon. Prime
Minister says he has no authority, he could
not set a precedent for agriculture.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
667
How did the government help out British
Mortgage? Did the hon. Prime Minister tell
FAME that he bailed out British Mortgage?
The trust and loan companies—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): The
hon. member does not know what he is
talking about.
Mr. Sargent: I certainly do and I will show
the hon. Prime Minister in a moment.
When Atlantic Acceptance Corporation
went into bankruptcy on June 16 because
of the alley-jacks of scoundrels — using the
terminology of a leading Toronto bankruptcy
expert in the Toronto papers recently— and
thereby hangs a tale. Maybe if we look
close enough and hard enough, it may not be
the tail of a pussy-cat, but a real tiger.
The Atlantic Acceptance bankruptcy threat-
ened to pull down British Mortgage and
the whole empire of trust companies across
this country. And who should come to the
rescue, but smiling John. Again he had
his hand in the public till. Here money was
no problem at all. The big interests had a
friend with the moustache and the little
black bag go to the bank and get them a
few million dollars, and he did.
We are not dealing with any amateurs
here. This is big money we are talking about.
Mr. Frost, the former Prime Minister was
a constant visitor at this House during that
period. I am told he met with the Cabinet.
I do not know. Is that true? No comment.
This is par.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Is that one of the hon.
member's rhetorical questions?
Mr. Sargent: I really would not know.
That is a pretty expensive word, I would not
know that. The hon. Prime Minister guaran-
teed the credit of this company up to $3
million. First he said, to protect the deposi-
tors. I will buy that. But secondly, most
important of all, I suggest, was to bail out
the loan company, because they were in
trouble.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me a copy of
The Loan and Trust Companies Act with the
1964 and 1965 revisions. I have read it,
page by page and I find numerous references
to reasons why the charter of British Mort-
gage and Atlantic Acceptance should have
been revoked, but nothing was done about
it. Where was the government? That was
their job.
Nowhere in this Act do I find statutory au-
thority from the hon. Prime Minister to use
money, public moneys, to create wealth for
the upper crust of this province. Nowhere
does it say that in this book. We are not
getting any amateurs here, this is a real
pro job. Where is the statutory authority for
this? I could quote at some length.
A letter signed by Mr. Harold Lawson,
president of the National Life Assurance
Company, Canada, and a former director
of the British Mortgage and Trust Company.
He says in paragraph 1:
The directors of British Mortgage did not
know a lot of what was going on. They
did not realize that certain so-called
secured notes were in fact not secured.
We did not realize that a junior note was
being called a senior note.
Paragraph 2, and I quote again:
We did not realize that certain short-
term notes had not been paid off when
due.
Mr. Speaker, is this not the responsibility of
the government or the superintendent of
insurance and registrar of loan and trust
companies? Where was he? Quoting again,
Mr. Lawson says:
Some of us did not realize that British
Mortgage had invested in Atlantic Accep-
tance, and it was about two weeks before
we were fully aware of the extent of the
losses incurred. It was then apparent that
almost the whole capital fund of the com-
pany had been wiped out. But the share-
holders did not know it and the shares
were still selling on the market at about
$30.
It was important that the shareholders
be told as quickly as possible. But how
could we tell the shareholders without
causing some panic among the depositors?
The moment the depositors heard about it,
and some of them took the precaution
of drawing their money out, there would
be a panic. And if there was panic, the
company would have folded, not because
of insolvency but for lack of equity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, immediately after June
16 there was quite a period of time when the
shares were still selling at $30 and only
the directors knew of the impending disaster.
Only the directors knew that the stock would
be worthless. Now the point I would like
to ask on behalf of the people of Ontario is,
how many unloaded at the $30 figure, and
who got out before the balloon burst? How
many sold their shares after June 16? We
owe it to this House to have a look at the
transfer record book. Let us have a look at
the transfer of shares; or maybe it is too
late, maybe these too have been doctored.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lawson goes on:
Trust companies and banks who have
depositors are in a different position from
other corporations. There is no trust com-
pany in the country or any bank that is
liquid enough to stand a full-scale run by
its depositors. We had first to protect the
depositors before we told the shareholders.
I could see possibly that if British Mort-
gage went under, other trust companies
might have gone under. The losses in
British Mortgage would have been minus-
cule in relation to the total catastrophe
that might have ensued.
Mr. Lawson says:
The first thing we did was go to one of
the biggest banks in Canada. We asked
that bank either on its own or in consortium
with other banks, to give total support to
our depositors, to guarantee their deposits
while we notified the shareholders of the
losses and arranged to refinance the com-
pany. The answer was "no."
I am basically a life insurance man. In
the whole of the history of life insurance
in Canada, which goes back 100 years, no
policyholder has ever lost one cent of the
money that was due to him. Such com-
panies have gone under, that is true, but
always the rest of the industry has rallied
around and supported the policyholders of
the company that went out of business.
That is a record of which we are proud and
I hope it will always be true. I thought that
trust companies would feel the same way
about their business.
I digress. On good authority I have it that
these trust companies wanted to see the dis-
appearance of a lot of small trust companies,
so that is why they did not get into the act
of bailing this mortgage company out them-
selves.
And Mr. Lawson says:
It was at the meeting of the tmst com-
panies that I first heard the suggestion that
the government should pick up the loss.
The argument was that the government
supervises the trust companies and the
government supervision was inadequate, so
the government should pick up the loss. In
spite of the fact that The Loan and Trust
Companies Act says specifically that this is
not so.
He says, and I quote Mr. Lawson, a director
of British Mortgage and the head of a large
assurance company, the National:
The greatest mistake in all this sorry
record was to suggest that the government
should be responsible for the company's
losses, and an equally great mistake was
for the Ontario government to actually
agree that it would make money available
to the company through certain of the
banks.
From the Throne speech we have this now.
This has all happened, the horse has flown,
we are going to lock the barn door. They say
in the Throne speech,
The amendments to The Securities Act
and The Corporations Act will provide
for fuller disclosures of the financial and
trading affairs of companies seeking funds
from the public, including control of in-
sider trading and takeover bids.
If the government, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is
going to force business into a full disclosure,
how about a full disclosure from the govern-
ment here?
The provisions of The Loan and Trust
Corporations Act also has been revised.
Legislative proposals will be placed before
you to provide more effective supervision
in this area of our jurisdiction and economy.
So we see in effect, Mr. Speaker, the position
of this government, discriminating on one
hand against the farmers of Ontario, telling
them they cannot give them any special treat-
ment but breaking every law in the book to
help the big interests, to save the day for the
moneyed interests, the trust and loan com-
panies, using public funds.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that
an investigation be launched to ascertain
whether or not any hon. members of this
government, including members of the Cabi-
net, did hold stock in British Mortgage or
Victoria and Grey Trust Company, either
before June 16, after June 16 and at the pres-
ent time.
In the Globe and Mail of August 10,
1965, Vincent Egan, a financial writer, said
that making government money available to
British Mortgage was an unprecedented step.
I quote him:
Queen's Park has said that, if necessary,
it would take the unprecedented step of
making funds available to the capital short
of Stratford Financial Company, until it
could work out its plans to amalgamate
with Victoria and Grey Trust Company.
In the same article, Mr. Egan wrote:
The provincial government said it wel-
comed the proposed amalgamation.
Now, British Mortgage shares dropped from
more than $30 in mid-June to about $2.35,
and British Mortgage and Victoria-Grey voted
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
September 14 to amalgamate on a six-for-one
basis. After June 16 it was a panic party, but
eventually it got good enough after all these
negotiations with the concerned people, to
trade six British Mortgage shares for one
Victoria-Grey share— a six-for-one deal.
Again, the people of Ontario would like
to ask the hon. Prime Minister, what was
the nature of the deal with Victoria-Grey?
They would like to ask the hon. Prime Min-
ister, is there a deal with Victoria-Grey, or is
there an understanding with Mr. Leslie Frost?
Just estimate, Mr. Speaker, the fortunes that
will be made when an amalgamation picks
up assets of some hundreds of millions of
dollars, and brings them into one full stock
company. In the next ten years when all of
this is forgotten there will be great fortunes
made in stock splits, all because the people
of Ontario had their money pledge this credit
for this wealthy group, the in-group.
Mr. Speaker, in view of all the close co-
operation, using public funds, between this
government and the trust and loan companies,
I would call for an investigation to uncover
a great area for a possible conflict of in-
terest. If this is true, those holding stock in
any of these two companies would be barred
from holding their seats in this Legislature,
and if this government thinks that it can
treat with kid gloves the moneyed interests
in this province and give the back of their
hand to agriculture, they are going to have a
rude awakening on the next election day.
Mr. Speaker, the third area of discrimina-
tion is in using up public funds in one area
and neglecting another. I refer you to the
commuters bill.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Now, we will see, Mr.
Speaker, the intelligence of this group when
'they hear the logic behind what I have to
say.
Last spring, you recall, we passed a bill
for rapid transit between Burlington and
downtown Toronto. The motivation, I be-
lieve we all agree, in these services is to
protect downtown, the hard core of assess-
ment in downtown real estate. We all
know in this goodness of government that
downtown assessment is the cash box of any
municipality and at any expense we must
protect that against fringe development. So
that is the motivation on any rapid transit
commuter service. The motivation here is
to protect downtown real estate.
I have nothing against Toronto. I suggest
we start a nationwide contest by giving as
first prize one week all-expenses-paid in
Toronto, and the second prize two weeks
all-expenses-paid in Toronto. We are not
against spending money in Toronto, Mr.
Speaker, as long as the hon. Prime Minister
keeps his word. He told this House last
spring that if we spent $7 million in down-
town Toronto commuter service that he
would give like money for the same trans-
portation across the rest of the province. He
told us that, and nothing happened in the
Throne speech about it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: I do agree, Mr. Speaker, that
the principle of the hard core of assessment
in downtown Toronto should be protected
because of the great development in down-
town Toronto, but the trend across America
is to set up their own rapid transit systems
with the cost being paid for by the area
that will benefit by it— paying the full oper-
ating costs and the capital costs. There are
plenty of parallels and precedents for this.
Now, this bill we passed to bring commuters
downtown has a capital cost of $7.5 million
with $1.5 million a year subsidy in per-
petuity.
A commuter service is horizontal trans-
portation bringing people downtown. In
downtown areas we have huge skyscrapers.
Take, for instance, the Toronto-Dominion
bank building under construction— 60 storeys
high. These skyscrapers have elevators
known as vertical transportation, and there is
no more reason why the government should
subsidize horizontal transportation from
Burlington to downtown Toronto than there
is for them to subsidize vertical transporta-
tion in elevators downtown.
Toronto has to ask the rest of the province
to pay for this transportation to downtown
Toronto. Here is an example of a parallel
in the United States. The San Francisco
region has just started on a new— I am
quoting:
—technically advanced rail rapid transit
system to bring people to downtown San
Francisco and Oakland from as far away
as 40 miles out. The significant fact is
that the passenger will pay perhaps only
one-fifth of what it will cost to haul him.
The main part of the cost, that is building
the railroad, is being borne through a
special real estate tax on the people who
are going to benefit by it.
I am still quoting, and so it is definite.
Suburban property owners will pay this
transit tax and the owners of high-value,
downtown San Francisco and Oakland real
670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
estate will pay much more. Yet it was the
property owners who pushed the project
through. They knew that downtown real
estate will be worthless if people quit com-
ing downtown. In fact, why not make
urban transport free to the riders, they
point out. Buildings as tall as ours would
be worthless without free vertical trans-
portation. Lay that idea on its side and
it still works.
In essence, the American programmes of this
type are paid for by the city affected. But
in this administration this government sees
fit to lay the charge on every taxpayer in
Ontario for a commuter service that will
benefit downtown Toronto real estate.
I have no quarrel with this form of pro-
tecting downtown real estate as long as every
other part of Ontario gets the same treat-
ment. We have had plenty of parallels here
in the subway grant, $20 million was given
by this government from the people of On-
tario for Toronto subways, and I have a
quotation here from the Toronto Star, a letter
by a taxpayer which says:
What happened to all the clear thinkers
when $42 million were poured into the
University avenue subway that today does
not take in enough money to pay for the
ticket-takers?
That cost the rest of Ontario $20 million and
yet it does not even take in enough money to
pay for the salary of the ticket-takers.
This is what I am quarrelling about, the
inequity in the operation of this government.
Mr. Speaker, we have revealed three areas
where this government has discriminated
against agriculture by giving grants to indus-
try that agriculture does not enjoy; a shocking
case of collaboration with big business in the
bailing out of the British Mortgage and Trust
Company, in saving the trust and loan com-
pany by using public funds; by the use of
public funds to enrich downtown Toronto
real estate; in all of these areas, projects cost-
ing many millions of dollars. Yet this gov-
ernment could not give one dollar per head
from the people of Ontario to protect the
way of life of the farmers of Ontario; to give
the farmer a chance to help himself, to give
him some sort of protection against the octo-
pus packing industry.
A note has been handed to me: "Copaco
has closed its doors and is bankrupt. Will the
government help?" Time will tell.
Mr. Speaker, I trust this House will think
carefully and support the following motion—
I am quoting:
"On behalf of the people of Ontario—"
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the member
that it is improper to make a motion to the
House during the debate at this time. The
debate at the present time is on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the Throne speech
proposed by the member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald). That debate must go for-
ward to its conclusion before any further
amendments can be placed before the House.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
will withdraw the motion. I think it is
timely then, that there be tabled in this
House a list of any or all stocks held prior
to June 16, 1965 up until the present time
in the British Mortgage and Trust Company
and the Victoria-Grey Trust Company, by any
member of the Cabinet, any member of the
government, any member of the securities
commission, along with complete disclosures
of transfers of shares in the above stocks on
May 1, 1965, to August 1, 1965. I think it
is timely to bring into this House legislation—
I will try to bring in as I mentioned before—
a programme to give a ten-year test for the
same, set up along the following lines:
A credit of up to $3 million for operating
capital.
A subsidy of up to $1 million for ten years.
And to give this concept a chance to prove
itself, the government to provide direction
and the needed skilled help for agriculture
as it does for industry. To further satisfy the
government, they could appoint a board of
trustees to be approved by the 13,000 share-
holders of FAME. It is time we gave agri-
culture a new deal in this House. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, first I would like
to compliment you on the fine manner
in which you have been conducting the
affairs of this Plouse under, what we all
know, are very trying circumstances. I think
you will probably appreciate that certain
events which took place in a certain by-
election a short time ago are not going to
make your life any easier around here. I
am sure you are going to do your best to
handle it in your usual efficient manner.
Mr. Speaker, I was not going to engage in
the Throne debate. I think there were
enough speakers and I think the Ministers
generally have many opportunities to speak
in this House. But as hon. members know,
the hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben)
a short while ago, took the occasion in his
maiden speech of making a direct personal
attack on me.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
671
I am not anxious to, nor will I, engage in
a personal feud with anybody in this House.
But before I am a member of this Legislature
or a Minister, I am a man, and anyone taking
the trouble to make a personal attack on me
must expect to be answered.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was
rather puzzled as to how to deal with the
hon. member for Bracondale. He hardly
makes sense. He rarely has made sense. He
makes headlines. We are all familiar with
that.
It is obvious, sir, from his personal attack
on me in his maiden speech that he intends
to carry on in this manner, in a manner to
which he has become accustomed in the two
years he spent in the Toronto city council
—that is bluster, invective and irrational and
wild attacks, personal attacks, too— and of
course, for no reason but to catch headlines.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just in case some of the
hon. members from outside the city are not
familiar with the tactics to which they had
better become accustomed— as far as the
hon. member is concerned— let me quote from
a column of Mr. Bob Pennington of the To-
ronto Telegram on January 3, 1966. It is
entitled "Our Man Takes A Look Through
a Glass Darkly into 1966" and he gives his
prognostication for every month in 1966. For
January, he says:
George Ben, MPP, calls the tournament
of champions at Maple Leaf Gardens a
dung heap and cesspool and demands an
inquiry into curling.
His prognostication for February is:
George Ben calls Ontario ski resorts
dung heaps and cesspools and demands an
inquiry into skiing.
For March: Canada wins the world
hockey tournament in Yugoslavia and
makes a unilateral declaration of inde-
pendence. George Ben calls international
hockey a dung heap and a cesspool and
Clarence Campbell agrees with him.
For April: "Pennington"— that is the
columnist— Pennington goes to Las Vegas
with the funds for the underprivileged
workers of Disneyland shouting, 'They are
not as underprivileged as all that/ George
Ben calls schoolgirl volley ball a dung
heap and a cesspool and Clarence Camp-
bell appoints King Clancy to conduct an
inquiry.
For May: Pennington says he will give
a stetson to every cricketer performing a
three-wicket-game hat trick. George Ben
says cricket is a dung heap and a cesspool.
For June: George Ben calls English
racing a dung heap and a cesspool and
10,000 stable boys agree with him.
For July: Gussie Moran stages come-
back in the first topless Wimbledon.
George Ben calls Wimbledon a dung heap
and a cesspool and Clarence Campbell
tells him to mind his own damn business.
For August: Canadians playing in the
Carling World Golf at Southport, England
collapse under the merciless sun. George
Ben calls golf a dung heap and a cesspool.
For September: Pennington is fired by
the United Church for impaired publicity
and leaves for Kenya to write a series of
articles on gorillas as a possible new source
of recruitment for football. George Ben
calls football a dung heap—
For October: Johnny Esaw is appointed
coach of Toronto Italia soccer club and is
invited to sit on the hot seat by Nancy
McCredie. George Ben calls the hot seat
a cesspool of dung.
He changed it a little this time. For
November: Pat Remillard is signed to play
Peter Pan in London. George Ben says
Peter Pan is a cess heap of dung.
December: Cassius Clay says he will
enter politics after fighting Juliette. George
Ben says politics are a dung pool of cess.
[Mr. Pennington finishes] The outlook
for 1967 is quite unthinkable. Happy New
Year.
Now Mr. Speaker, I only point this out as an
example of what a lot of people in Toronto
have become accustomed to from the hon.
member. As I said, I am a little puzzled as
to how to handle the hon. gentleman because
I do not want to become involved in a session
full of invective going back and forth be-
cause I, right at the beginning, admit that he
can beat me at this.
An hon. member: Her Majesty's Minister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Whether I am Her
Majesty's Minister or not, I am still a gentle-
man and a man and anybody who is going
to make personal attacks has to expect to get
it back.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But I am not going
to make a personal attack. I will admit this,
Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman came
over after this unprecedented attack— I do
not think there is any precedent for a
member in his maiden speech to stand up
and make a vindictive personal attack.
672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Oh, yes,
there has been far worse— Robert Macaulay—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will
admit this: The hon. member came over
later, because we have known each other
for some time and he said, "Allan, there is
something wrong around here. Some of the
boys here are saying that I have something
against you." And I said, "Well, I wonder
where they got that impression."
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other day I merely
corrected the record. That was the implica-
tion of the hon. member that I had misled
the House and I stated at that time that I
would deal in detail with his other wild
charges and now I am going to deal with
them.
His record in city council is easily
described, he was accustomed to attacking
civil servants who could not answer back.
He is going to become accustomed to the fact
that here attacking civil servants merely to
catch headlines is not going to be as easy
as it was in city council, because here there
is a Minister responsible for every civil
servant. And the hon. member is going to
have to put up or shut up.
I know for a time he is going to get away
with all sorts of these wild statements such
as the ones he used in his maiden speech.
If I can refresh the hon. members of this
House, using such expressions as "captious
whining," "the stolid impassivity of the
Sphinx," "atrophied mental processes," "un-
informed and misinformed," "appalling judg-
ment," "consummate arrogance" and all that
sort of thing. He will catch the headlines, of
course, and frequently get away with this
ploy, knowing full well that not too often
will the calm appraisal and refutation of his
charges get anywhere near the publicity
that his colourful invective does.
I say, however, Mr. Speaker, in addition
to the other reasons he will find it perhaps
a little more difficult here because we have a
Mr. Speaker who controls the debates and
who will hopefully control some of the
language for which the hon. member has
become notorious.
It is my guess, too, that those same gentle-
men of the press who take delight in reporting
his uncontrolled verbosity, will eventually
lose respect for his methods unless, of
course, he changes his ways and at least
attempts to get down to cases and deal with
facts. This is what I intend to do right now,
deal with the facts. I intend to go over his
speech in detail and deal with everything
he has said and get down to the specific
cases. I will establish what probably every
hon. member has already suspected, that his
comments were merely loud, noisy nonsense,
with little if any basis in fact. In the process,
Mr. Speaker, I hope to provide the hon.
member with enough information so that
the next time he speaks on matters pertain-
ing, at least, to my department, we might
hopefully engage in an intelligent, fruitful
debate on those things which concern all
serious-minded citizens. If I am not success-
ful in this attempt, Mr. Speaker, I will at
least be serving notice on the hon. member
that I am not going to let him destroy the
morale of my department or its very active
programme in his attempt to gain sufficient
prominence to replace his hon. leader (Mr.
Thompson ) .
Mr. Speaker, to deal with the specific
charges, I quote him: "The hon. Minister is
consistently uninformed, ill-informed and
misinformed." And I am sure the hon.
member for Bracondale was quite happy
with the headlines he got on that, because
this is not the sort of attack that, as I
said earlier, a member usually makes in
his maiden speech. The hon. member, of
course, is entitled to his opinion. And all I
can do is to compare his views, the views of
a man who within two or three weeks, has
become an expert in penology, with those
who are recognized experts and have been
in the field for years. Sir, here are their
views, and I hope hon. members will for-
give me if this seems immodest, but I have
to make my case. The following are state-
ments made regarding my knowledge of my
work as to whether I am informed or un-
informed, as the hon. member charged me.
From the Toronto Globe and Mail of Feb-
ruary 2, 1966, quoting William T. McGrath,
executive secretary of the Canadian correc-
tions association:
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a
revolution taking place within The Ontario
Department of Reform Institutions.
From the Globe and Mail again, quoting
A. M. Kirkpatrick, executive director of the
John Howard society:
We have a Minister who is tremen-
dously interested in his department and
has done more study than normally could
be expected. He has been receptive to
persons outside the department and
opened a great many doors.
Quoting Mrs. Margaret Cragg, information
officer of the Ontario welfare council:
The Department of Reform Institutions
occupies much more space in our publi-
cation—
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
673
meaning the Ontario welfare council bulletin:
—than in former years because of its many
new programmes. We have been im-
pressed with your approach-
She was referring to me in an unsolicited
letter— an unsolicited letter:
We have been impressed with your
approach to the problems of corrections
and we venture to hope that many of
your staff will find this book a useful
reference-
referring to a book she sent to us.
Quoting His Honour Judge C. L. Austen,
treasurer of the association of juvenile and
family court judges of Ontario, in a letter
-dated September 24, 1965:
Actually not only the judges present but
those who heard you at the last associa-
tion seminar are very pleased that we have
a Minister who takes a personal interest in
matters relating to the training and educa-
tion of youngsters falling into the orbit
of the juvenile courts, and we are anxious
to co-operate in every way possible in the
training schools programme on which you
are working.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Could the hon.
Minister not get one of his colleagues to read
that for him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I did not think
I had to go through that subterfuge.
Mr. Nixon: I do not think he could have
got them to read it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quoting Douglas Mc-
Conney, executive director of the social plan-
ning council of Metropolitan Toronto on
December 17, 1965:
We are very much aware and apprecia-
tive of the points made in the department
submission of October 20 to the select
committee on youth, of the number of
senior staff appointments which have been
made during the past year and of earlier
developments in the spring including the
new Training Schools Act.
Quoting from the Elizabeth Fry Newsletter,
February 19, 1964:
1. Congratulations are in order to The
Department of Reform Institutions for the
sponsorship of the first conference on addic-
tions, held at the Alex G. Brown memorial
clinic at Mimico.
2. The conference offered an excellent
exchange of information on research being
done at Mimico. The conference was an
unqualified success. We do hope that it
will become an annual event. We left en-
couraged that research and treatment were
going steadily ahead in Ontario and that
more and more people are realizing that
the punitive approach was not the right
answer.
Quoting Mrs. M. Moodey, the corresponding
secretary of the Elizabeth Fry society in a
letter dated October 13, 1964:
Mr. Grossman has shown great ability in
the work he has undertaken and apprecia-
tion of the problems involved.
That is the point I want to make. I was
accused of being uninformed, ill-informed and
misinformed and had a great lack of initiative.
I will speak about that later..
The conference on alcoholism and addic-
tion was of service to the social and wel-
fare workers from many agencies and the
recent meeting between the after-care
agencies and his own staff provided a
much-needed opportunity for communica-
tion and interpretation. We have been
particularly grateful for his study of the
county and district jails and the subsequent
recommendations for updating these and
other institutions.
From the Elizabeth Fry Newsletter, Decem-
ber, 1965:
Ontario's new Training Schools Act pro-
claimed November, 1965, was greeted at a
recent United Nations congress held in
Sweden as a leading piece of legislation in
the juvenile field.
Want some more? Does the hon. member
for Bracondale want some more?
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: From the Elizabeth
Fry Newsletter, dated January, 1966:
Mrs. Weinrich and Miss Haslam attended
a luncheon to mark the signing of a con-
tract between four counties in the Quinte
area and the government of Ontario to share
in the building of a regional detention
centre. This is the first such agreement and
is indeed a forward step. Now better facili-
ties can be built, planned and staffed. This
should mark, we hope, the beginning of the
end of the inadequate ancient local county
jails across the province. Congratulations.
From the Elizabeth Fry Newsletter, February
19, 1966:
It was a pleasure to meet Miss Nicholson
of The Department of Reform Institutions.
Her speech was informative and stimulat-
ing. Certainly Ontario is fortunate in hav-
ing a woman of this calibre and intelligence
674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the newly created position of admin-
istrator of adult female institutions. The
province is to be congratulated for its fore-
sight in defining this position and thus giv-
ing the work with the female adult offender
the attention that it deserves. One wonders
what is happening in Ottawa.
From the John Howard society of Ontario
in its presentation to the select committee on
youth, October, 1965:
The Department of Reform Institutions
is to be commended for recently announc-
ing the policy of reduction of size of adult
correctional institutions to not more than
200 inmates. This leaves the problem of
Guelph reformatory which at varying times
houses between 700 and 800 young offend-
ers. No immediate decision is perhaps pos-
sible because of the proposed transfer of
jurisdiction to the federal government of
inmates sentenced in effect to over six
months.
The policy of building regional deten-
tion and classification centres replacing
outmoded county jails has been actively
pursued by The Department of Reform
Institutions and warrants every possible
support.
I should say: "Classification centres are re-
placing outmoded county jails."
Talking of real experts, Mr. Speaker, let
me give you the sort of people who inform
and advise me so that we will be able to
judge whether the hon. member is correct
when he says that I am misinformed. These
are the people who advise me and inform
me— or as the hon. member has stated, "mis-
inform me"— in various capacities on advisory
committees and staff:
Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Moulton, direc-
tor of correctional services, the Salvation
Army; A. M. Kirkpatrick, executive director
of the John Howard society of Ontario; Pro-
fessor John Spencer, school of social work,
University of Toronto; Professor Martin L.
Freidland, faculty of law, University of To-
ronto; Mr. G. G. MacFarlane, assistant direc-
tor, probation services, department of the
Attorney General; Mr. Joseph McCulley,
chairman of the planning committee, formerly
warden of Hart House and former deputy
commissioner of penitentiaries; Mr. A. H.
Bird, chief superintendent, planning branch,
Ontario provincial police; Mrs. C. L. Dubin,
QC, barrister and solicitor, for years involved
in penal reform.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
hon. Minister should hear what some of these
people say privately about his department.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to chal-
lenge the hon. member to produce that in a
few minutes.
To continue: Mr. G. A. Martin, QC, barris-
ter and solicitor, one of Canada's outstanding
criminal lawyers; Major Elizabeth Peacocke,
of the Salvation Army; Mr. H. David
Archibald, whom I recently announced was
appointed— of course I must not take credit
for having had the benefit of his advice yet,
he is just a new member; the Reverend
Martin W. Pinker, chairman of MACTO,
who has had a lifetime in after-care work;
trustee Monte H. Harris, lawyer, trustee, on
board of education of Toronto, member of
the social planning council of Metropolitan
Toronto; the Venerable Archdeacon M. C.
Davies, member of the board of directors of
St. Leonards House, Windsor; Her Honour
Judge Helen Kinnear, first woman King's
counsel and first woman county judge in the
British Commonwealth; I have already men-
tioned Joseph McCulley; Mrs. Cameron Mc-
Kenzie, director of Ontario county children's
aid society; His Honour Judge Waisberg is a
member of the board of directors of the
John-
Mr. Sopha: He is a Tory.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I have nothing
against him because he is a Tory. I do not
know what that means.
Mr. Sopha: He never says anything bad
about a Tory.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that
that proves anything. He is a member on
the board of directors of the John Howard
society.
Recent appointments, again, I cannot take
credit for having had any of their advice yet,
they have just become members of these
boards: Father John Kelly, president of the
University of St. Michael's college; Mr. Ger-
ald E. Nori, lawyer, member of the John
Howard society; Professor H. R. Stuart Ryan,
QC, professor of law at Queen's University;
James P. Felstiner, chairman of the training
schools advisory board, a consultant on un-
reached youth for the social planning council
of Metropolitan Toronto, one of Canada's out-
standing detached street workers; Mrs. C. R.
Sanderson, first public health nurse to prac-
tise in England, for 22 years a member of
training schools advisory board; Dr. C. H.
Lewis, consultant psychiatrist in the mental
health branch of The Department of Health;
Dr. J. M. Bennett, school inspector for 42
years, member of the training schools advis-
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
675
ory board since 1942; Mr. L. R. Hacld is our
Deputy Minister:
The following are members of the staff:
Mr. Douglas Penfold, assistant Deputy Min-
ister, 14 years in the department and who is
a registered psychologist; Miss Aideen Ni-
cholson, administrator of our adult female in-
stitutions, a well-known psychiatric social
worker; Dr. Harry C. Hutchison, administra-
tor of our adult male institutions, formerly
chief psychologist of the Toronto psychiatric
hospital and the forensic clinic; Dr. Ronald
E. Stokes, director of psychiatry, clinical
teacher in department of psychiatry, Univer-
sity of Toronto, and lecturer at the school of
social work; Dr. T. Grygier, director of re-
search—a joint appointment with the Univer-
sity of Toronto, where he is also reasearch
professor at the school of social work; A.
Douglas Mackey, director of education,
former head of the industrial arts department
of O'Neill collegiate and vocational institute,
Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, these are the people who
advise me.
And now, Mr. Speaker, in case there was
any suggestion— the hon. member for York
South suggested that they said something
different privately— I am going to take a
calculated risk. I challenge the hon. mem-
bers, either of them, to go to any qualified
people in corrections who will justify the
charge the hon. member made that I am
"ill-informed" in this work and that I "lack
initiative." That is quite a challenge and I
know that is quite a risk, because you can
always find someone. But I am still willing
to throw that challenge out and I would be
pleased to hear from the hon. member when
he can get somebody to do that.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He is
getting childish.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker,
we will leave it at that. The hon. members
of this House can be judges as to who knows
more about whether I have some initiative in
this work— or whether I am ill-informed or
otherwise— whether it is the hon. member
or whether it is these people I have men-
tioned.
Next he said: "his lack of initiative," and
a little later asked: "What has the Minister
done since assuming office?"
Well, let vis see what I have done— or shall
I say my department— since I assumed this
portfolio just a little over two years ago. I
think that is quite a proper question and I
think I should not be accused of immodesty
if I answer this question. He asked me a
direct question and I am going to answer it.
Number one: We built two new training
centres for young men, one in Fort William
and one in Monteith. Is that lack of initia-
tive?
We have organized the most extensive and
advanced system for the replacement of out-
moded county jails, with modern regional
detention and classification centres offering
a 50 per cent grant towards the cost of their
construction. And everyone knows by now
this is proceeding at a very satisfactory rate.
Is that lack of initiative?
We have obtained the property of the
RCAF station, Hagersville, and opened one
of the two training schools already estab-
lished there. Is that lack of initiative?
We have opened two new open forestry
camps, one at Wendigo Lake and one at
Portage Lake. Is that lack of initiative?
We have established a research depart-
ment—with an outstanding director, as I
mentioned earlier. It is a cross-appointment
with the University of Toronto and we have
used this research department to tremen-
dous advantage. Does that show lack of
initiative?
Mr. MacDonald: Done!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Done!
We have rewritten our training schools
Act to produce one of the leading pieces of
legislation in the world in this field. The
hon. member knows it— and if he does not he
should, because it has been quoted all over
the world in journals as a leading piece of
legislation from which everyone should get
some example.
As a matter of fact, I might just read
from an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star
just the other day, February 10, in dealing
with a report of the commission on juvenile
and youthful delinquency which was
appointed by the federal government— the
federal Department of Justice. They say
here:
The committee was realistic in its
recommendations. For example, the age
of 10 or 12, not seven, will now be the
minimum at which a child can be held
criminally responsible. It is ridiculous to
label an eight- or nine-year-old child a
criminal whatever his offence. Ontario has
partly recognized this in the revised
training schools Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is a direct result of our
Act; and we are not talking "about age 10
676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or 12," we have already established the fact
in the province of Ontario that no child
under 12 will be held criminally responsible.
I ask the hon. member whether he thinks
this proves lack of initiative?
We are building a new training school in
northern Ontario which will be the first bi-
lingual and interdenominational training
school in this province. Does that show lack
of initiative?
We have undertaken the full financing of
the private training schools and in addition
have given a $200,000 grant to St. Josephs
in Alfred. I wonder if the hon. member
would like to ask the hon. member for
Ottawa East (Mr. Racine) if he agrees with
the hon. member for Bracondale that we
have lacked initiative in respect of the
private training schools? He might ask his
hon. colleague about that.
We supported the establishment of the
centre of criminology. In fact it was our de-
partment which started it off with a grant of
$30,000. Does that show lack of initiative?
We have completely reorganized adminis-
trative positions within the department and
have appointed leading workers in the field
to these positions. Does that show lack of
initiative?
We have reviewed and reorganized our
statistical methods which, incidentally, will
help the hon. member get a clearer picture
of our work and therefore put him in a better
position to give some intelligent criticism;
and we are always open for intelligent criti-
cism because we will never be perfect even
in this department. Does this show lack
of initiative, Mr. Speaker?
We have started the use of plastic surgery
as a tool in the rehabilitation process. Does
that show lack of initiative?
We have reorganized our method of hiring
teachers, thereby solving a shortage of
teachers which plagued our department for
years, and we have expanded our academic
and vocational training programme through-
out the department. Does that show lack
of initiative?
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkcrville): Is
it not about time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If it is about time, the
person who starts it cannot be accused of
lack of initative, can he?
We have organized, for two years con-
ferences on the addict offender and these
have been attended by people from not only
across this province but from other provinces
and the United States as well. We loaned
the state of New York our chief psycholo-
gist to advise them on the setup of similar
facilities for addict offenders in the same
fashion as we have. How can the hon. mem-
bers state that we lack initiative when the
state of New York comes to us for advice
on a programme which we initiated?
We strengthened and expanded our chap-
laincy services and built chapels in many of
our institutions. Does that show lack of
initiative?
We have met with judges and magistrates
and set up an organized programme for
them to visit our institutions so that they
will be more familiar with our work. Does
that show lack of initiative?
We have advanced to the final planning
stage of a new women's institution, which
the hon. members know will be known as
the Vanier institution for women. Does that
show lack of initiative?
We have established a consultative com-
mittee on regional detention units composed
of leading experts in the field and we are also
establishing a committee to ensure that all
possible opportunities are taken for the effec-
tive use of vocational and industrial skills
which can be learned within our institutions.
Does that show lack of initiative?
We have extended and developed our staff
training programme, including the organizing
of the first correspondence course in correc-
tions in Canada. A new staff training build-
ing is being provided for in the estimates.
Does that show lack of initiative?
We have extended our clinical programme
to include sex deviates. Does this show lack
of initiative?
We have revised our classification pro-
gramme in the juvenile field with the
extension of facilities and the reorganized
programmes in the Gait training school. Does
that show lack of initiative?
In the adult field we have also revised
our classification programme and extended
facilities to such an extent that we have
been able to reduce the population of Guelph
from away over 900 to approximately 700
at the moment, and we are progressing even
further in this direction. Does that show lack
of initiative?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have extended
and reorganized our parole and placement
service for more effective after-care of adults
and youngsters and have, at this moment, a
bill before the Legislature for the extension
of the parole board for more effective use of
parole facilities.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
677
These, Mr. Speaker, are just some of the
highlights I have been able to put down on
paper in the last couple of days. I submit-
humbly if I may, after all of that; and I
suppose you could argue that I was bragging
about our work, but why should I not brag
about our work because our people have
done a tremendous job in doing it and I want
to recognize that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think the
hon. member can claim that I am either mis-
informed or ill-informed, or lack initiative.
The hon. member dealt with the subject
of solitary confinement the other day and
protective clothing. I dealt with that the
other day and I think quite effectively proved
that in this matter not only was he confused
but to use his own words, he was "unin-
formed, ill-informed and misinformed."
Next he described me as the—
Minister who, with appalling judgment
and consummate arrogance rises in this
House to speak of the possibility that the
government would restrict surprise inspec-
tion of members of the Legislature to the
institutions which are his responsibility.
Let us deal with that one. The facts are
that when I first became Minister it was I
who not only invited but encouraged hon.
members to visit our institutions unannounced.
I asked them to interest themselves in the
work; to find out what was being done in
their name and in the name of the people
of Ontario. So that the hon. member will
not have that confused, I will quote from
Hansard on that, of March 13, 1964, pages
1603 and 1604:
Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. member
has the privilege, as I invited all the hon.
members of this House, to go to any in-
stitution without warning. All they have to
do is to identify themselves as a member
of this Legislature. They can live there for
a week if they like and find out for them-
selves. There may be some-
Then I was interrupted by the hon. leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Thompson) who said:
I might take you up on that.
I continue:
Mr. Grossman: Of course, and quite
welcome! The hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) has done it; the hon.
member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) has
done it. I do not say that they lived there,
but they have been in and have asked
questions and so on—
Mr. Thompson: As long as they would let
me out again—
Mr. Grossman: I am sure they will.
I take this opportunity of appealing to the
hon. members to please do this, so once
and for all we will stop putting the stigma
of a "custodial approach" on the people of
my department. It is exactly the opposite,
exactly the opposite.
You are doing them an injustice, really
you are, and I would strongly urge that be-
tween now and the next session hon. mem-
bers do this, and do it without warning.
Go in and satisfy themselves. Sit down and
talk with the guard or the superintendent
or any of them there. It is not too difficult
for an intelligent man, and all hon. mem-
bers of this House are intelligent.
Have lunch with them there at the in-
stitution, find out about our meals and so
on. Hon. members will soon find out what
the approach is. I have no doubt that we
have members within our department and
members of the custodial staff— we have to
call them that, this is the designation for a
guard and so on— I have no doubt that there
are a few of them who we would prefer
have a better outlook on some of these
things, but you cannot have perfection.
However, our department certainly has any-
thing but a custodial approach.
And from Hansard of March 10, 1965, page
1156— this was after the great chesterfield
debacle:
Hon. members will recall that last year
I extended an invitation to all hon. mem-
bers of this House to visit any of our in-
stitutions at any time without notice. It
was my feeling at the time that all hon.
members who wished to avail themselves
of this invitation would do so in the full
sense of the responsibilities attached to
such a privilege. I hesitate even to use the
word "privilege," because it is my feeling
that generally hon. members of this Legis-
lature should feel free to visit provincial
institutions and I only use the term for
lack of a more suitable one.
However, in the light of recent circum-
stances the whole matter of visiting our
institutions will have to be reviwed with
the possibility that such invitations may be
qualified with certain conditions, to ensure
the protection of the staff, the inmates and
the public.
Now I think, Mr. Speaker, hon. members
agreed at that time, and would agree now,
that there must be some order to such visits.
As a matter of fact, the hon. member for
678
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Bracondale proved this just the other day.
He walked into Guelph reformatory with
someone he called his executive assistant.
Now the rights which are held by hon.
members of this House, Mr. Speaker, are
accompanied by responsibility. As hon. mem-
bers, they are accountable to this body and
to the people of Ontario. This accountability,
of course, does not apply to their friends or
assistants or other such people they may want
to take along with them. I certainly feel that
this was an abuse by a member of his rights
in this respect.
And where did I state anywhere here that
I would restrict such visits? Of course I did
not say that! I said these would have to be
done with some semblance of order; and they
have to be or they cause havoc. In penal
institutions these can be carried out in such
a fashion that tensions are created that are
very difficult to control.
Now as to his next piece of invective, Mr.
Speaker, and I quote:
He is the Minister who rises in this
House to make a statement that $25,000
would not be a large enough salary to
lure psychiatrists into full-time jobs in
Ontario institutions, and then inanely re-
sumes his seat without dwelling on the
problem at length.
At this time I would like to repeat the rather
lengthy discussion which ensued before I, as
he put it, "resumed my seat without dwelling
on the problem at length." Well, let us find
out just how lengthy that was. This is from
Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have the
page number here but I am prepared to pro-
vide that to any hon. member who cares to
ask for it:
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there is
one thing I would like to get into the
record.
It is, of course, more difficult for any
corrective institution to retain this type of
staff than it is for any other department
as far as I am able to ascertain. This is
also endemic across the whole world be-
cause in our work there is a great deal of
room for differences of opinion. Quite
often psychologists, and psychiatrists par-
ticularly, differ in their views as to what
should be done. Some of them feel frus-
trated that their views are not accepted
and they leave.
As a matter of fact, without mention-
ing any names, there are a few in the
number I mentioned who because of the
differences of opinion left The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions and went with
the addiction research foundation. After
being there a short while they left there as
well because of differences of opinion.
As I say, this is not just in our juris-
diction. I have just had handed to me a
recent report of the commissioner of peni-
tentiaries for Canada. On page 3 of that
report he states: "The situation described
in the previous report [that would be the
1963 report] has not changed appreciably
as regards recruitment of professionally
qualified staff. Half of the establishment
for psychologists remains vacant and group
counselling is at a standstill in most in-
stitutions due to the lack of adequate pro-
fessional supervision." [That is the end of
the quote from that report.]
This, Mr. Chairman, is the federal sys-
tem. I am not saying that it would not be a
good thing to have this professional staff,
I am not saying it is a good thing that
some of them keep moving around. But
again I suggest to the hon. member that
one of the problems, as I said earlier, is
that there is room for differences of
opinion. And as the hon. member knows,
I am sure, there is no group of people with
greater differences of opinion and their
own views than psychologists and psychi-
atrists.
Mr. Trotter I still think, Mr. Chairman,
and I will not belabour this particular
point, if there was leadership given, if
psychologists and psychiatrists felt that
something was going to be done, that the
department had some drive— and again I
repeat that this is what has been wrong
with this department and I hope the new
Minister can change it— but there seems
to have been no sense of purpose as to
where they have been going. Too many of
the old theories have been held by those
in command. I do hope that the new hon.
Minister will give this department a new
look.
Still on this vein I would like to ask,
how many psychiatrists do you have in
the department now? I think you told us
this earlier in your talk but I just want
to make a comparison. How many psychi-
atrists are with the department now?
Mr. Grossman: Thirteen.
Mr. Trotter: Does that include full time
and part time?
Mr. Grossman: Yes!
Mr. Trotter: How many are full time?
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
679
Mr. Grossman: All of our psychiatrists
are part time.
Mr. Trotter: Are all your psychiatrists
part time?
Mr. Grossman: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Trotter: Would you take full-time
psychiatrists if you could get them?
And I would like to draw the hon. members'
particular attention to the following:
Mr. Grossman: We certainly would,
but of course the hon. member must
appreciate the fact that psychiatrists can
pretty well write their own terms inso-
far as salary is concerned. I have spoken
to a number of them personally and no
matter what salary you offer them, they
would not want to leave private practice.
Many of them feel that the kind of work
in which they are engaged in private prac-
tice is the most rewarding from their own
point of view. They deal with a group of
people with whom they become personally
acquainted and are able to follow them
through a good portion of their lives.
They do not find it as interesting to
come into institutions where there is
merely a fleeting connection with some of
those whom they are trying to treat. They
have them today, and six or seven months
from that day they are gone. They do not
feel this gives them sufficient scope.
That is in addition, of course, to the
matter of salary. As I pointed out to the
hon. member, our part-time psychiatrists
get paid $40 or $50 for half a day.
Mr. Trotter: Well now, if you are going
to pay a psychiatrist full time, what
approximately would his pay be?
Mr. Grossman: The hon. member, I
think, can judge that by the fact that we
are paying them at the rate of, I suppose,
$20,000 to $25,000 a year.
Mr. Trotter: Would you pay that much
if you could get one?
Mr. Grossman: My inclination would
be to say yes, except that I would not
give a definite answer to that because
is is something we have not had to face.
We have been discussing this with psy-
chiatrists and have not had anyone get to
the stage where he was interested in con-
sidering and was therefore prepared to
talk terms. So I would not give a definite
answer because the hon. member knows
that I do not control salaries. This is a
matter for the civil service commission. If
I had a prospective psychiatrist prepared
to come in full time, I would then discuss
it with the civil service commission.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister if in his attempts
to gain psychiatrists— to hire psychologists
or psychiatrists in any of these fields— has
he attempted to go abroad to England?
Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I can
say from my personal experience when
I was in the U.K. that I discussed the
matter with the people who were involved
in this work in the permanent Home Sec-
retary's office and there was not a hope.
They were having the same problem we
were and they were quite prepared if it
was necessary to outbid somebody else
because they were anxious to get more on
the staff as well.
Mr. Speaker, surely, does that sound like
I "did not dwell on the problem at length,"
as he charged, suggesting that I dismissed it
with a wave of the hand? Of course, I can
now say that we have a full-time psychiatrist
as well as 13 part-time psychiatrists. Actually,
Mr. Speaker, a few days-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will go into that
in our estimates; we will discuss that, I am
sure.
Actually, a few days after the hon. mem-
ber made this statement, he asked a question
before the orders of the day and was told
that we had a full-time psychiatrist— a fact,
Mr. Speaker, which was no secret. We had
announced it to the press months ago, and
in compliance with a request received from
the research department of his party, we
sent them a copy of our press release. So it
was no secret.
I suppose if the hon. member had asked
the question a few days earlier, before pro-
ceeding with his piece of nonsense, it would
have upset his rather stage-managed shock
at pretending I was not interested in getting
a full-time psychiatrist.
The next quotation includes the statement
that I exonerated myself "from all responsi-
bility with the airy statement that this coun-
try is not going to forge ahead in penal
reform until the federal government creates a
separate department to handle penal institu-
tions." That is the end of his quote.
I did discuss the subject of a federal gov-
ernment creating a separate department to
handle penal matters. I recommended to the
680
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hon. member's friends in Ottawa the value
of having a separate department over correc-
tional services, and I did this in the light
of my experience talking with people in this
field throughout the world. Everywhere they
said how they envied the progress we were
able to make in Ontario because of a single
ministerial responsibility.
The hon. member's friends, as a matter
of fact, have actually taken this to heart and,
in case he is not aware of it, Lawrence
Pennell is now head of a separate portfolio,
in charge of the penitentiary services and
national parole board, and control of the
RCMP. So maybe it was not such a bad
suggestion after all.
The hon. member knows as well as I do
that I was not exonerating myself from any
responsibility insofar as my jurisdiction is
concerned. I have had many plans for pro-
gress which are dependent, as all hon.
members know, and the hon. member for
Bracondale knows, on the implementation of
the Fauteux committee report. But I could
not honestly recommend the expenditure of
vast sums of public money without getting
some decision, some directive, concerning
plans for the immediate future from the
federal government.
Has the hon. member ever tried to get a
direct answer from them? In voluminous
correspondence I have had promises to think
about it. They said they were going to do
something about it, followed by statements
to the press that there was going to be a
committee to study the subject, followed by
statements that something was going to hap-
pen, then the announcement of a committee
to think about what they might possibly do,
if they ever got off the ground. I think they
will start to get off the ground now with the
reorganization that is taking place. I cer-
tainly hope they do.
The lion, member then extended his state-
ment by stating: "He is the Minister who
says he is concerned about the frightful
and deteriorating situation in Millbrook re-
formatory and at once adds the incredible
statement that it is not within the power of
The Department of Reform Institutions to
change it." Mr. Speaker, this was a deliberate
piece of chicanery. It was a quotation taken
out of context. Let us find out what I did
say in this statement to which the hon. mem-
ber refers. From the Peterborough Examiner,
when I gave them a statement as a result
of their charges, dated July 30, 1965:
The investigation proved beyond ques-
tion that the main motive behind the
setting of the two fires was the desire
on the part of five inmates to be trans-
ferred to a federal penitentiary where
sentences are automatically shortened be-
cause of a federal statute, which gives con-
siderably greater remission to inmates
serving sentences in federal institutions
than it does to those in provincial insti-
tutions.
A man serving a sentence in a provincial
reformatory may receive a total of only 52
days per year remission of sentence, condi-
tional upon his continued good conduct. In
federal penitentiaries, a man automatically
receives an immediate remission of one
quarter of his sentence plus an additional
36 days per year. A man serving almost six
years, as some of these arsonists were, on
transfer to penitentiary, would automatic-
ally have the sentence, in effect, reduced to
four and one half years. These men have
made many attempts to get transferred to
the penitentiary, including an appeal to
the supreme court. The fires were their
final and successful effort.
Statements made to the effect that they
wished to take up trade training did not
bear examination in the light of their
respective careers. Most have served at
Kingston penitentiary previously and all
have had trade training available to them
in Ontario reform institutions.
Those involved have either never availed
themselves of the opportunity for trade
training, and/or shown any motivation to
benefit from such training. The additional
sentence likely to be handed out for arson
was a gamble the men were prepared to
take, and a risk that any penitentiary sen-
tence of two years would not appreciably
change their final discharge date.
This is the statement that I made, from which
the hon. member took words out of context:
The jurisdiction of provincial reforma-
tories includes sentences of up to only two
years less a day. However, some courts
hand down consecutive sentences of two
years less a day each, and as a result, we
occasionally have men serving sentences
well in excess of two years.
These men are obliged to serve their
sentences side by side with other inmates
who are serving sentences which could be
as little as 30 days. The constant turn-
over of inmates— the many others leaving
before them— creates an abnormal amount
of discontent, unrest and tension. While
the Minister is concerned about this, it is
not within the power of The Department
of Reform Institutions or the Ontario gov-
ernment to change it.
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
681
And the hon. member took those words out
of context to suggest that I was absolving
myself of everything that went on at Mill-
brook. I could not do anything about it, I
was waiting for the federal government. He
knows perfectly well I was referring just to
that particular aspect of it— consecutive sen-
tences and the statutory remission in federal
institutions.
I will finish the quote:
It should be noted that all five men who
set fires at Millbrook reformatory were each
serving sentences ranging up to six years
because of consecutive sentences.
Hon. members can see that what concerned
me was a situation governed by federal sta-
tutes, whereby inmates serving time in pro-
vincial reformatories were serving sentences
far in excess of those normally served in
reformatories.
I will not belabour this. I think I have
made my point to the hon. members. I want
to make it quite forcefully, Mr. Speaker, that
what I do not like is the deliberate taking out
of context to give an entirely different mean-
ing. As a matter of fact, the importance of
this was recognized by the Anglican commit-
tee which stated in its report, and I quote:
The Minister of Reform Institutions is to
be commended for his attempts to get the
present system of consecutive sentencing
abolished. Church and public need to bring
increasing pressure to bear on the Minister
of Justice to have the Act amended.
They obviously understood what the position
is; so, to be perfectly honest, did the hon.
member. All I can say is that twisting of
things around and quoting out of context is
one of the oldest dodges in history, and as I
said, is nothing but political chicanery.
Next came a detailed piece of research on
what had been said 20 years ago by George
Drew, whom the hon. member quotes to the
following effect:
Inmates at reformatories were to spend
most of their time in classes. There would
be special schools for guards to ensure that
they were fit and competent for their work.
That is the end of the quote. As a matter
of fact, we have 17 academic teachers in the
adult institutions, as well as even more
trades training instructors. Any inmate, and
I mean any individual inmate, in any of
our institutions, whose behaviour pattern can
be helped by academic instruction has that
academic instruction available.
But, of course, we should not dismiss the
rehabilitation as a simple problem of merely
giving them academic instruction. This is
only one part of a huge complex problem.
With regard to the staff training school,
I have already discussed the overall develop-
ment of our staff training programme. The
hon. member is now well informed, I hope,
that we were the first to have one in this
country. When the federal government
started a staff training school, it sent obser-
vers to study our system. We have continu-
ally developed the school.
In the Speech from the Throne we in-
formed the hon. members of our intention
to extend and improve our staff training
programme with the building of a new staff
training school in the Mimico area. We have
not been hidebound by tradition. We have
initiated and supported university courses.
We have fulfilled— in good measure, as a
matter of fact— the promises made by George
Drew at that time, on this subject.
His next piece of brilliant discovery, and I
quote from the hon. member, is:
The heaviest burden placed on the in-
mates of these institutions, that is Mill-
brook and Mercer, is boredom, sheer
boredom.
This, I think, was probably the only factual
statement made by the hon. member in his
whole speech. Boredom is the heaviest bur-
den that is placed upon prisoners. Even with
a full work programme and an intelligent
recreation programme, there is inevitably
boredom.
I will say this to the hon. member, that if
he had to eat every day from the same table
in the King Edward hotel, at the end of the
year he would suffer from boredom. No
matter how good the food, no matter how
attractive the waitress, 365 days of sitting at
the same table, with the same people, would
produce boredom, of course. There would
be no choice of companions, no telephone
calls, no real freedom as we know it. Regret-
fully, this is one of the penalties that those
who break the law have to suffer. What
this really means, is that they have lost their
liberty of choice. In fact, they have lost their
liberty, period.
I do not know what point the hon. mem-
ber was making. We are trying to do some-
thing, and we are doing something, about
the complete boredom all day that is found
in the county jails. This will be solved by
the regional detention centre plan.
Next, the hon. member asks:
How do the classrooms in Guelph pre-
pare the inmates for their release? Will
the short terms they spend in the woollen
682
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mills, the tailor shops, the body shops, the
piggery or the cattle bams prepare them
for the place in society they are en-
titled to by virtue of being part of the
country, or have they lost all rights to
citizenship and participation in the daily
affairs of our province and our country?
The place we consider they are entitled to in
society is working along with other members
of society, not preying upon them. This is
what they are entitled to. They are entitled
to become productive members of society.
This is what we try to train them for.
We know that they will not necessarily go
out working in the same trades. How can
one possibly represent all the available
trades in this country within reform institu-
tions? That is ridiculous. What we can
produce are good work habits. This is what
we do, and this is an attempt to train them
to take their place working side by side with
other members of society, instead of prey-
ing upon them.
What is wrong with tailor shops and
woollen mills? Thousands of law-abiding
people work in tailor shops and woollen
mails. And what is wrong with piggeries and
cattle barns? Thousands of law-abiding
farmers find nothing wrong with them.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister objects
to them every time we raise them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The last statement
of this crazy mixed-up maiden speech of the
hon. member is certainly the most confused
of his whole diatribe. He stated, and once
more I quote— and I would like the hon.
members to indulge me a little further and
give particular attention to this one:
A survey several years ago showed that
under British probation services, 75 per
cent of first offenders have not been con-
victed again. In contrast, the Canadian
prison system here has failed to rehabili-
tate 70 per cent of those committed to its
charge.
This is really confusing the issue, Mr.
Speaker. It is just like trying to compare
hockey statistics of goalkeepers and forwards.
It is like saying that goalkeeper John Bower's
average of two goals per game is a much
better record than Bobby Hull's one goal per
game average. They are two entirely differ-
ent things connected with the same area, but
at entirely different ends of the scale.
To start with, of course, the hon. member
should realize that probation is in The De-
partment of the Attorney General and is a
method of rehabilitation without incarcera-
tion. Those who fail on probation are sent
to prison. They are the ones we get in our
reformatories— those who have failed on pro-
bation and on suspended sentences after
fines and short jail terms. We have a fine
probation service in Ontario, which has
success rates as high as those quoted by the
hon. member, but you cannot compare
success rates at completely different ends of
the scale.
In others words, Mr. Speaker, he is com-
paring the success of those who were put on
probation with those who were incarcerated.
A ridiculous comparison.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister is miss-
ing an important point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not missing the
point at all. And the hon. member was not
missing the point, he was attempting to con-
fuse it. It is a comparison of those who, in
the view of the judge, showed sufficient prom-
ise to warrant probation, with those whose
poor records indicated they had no such
promise and therefore had to be committed.
This is what the judge felt. And comparing
those two statistics is absolutely ridiculous.
In any case, to carry his confusion further,
perhaps deliberately, he quoted supposed
depressing figures of the Canadian system
within the context of his attack on the On-
tario system.
It is not too long ago since the hon. mem-
ber for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter) attempted the
same thing.
I think it was a year or two ago that he
was on television and he quoted a statement
which no one has ever been able to find any
place. He said Canada— that is federal Can-
ada—was supposed to be 44th on the United
Nations' list in this field, but he spoke about
it in the context of the Ontario system, giving
the impression, of course, that while he was
talking about the failure of Canada's system
generally he was referring to the Ontario
system, and he was deliberately confusing it
at that time.
This is what the hon. member for Bracon-
dale has done here. He mixes up the Ontario
system by quoting Canadian figures, which is
an entirely different thing. They are just
further examples of confusion, either through
ignorance, Mr. Speaker, or for the sake of
confusion.
In general then, I hope I have given the
hon. members some food for thought. It is
an interesting fact, too— and this is interesting,
Mr. Speaker— that the hon. member released
FEBRUARY 17, 1966
683
to the press only that portion which he felt
would get headlines— the reform institutions
section, including further reference to pro-
tective garments. This whole subject seems to
hold particular fascination for the hon. mem-
ber, hoping I suppose that in some way or
other by using the terminology that he did—
"baby doll pyjamas"— that he gave the im-
pression that we are dressing men up in
female clothing. He has found out, of course,
that this is always good for a headline and
has not been slow to capitalize on it.
He did not, as far as I have been able to
establish, give an equally detailed press re-
port on the other subjects which he claimed
were of real concern to him, and on which
he elaborated in his speech— the poor, the
matter of health for the people, education,
and so on. His press release was designed to
deal with that which he felt lent itself to
lurid headlines.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, I
enjoy a good debate but I do not intend to
get involved in a constant donnybrook of
invective and wild statements with the hon.
member. If he is prepared to discuss matters
of fact and policy in an intelligent manner
so that something constructive can come from
it, I shall be very pleased to do so. And I
hope the information I have given the hon.
member tonight will help him to add some-
thing of value to future debates.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, may I address a
question to the hon. Minister?
Mr. Speaker: You may direct a question,
but the Minister does not have to accept it.
Ask the Minister if he will accept your ques-
tion.
Mr. Ben: Will the hon. Minister accept a
question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I sat
through half an hour, I did not interrupt the
hon. member, and every member of this
House knows I am never hesitant in allowing
them to interrupt me at any time and ask
questions, but this time I say "no."
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant) moves the adjourn-
ment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with Bill No.
6, which will be in the third reading stage.
I would like to deal with second reading of
Private Bill No. 18 and take it to the com-
mittee stage. This is merely a matter of con-
venience for the municipality involved in that
bill. I have asked His Honour if he might be
able to come in tomorrow morning, if we do
complete third reading of Bill No. 6, to give
it Royal assent. We will then proceed with
this debate on the Throne speech.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11 o'clock, p.m.
No. 24
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, February 18, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 18, 1966
Statement re First Co-operative Packers of Barrie, Mr. Stewart 687
Township of Charlotteville, bill respecting, Mr. McNeil, second reading 688
Township of Charlotteville, bill respecting, reported 688
Medical Services Insurance Act, bill to amend, third reading 689
Township of Charlotteville, bill respecting, third reading 700
Royal assent to certain bills, the Lieutenant-Governor 700
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Farquhar, Mr. Wells .... 700
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Wells, agreed to 708
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 708
687
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, February 18, 1966
The House met at 10:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome, as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery, Winona
public school, Winona; in the west gallery,
John G. Althouse public school, Islington.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I would like to make a statement con-
cerning the First Co-operative Packers of
Barrie. The government of Ontario has been
approached by the First Co-operative Packers
of Barrie to discuss financial assistance to
the co-operative, which is in need of working
capital.
When the First Co-operative Packers pur-
chased the Whyte packing plant, about a year
ago, it was intended that shares of the co-
operative be offered for sale to enlarge the
membership of the co-operative and provide
needed capital. This was not done. The
co-operative now finds that, with the lack of
capital provided by shareholders, and with
a greater need for funds required for the
purchase of raw products, the credit estab-
lished for working capital is not sufficient to
meet its current needs or obligations.
Under the provisions of section 12 of The
Co-operative Loans Act, the government has
provided a guarantee of $200,000 to the
co-operative. This financial support will en-
able the co-operative to consider reorganizing
its operation and re-establish satisfactory
credit.
Mr. B. Newman ( Winds or- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Education (Mr. Davis), but he is
not in the House and I would prefer to
ask it on Monday.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts). Can the hon. Prime
Minister explain why the population figures
were not given for each of the new ridings
in the final report of the redistribution com-
mission, and would he table these figures in
the House as soon as possible?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I must say that I have no explana-
tion as to why these figures were not included
in the report. The report was prepared by
the commission acting on the instructions it
was given by this Legislature when the report
of the standing committee on privileges and
elections considered the matter last year, so
I really have no explanation as to why these
figures were not included in this report.
I might say that I really have no idea
whether they even exist, and whether the
commission, in dealing with the whole prob-
lem in terms of the instructions it was given,
in its deliberations totalled the figures again
for these new ridings it finally recommended.
I do not know. If these figures are available,
I would have absolutely no objection to them
being tabled in the House, but at the moment
I do not even know whether they exist. I
had no control over the method in which
the commission carried out the instructions
given by the Legislature. If they are avail-
able—and I will find Out if they are— I would
have no objection whatsoever to having them
made public. But, as I say, I cannot guaran-
tee that they are there.
Mr. MacDonald: I appreciate the hon.
Prime Minister's comment. I hope he will
inquire. I do not know how we, or even
the commission can, know whether we are
living within the guidelines they themselves
laid down if they have not got the population
figures. They laid the guidelines, namely, of
25,000 to 50,000 for a rural, 50,000 to 60,000
for a mixed and 60,000 to 75,000 for an
urban riding. If they do not have the figures,
how do they know whether they were living
within their own guidelines?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I can only say
that I do not really consider it to be my
688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
position in this matter to defend the com-
mission. The commission was appointed to
do a job; they were appointed to do this
within the terms of reference given and, as
far as I am concerned, they did it as they
saw fit.
I would say that the committee on privi-
leges and elections, in referring back the
report that the committee brought in, said
that they should give consideration to sub-
missions relating to electoral district boun-
daries to be made by interested persons
during such a period as the commission may
prescribe. In considering such submissions,
the commission also consider population
trends and up-to-date population figures, and
report to the legislative assembly not later
than the next regular session.
There was more to be considered when the
report was sent back to the commission. It
was broadened to take submissions from the
public and from any interested people. It
may well be that there were matters taken
into consideration over and above this. In
other words, their original guidelines may
not have held. However, I will see if these
figures are available, and we will see if we
cannot get them in the House.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Education. He
has received a copy of it.
Is the hon. Minister giving any considera-
tion to delaying the opening of the school
year until the second day after Labour day
instead of the present day after Labour day,
as recommended in the report on the Ontario
tourist industry by the Ontario economic
council?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, some consideration has been
given to this proposal. There has been no
decision. As a matter of general policy, we
do not enthuse over shortening the school
year. But the report has been made avail-
able to the department. It is under con-
sideration, but no decision has been made.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister a supplementary question?
Does he not consider that the extension of
one day at the end of the school year would
compensate for shortening the school year
by one day at the beginning of the year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are
many compensations one could think of. You
could also suggest that you have an extra
day during the Christmas or Easter holidays.
There might be many ways, but I say to you
that it is under consideration and no decision
has been made.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question to ask of the hon. Provin-
vial Treasurer (Mr. Allan), of which I gave
notice yesterday.
The question is as follows: Would the hon.
Provincial Treasurer inform us of the results
of the joint meeting of the civil service asso-
ciation and the civil service commission
negotiating increased wages for the highway
employees for Essex, Kent and Lambton?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's
question, I may say that negotiations pro-
ceeded to the level of the Ontario joint
council. Since the differences could not be
resolved at that level, the case will now be
placed before the civil service arbitration
board as prescribed by statute. The em-
ployees in the southwestern portion of
Ontario are among a large group of em-
ployees who are covered by this series of
negotiations.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 41st order. Second
reading of Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting
the township of Charlotteville.
TOWNSHIP OF CHARLOTTEVILLE
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin) moves second
reading of Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting
the township of Charlotteville.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The fourth order,
committee of the whole House.
House in committee; Mr. A. W. Downer
in the chair.
TOWNSHIP OF CHARLOTTEVILLE
House in committee on Bill No. Prl8, An
Act respecting the township of Charlotteville.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill No. Prl8 reported.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
689
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report prog-
ress and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The first order, third
reading, Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The
Medical Services Insurance Act, 1965.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, third reading of a bill provides an
opportunity for further debate. I want to
say, at the outset, that I have no desire nor
intention to rehash what has already been
covered pretty exhaustively throughout
second reading and throughout committee of
the whole House, nor have I any desire to
dam the flood of informational material that
is now going to flow out across the province.
However, on that one point I would re-
mind the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) that about a week ago I asked
him whether or not there was such material
and, if there was, if it would be placed in
the hands of the members of this House
before it was sent out. The hon. Minister
indicated it would. If that promise is going
to be fulfilled, perhaps we should have it
before one o'clock today, because I suspect
that there is going to be some pretty rapid
distribution of material in order to meet
the deadline of March 1.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the
pattern of this debate until now, which I
think justifies consideration of certain aspects
of this medical insurance bill which have not
been fully explored. On second reading, the
hon. Minister did not speak at the outset; he
concluded the debate, dealing, I think it can
be accurately said, pretty strictly with the
principles of the bill as they related to the
province of Ontario. After he had spoken,
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) inter-
vened in the debate and, I think quite
rightly, considered it in the broader terms
of federal-provincial relationships and On-
tario's negotiations with Ottawa in relation
to the possibility of a federal plan on which
there would be a subsidy to assist provinces
in establishing medical insurance. A great
deal of the material that the hon. Prime
Minister introduced at that time has not
been discussed in the House, for the simple
reason that it is difficult to deal with those
broader aspects while considering the inti-
mate detail of a clause-by-clause debate of
the bill. I think the third reading provides
that opportunity, and I want to do so now—
not at great length, but in some substance.
It was rather interesting, I thought, that
after the last federal-provincial conference on
health matters the federal Minister of Health
made the statement that in his view there
was no difficulty involved in the Ontario plan
as was proposed by this amending bill, ulti-
mately fitting in to the kind of plan that
Ottawa was considering.
That is rather an interesting statement, Mr.
Speaker. The most significant aspect of it
was that there was no denial at all from
Queen's Park. Nobody stated flatly that this
was not true. As a matter of fact, I think if
one briefly reviews the evolution of the bill,
one will see why this might well be the case.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Wood-
bine (Mr. Bryden) has pointed out at one
stage in the debate, we have really gone
through three stages in the evolution of the
government's medical insurance. The first
was a proposal exclusively to regulate private
insurance. But there was enough protest with
regard to this that, in the second stage of the
government succession of bills, they con-
tinued a regulation of private insurance, but
began to introduce the concept of public
insurance for the low-income groups and for
those who were on categorical assistance.
The third stage of the bill— the one we are
now considering— has broadened the public
insurance still more. Potentially, it could
cover about 40 per cent of the people in the
province, but they leave under private insur-
ance the remaining- 60 per cent. In other
words, you have the nucleus of a public insur-
ance contained in this bill.
It is also, I think, rather significant that of
the two amendments that the government
introduced, one of them was an amendment
that I suggest was perhaps belatedly consid-
ered—obviously it was belatedly considered—
that the government should have the power,
without coming back to this Legislature, to
expand the services under this bill. In other
words, through that amendment they have
secured the power— and we are not objecting
to it; indeed, we proposed it and the hon.
Minister, in effect, accepted it. He brought in
his own amendment and we withdrew ours—
without coming back to the Legislature— to
expand the public Medicare aspect of this
legislation.
690
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Sir, would the hon. member allow me to ex-
plain this very briefly?
I would like to put it on the record that
my own staff had that same kind of wording
in. I rejected it because I felt I was asking
for a little more power by regulation than I
felt the House was willing to give me. I was
delighted, therefore, to replace it when I
found the Opposition was willing to give me
that power of regulation.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister is again being a little bit disingenu-
ous. Why we would object to him having
the power to expand his Act to meet the kind
of requirements that we have been shouting
for from the outset of this debate I do not
know.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Government by regu-
lation? That was why I thought you would
object.
Mr. MacDonald: By regulation-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): You gave your-
self the power to restrict, in the regulations
from the very beginning.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the point I
want to get to is that if we now have a bill
which is, if I may use these arbitrary figures,
60 per cent private Medicare, left to the
private insurance companies, and a potential
40 per cent under public Medicare, then the
question that comes to my mind, and I am
sure it must come to the minds of many
people in this province, is why the delay in
moving in the direction that the government
is going to be forced ultimately to move in?
If this bill is now so framed that it can be
integrated into a federal plan, why is the
government delaying any longer? Is it that
the government is committed to its first love
of private insurance and therefore wants to
stick with that commitment as long as it pos-
sibly can? Is it that the government hopes
that Ottawa is going to weaken on its stand-
ard? Or is it that the government hopes that
Ottawa may give unconditional grants so that
the standards will not be something that will
have to be negotiated with Ottawa, or have
to be met before you get the grants? Then
the government would be free to stick with
its first love of private insurance to the great-
est extent possible.
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that
we, from the outset of this debate, have been
a little puzzled as to why the government is
so reluctant. It is for that reason, for example,
that we gave notice of an amendment on
second reading— an amendment which would
have two points: (1) Calling upon this govern-
ment to enunciate immediately its acceptance
of participation in the federal plan; and (2)
taking the necessary steps in the interim
period, with some alternative piece of legisl-
ation, to give coverage to these 1.8 million
people whom we agree should have cover-
age and should have it in the period between
now and July 1, 1967, when any joint federal-
provincial plan would come into effect.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what
has happened to Medicare in this country
and, indeed, in this province, as we now see
from this bill, is indicative of the malaise
that afflicts Canada at the present time. On
the one hand, you have the province of
Quebec— French Canada— moving with a con-
viction and a decision to establish what it
wants. It knows what it wants and it is pro-
ceeding to implement it. Quite frankly, theirs
is the right kind of Medicare. It is universal,
comprehensive, and it is going to be handled
through a government agency. Even if the
federal government did not come in with any
grants, they are going to move to establish
the kind of Medicare that we have been
advocating in the province of Ontario in
specific terms since November, 1962.
But what about the rest of Canada, Mr.
Speaker? What about English Canada? We
are going off in nine different directions.
Each of the provinces has its own particular
plan. They range from public Medicare, such
as was established in Saskatchewan by the
CCF-NDP government — then opposed by
the Liberals but accepted by them now— to
the kind of private Medicare in Alberta,
to the kind of version that you have in BC,
to the kind of opposition, or mood of oppo-
sition, that you have from the Roblin govern-
ment in Manitoba.
In other words, all the nine provinces in
English-speaking Canada are going off in
their own direction. I repeat, Mr. Speaker,
that this is so indicative of the problem of
Canadian Confederation at the present time.
The Medicare issue is indicative of the divi-
sions, of the lack of leadership, and I want
to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that lack of
leadership, in the final analysis, comes right
back here to the province of Ontario.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): WhyP
Mr. MacDonald: Because in negotiations
with Ottawa, historically, Ontario is the
natural leader of English-speaking Canada.
Indeed, even in Quebec, people like Claude
Ryan have indicated many times that Ontario
is acknowledged as the leader of English-
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
691
speaking Canada. If this government was tak-
ing the lead with the federal government,
now that they have the assurance— and I am
sure it is an assurance that is not going to be
welched upon— when a final figure is decided
upon they will get a 50 per cent subsidy on
the national per capita average of cost, what
more do they need to negotiate?
Why do they have to have this at-arm's-
length kind of negotiating and bargaining
with Ottawa? Why not an acceptance of
Medicare, in principle, so that with the lead-
ership of this province they would have an
opportuntiy of assuring the rest of Canada
that they were going to get national health
insurance for them— finally, after two genera-
tions of struggle for it?
In other words, once again you have a
perfect example of English Canada lacking
an identity; of English Canada not being
able to generate a will to nationhood. We
could use an important issue like Medicare
to achieve a sense of identity and nationhood
in English-speaking Canada. I suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, that the problem rests basically
right here with this government in the prov-
ince of Ontario. It is a failure of leadership.
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the fathers of
Confederation faced a very difficult prob-
lem of welding the British North American
colonies into a confederation. The problems
were even more difficult than they are today.
But the fathers of Confederation grasped the
nettle; they faced up to the difficulties in the
situation—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I do not wish to interrupt my hon.
friend unduly, but we are considering the
third reading of the bill on Medicare. There
will be opportunity in this House to debate
the problems of Canada and Confederation
and some other contents, but we have had a
very complete and full debate on this bill.
Now the hon. member is using the occasion
of third reading to make a speech about
Confederation, where Canada is going and
where all of English Canada is weak in
leadership involving, I presume, nine prov-
ices. I submit to you that it is completely out
of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the point of order, the hon. Prime Minister
dealt broadly with the Medicare issue on
second reading and none of us had an oppor-
tunity to reply. He was the last speaker, and
he dealt with it in the context of federal-
provincial relations. I submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, that unless we are given an oppor-
tunity to deal with this aspect of the bill
now, we are in effect, deprived of an
opportunity of replying to the hon. Prime
Minister. I have said it privately and I will
say it publicly; I think the hon. Prime Min-
ister has an opportunity, and I welcome him,
to intervene in any debate on any issue in this
House as the last person if he wants on
second reading. But if he introduces, on
second reading, broader considerations which
legitimately should be introduced, I think we
should have an opportunity to discuss them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Would the member
proceed with his remarks?
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was stating that 100 years ago the
fathers of Confederation faced up to the
issue and they welded a unity in this nation.
What we have today is an opportunity to
achieve reconfederation. Events have cast
in the role of the fathers of reconfederation
those who are leaders of the various prov-
inces across this country. I have said before
and I repeat it, that one of the leaders in
that group is a man by the name of John
Parmenter Robarts, the man who is most
capable of providing the leadership and a
fulfilment in the 20th century of the role of
a father of reconfederation. But he is not
doing it. Indeed, he is using the Medicare
issue now before us to frustrate an oppor-
tunity for rebuilding Confederation. Mr.
Speaker, if you think I am being too harsh,
let me bring a witness to bear, a witness
normally not unfriendly to this government. I
have in my hand an article by Anthony West-
all, the Ottawa correspondent of the Globe
and Mail, published in the magazine on Feb-
ruary 5, some two weeks ago. Let me read
one or two paragraphs from this, Mr. Speaker.
He discussed three .aspects of the Medicare
issue in specific relationship to the failure of
leadership on the part of the province of
Ontario:
Ontario Premier John Robarts has been
regarded in the past as a reasonable and a
responsible provincial leader and a pillar
of national unity. But now he is joining in
the game of picayune quarrels with Ottawa
on grounds which he knows, or should
know, are dishonest.
He goes on, Mr. Speaker, to make reference
to the fact that in January of this year the
Prime Minister referred to the figure of $14
as being 50 per cent of the national average
when, in fact, the hon. Minister of Health
later informed the public through a news-
paper report that the $14 figure had been
dismissed as far back as last September.
692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
One wonders what goes on in this Cabinet?
The hon. Minister learns in September that
the $14 figure has been discarded and four
months later the hon. Prime Minister has not
been informed! He does not know, for ex-
ample, that it has been agreed that the
subsidy will be 50 per cent of whatever is
finally accepted as a national per capita
average.
Certainly it is not going to be $28. I quote
again, Mr. Speaker:
Robarts made another misleading state-
ment about federal policy. He said
Ontario wanted to follow the recommenda-
tions of the Hall Royal commission on
health services and concentrate upon
educating health service personnel before
it offered Medicare services, but was get-
ting no help from the federal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I think perhaps I
should draw to the attention of the mem-
ber our rules about third readings. I will
read the part that is applicable: "Debate
on a motion for the third reading of a bill
is more restricted than in the debate on
second reading, as discussion is strictly con-
fined to the contents of the bill.
I submit that the member has strayed
a bit far afield in regard to the contents of
this particular bill and I would expect that his
remarks should not be too lengthy and he
could confine them to the bill.
Mr. MacDonald: I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker, it will be over in about three or
four minutes.
I was referring to this second point of
Mr. Westall's, namely, the argument of the
hon. Prime Minister—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
How about your ruling, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I have asked the member to
confine his remarks.
Mr. MacDonald: I have the floor, have
I? Thank you. The hon. Prime Minister has
laid emphasis on the development of health
services personnel ahead of an implementa-
tion of any plan— and this, said the hon. Prime
Minister, was in keeping with the recom-
mendations of the Hall commission report.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as everybody who has
read the Hall commission report knows it
said quite frankly and bluntly that the need
to educate more health services should be
no excuse for holding back on Medicare.
A third point was raised by Mr. Westall.
I touch on it briefly:
Nor should Mr. Robarts' remarks about
taxation revenue be overlooked. While
complaining that Ottawa was not offering
a big enough contribution to Medicare,
he muttered that Ontario provides 40 to
50 per cent of federal tax revenues. The
implication was that because Ontario pro-
vides the largest share of national revenue
it should get some sort of special benefit.
The theory is obvious nonsense. Worse, it
strikes at the whole basis of Confederation.
Ontario does not pay taxes to Ottawa.
The citizens of Canada who live in Ontario
pay the taxes on income and profit earned
in no small measure by doing business
with other parts of Canada. The govern-
ment of Canada elected by the people of
Canada spends the revenues where it
thinks best in the interests of Canada.
Robarts' hint that Ontario somehow has
a special claim on revenues it contributes
to Ottawa is a form of separatism and
nothing else. One wonders how he would
react if Metropolitan Toronto claimed
special privileges from Queen's Park be-
cause it pays the largest proportion of pro-
vincial revenue.
So much for John Robarts, the pillar of
national unity.
That is the end of Mr. Westall's comments.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Yes, and
just about the most ill-informed article in
many months.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that
happens to be the hon. member's view. As a
matter of fact, it does not happen to be my
view.
Therefore, I want to come back to a
reasoned amendment on third reading, which
is within the rules of the House. Our basic
plea has been— and we reiterate it now and
we put it in the form of an amendment—
that this government should enunciate its
participation in a federal plan without any
further delay, and that it should then make
some efforts to establish the kind of interim
legislation which would provide coverage
for the 1.8 million people between now and
July 1, 1967, the target date for the com-
mencement of joint federal-provincial
national health insurance in this country.
I move, seconded by Mr. Freeman, that
the motion be amended by striking out all
the words after "that" and substituting the
following:
This House believes that the needs of
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
693
the people of Ontario cannot adequately
be met by mere tinkering with The Medi-
cal Services Insurance Act, 1965, and pro-
poses as an alternative that that Act be
replaced by legislation which will (a)
facilitate the establishment at the earliest
possible date of a joint federal-provincial
plan qualifying for federal assistance on
the terms already announced by the
federal government; (b) contain additional
interim provisions to provide protection for
lower income groups pending the coming
into force of a joint plan.
Mr. Speaker: Members have heard the
motion by Mr. MacDonald, seconded by Mr.
Freeman. The amendment is open for de-
bate.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to speak in support of this
amendment. It incorporates much, in fact
all, of the argument we set forth on second
reading in arguing the principle of this bill,
and when in committee of the whole we
were discussing it section by section.
Forty per cent of the people of Ontario
are now covered by universal coverage and
to that extent there is a death-bed repentance
on the part of the government in the changes
it has made in the old Bill No. 136. The
pity and the shame of it is that the govern-
ment has not gone all the way. Again, if we
are to qualify under the proposals as laid
down by the federal government, we need
a public-operated universal scheme, as well
as it being—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I am really going to have to object
to this. We are again arguing the principles
of the bill which were settled on second
reading and this motion is out of order. I
would submit to you that what the hon.
member for Parkdale is saying is completely
out of order. They are now suggesting that
we reverse the complete principles embodied
in this bill. Those principles were adopted
by this House when the bill received second
reading and in my view this is out of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Trotter: Surely we can speak to it.
Mr. Speaker: You cannot speak to second
reading principles; only to this amendment.
Mr. Trotter: Well, I wish to speak to it.
I understand—
Mr. Speaker: Are you speaking to a point
of order now?
Mr. Trotter: I am not speaking to the
point of order except—
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister is really
raising a point of order.
Mr. Trotter: Fine, I will wait your ruling
on it, then.
Mr. Speaker: An amendment can be pro-
posed on third reading the same as on
second reading, and when an amendment is
proposed in this manner to strike out words
it can be debated in the same way as an
amendment on second reading. Therefore, I
would have to rule the amendment in order
and that anyone who cares to debate it, may
debate it. Then it comes to a vote in the
same manner as an amendment on second
reading. I shall put the question after the
debate is concluded.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, may I
understand then from your ruling that we
can redebate the entire principles of this
bill? In other words we can have a com-
plete repetition of the debate on second
reading?
Mr. Speaker: No, my understanding is that
you can only debate this amendment that is
now before the House on third reading. That
is the question that is before the House at
the present time.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, on this point of order, I am a little
puzzled by this procedure. I refer to Lewis
on page 61, and the comments are not in
the form of rulings.
Mr. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Singer: You have made a ruling-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is on a
point of order, as I understand it.
Mr. Bryden: He is debating your ruling,
sir, that is what he is doing.
Mr. Singer: I am asking for clarification.
Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Lewis says:
Slight amendments may be made to a
bill during this stage—
this is the third reading stage:
—but if it is desired to make any material
amendment it is customary to recommit the
bill for further consideration by committee
of the whole and to then amend it as
desired.
694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
With these comments and the hon. Prime
Minister's comments, I just wonder if the hon.
Prime Minister perhaps might not be right in
saying that if as broad an amendment as this
is in order at this time, we are reversing the
whole field and going back again. I think
this is what Lewis means at the top of page
61 and I would like your further clarification,
sir.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. Obviously this is not clarification,
tnis is disputing your ruling and you quite
rightly have cut me off on a number of occa-
sions in disputing the rulings that you have
made.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I am of the opinion that this
amendment has nothing to do with a recom-
mittal and I do not think it is that broad that
it cannot come within the terms of reference
of third reading, where it says:
Third readings are run off usually in
batches from time to time during the pro-
gress of the sesson as the number of bills
ready for this stage accumulates. This pro-
cedure is generally a matter of form, the
bills having been thoroughly discussed
during the earlier proceedings.
It must be remembered, however, that a
bill can be discussed and dealt with when
the motion for its third reading is presented
to the House. Amendments may be made
to the bill during this stage, but if it is
desired to make a material amendment it
is customary to recommit the bill.
I suppose it may hinge on that particular part
of it, whether this is a material amendment
or not. At first glance I thought it was a
normal amendment on third reading, and I
supposed that we would have an amendment
of some sort on third reading so I accepted
this particular amendment which is now
before the House. But I must say that I am
going to confine any remarks in this matter,
so that we do not go all over the whole bill
that has been discussed on second reading.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Speaker, I will not regur-
gitate the whole argument of medical in-
surance, although I admit this amendment is
very broad on third reading. But I am glad
it is, because this is of immense public
importance and we should have as much
opportunity as we ean to speak on it.
In the amendment, they say that the
government is merely tinkering with The
Medical Services Insurance Act, and in effect
they are not meeting the problem. In its
whole history, and in this bill particularly, the
government has been tinkering with the prob-
lem. It has been going from expediency to
expediency and the mess is piling up. In the
meantime a great number of people in the
province of Ontario, who should be receiving
proper medical coverage, are simply not
receiving it.
Despite the goodwill of many of the
doctors, we know today that the proper medi-
cal services are not being supplied because
the individual does not have the money.
If, as the hon. member for York South
said, this Conservative administration of On-
tario came forward and said: "We support
wholeheartedly what the federal government
is trying to do" there would be no more
argument throughout the Dominion of Canada
as to whether or not we should have a uni-
versal comprehensive health scheme. It would
be a fact in the immediate future. Any of the
half-baked schemes in Alberta or British
Columbia, or even the privately operated
plans, would go by the board and we would
have a plan that would cover all Canadians
and would have the importance of being
portable across the country. We know today
that many individuals are transferred from
one province to the other; unless you have
portability in a scheme you do not have one
of the proper ingredients of a scheme that
will give the people of the province proper
protection.
We are told the government does not
admit it— that this bill is brought in in the
manner it is because it is trying to put
itself in a position to bargain with the federal
government. The federal government has
made generous proposals and I do not blame
a provincial government for trying to bargain
with Ottawa. But surely we are entitled to
some inspired leadership. In other words it
is the old story of tinker, tinker or expedi-
ency. We in Ontario and in Canada need
something that will inspire the people of
Ontario and of Canada. This particular bill is
one of the great social issues of our time, and
that is why, to my mind, it is a pity that
we bring in a bill like Bill No. 6, that has cut
up a previous bill, Bill No. 136. I think that
only five sections of the old Bill No. 136
remain unchanged. Instead of—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. We are right back on the debate.
We have heard all this before. It went to a
vote and this House voted in favour of the
principles of this bill. Here we are right back
on second reading again.
Mr. Speaker: Do I understand the mem-
ber is discussing a federal-provincial plan?
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
695
Mr. Trotter: Yes, as this bill relates to the
federal-provincial plan, and I have compared
it with Bill No. 136, of which this is an
amendment. Bill No. 6 is an amendment of
Bill No. 136, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The Medical Services Insur-
ance Act, 1965. Yes, the member is right. The
first part is to facilitate the establishment at
the earliest possible opportunity of a joint
federal-provincial plan, qualifying for federal
assistance.
Mr. Trotter: It does not say that.
Mr. Speaker: That is the point the member
is discussing.
Mr. Trotter: That is correct, Mr. Speaker,
I am right on it. Again I emphasize this, be-
cause we do not go to Ottawa saying: "We
support you." For years, people have been
campaigning for a comprehensive universal
scheme. They have found fault with the
Liberals on the federal level because they
have said they have stalled for so long. Be
they right or wrong, at last they are coming
forward. Yet this government still does not
give the wholehearted support to the scheme
that is needed. The bill before us covers
only 40 per cent of our people. We do not
meet the terms of the federal proposal, and
the only probable good reason for this bill is
that the' government is trying to use it as a
bargaining agent to get more money out of
the federal government.
That may be well and good, but I again
agree with what the hon. member for York
South said— that we need, in this type of
thing, inspired leadership. It is as he said,
indicative of the country as a whole, be it
the federal, be it Liberals or Conservatives,
and the political life in general. We have
this tendency of tinkering or using expedi-
ency from time to time. As Quebec may
have leadership or they know what they
want, we here simply do not. This bill
makes it obvious that we are again doing
things bit by bit. Mr. Frost used to like to
do, in his day, a little here and a little
there and wait until next year. But next
year is practically on us, Mr. Speaker, and
it is time that we faced up to the fact. We
are told that the family will be protected
with medical insurance for $150 a year
premium. How can a much poorer province,
like Saskatchewan, supply the same thing for
$24 a year? Obviously, this bill does not
face up to the demands of the public and
to the needs of the public.
I would again emphasize, Mr. Speaker,
that this bill should go much further in
supporting the federal government pro-
posals; it should go much further in giving
overall comprehensive support to the public.
It should also get the private carriers com-
pletely out of health insurance insofar as any
standard care is involved. The other 60 per
cent of the population should be covered
in this bill and it is not. It is a vital and
tragic weakness that again we will not face
up to a major social problem in the province
of Ontario.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support
the amendment.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the
amendment, I certainly agree with my
colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale.
We will support this amendment. I think it
is important, sir, that at this stage in this
bill we should have had clarification. We
have not had this clarification. These were
the purposes of my remarks on second read-
ing, as to the basis on which this govern-
ment was prepared to enter into an
agreement with the federal government. One
cannot help but think, when one listens to
the hon. Minister of Health, the hon. Prime
Minister and the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan) a day or two before, that this
province has been indulging in either some
sort of a fancy game, or in some sort of a
blackmail system addressed to the federal
government.
The hon. Provincial Treasurer says that
unless we get more money out of Ottawa we
are going to have to raise the income tax
by four per cent. I do not think it is an
unfair suggestion at all, Mr. Speaker. In
fact, I think it is the whole object of this to
use the Medicare plan from Ottawa as a
weapon. You give us what we want on
Medicare, although we are not saying in
public what we want, then maybe we will
go easy on the income tax requests that we
are making. Is this government playing one
end against the other? I think we are en-
titled to know this. But, Mr. Speaker, trying
to put two and two together and make four,
without knowing what the basic facts are, I
am afraid one is forced to the inevitable
conclusion that this government is being less
than frank with the people of Ontario. It is
playing some sort of game with the people
in Ottawa and it is not, as yet, prepared to
tell the House what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is in the interests
of all of the people in Canada, certainly
all of the people of Ontario, that we have
an arrangement for Medicare with the
federal government. I think this government
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has moved to the stage where it has just
about arrived at this conclusion. The only
reason that I can locate is in the thinking
of the hon. Provincial Treasurer, when he
says Ottawa had better be careful or we are
going to have to get four per cent more on
the income tax. For some peculiar reason,
they are not prepared to say so.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is another point
that is very important. In today's Star, and I
notice that the hon. Minister of Health has
just been given a copy of it-
Mr. Speaker: Will the member now stick
to the amendment?
Mr. Singer: Yes. Oh, I am. I am sticking
to the amendment.
In today's Star, and this is most pertinent,
Mr. Speaker, there is a story referring to
the Ontario medical association, which if it
is true, and which, if it reflects the correct
feeling of the doctors, either renders this
bill before the House completely ineffective,
completely nugatory, never to be brought
into being, or else it puts this government in
the position where it is entering into a
battle, at least as bad as the one in Sas-
katchewan, with the doctors of the province
of Ontario. This is what the story says:
More than 4,500 of the province's 6,500
practising doctors—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I simply cannot stand here and
listen to this without voicing my objections
just on the basis that this is completely irrele-
vant to a third reading of this bill.
Mr. Bryden: It is entirely relevant.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think
of anything that could be more relevant.
Mr. Speaker: I would think the remarks
that the member is now engaged upon with
regard to the doctors was well discussed on
second reading and I would ask him to
desist from speaking about that particular
aspect of it. This particular amendment has
two sections and there is not anything in
those sections that has anything to do with
the subject-matter that he is now raising. So
I would ask him, if he is going to make any
remarks, to make them relevant to sections
in this amendment, otherwise I would have
to ask him to terminate his remarks on the
basis of their having been covered on second
reading.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the amendment
says in section (a) that we want the govern-
ment to facilitate the establishment at the
earliest possible opportunity of a joint fed-
eral-provincial plan and I am suggesting that
the plan as it is here, either with or without
the amendment, is not going to work unless
the doctors are a part of it.
The whole purpose of this story, which
was just published for the first time, indicates
the doctors are not going to be a part of it.
The doctors say they do not want anything
to do with it on the way it is set up and I
cannot think of anything that would be more
relevant to this than to get a clarification from
the government, before this third reading goes
through, as to whether or not we are going
to have a plan with the doctors' co-operation,
or whether we are going to enter into a fight
with the doctors, or whether we are not going
to have anything.
Mr. Speaker: You will notice that the sec-
tion also— to follow it through— deals with
qualifying for federal assistance on the terms
already announced by the federal govern-
ment.
Mr. Singer: That is right. But Mr.
Speaker, my point is this. The amendment
says we want a scheme which will facilitate
the establishment of a plan that must work.
The plan that is here— if the doctors are
correctly quoted and this is the feeling of
4,500 out of 6,500 of them— is not going to
work. It either is not going to work or we
are entering into war with the Ontario medi-
cal association, and I think we have got to
have clarification of this.
That is why I say I cannot think of any-
thing that is more in order and more ger-
mane to the subject of this debate, than the
role of the doctors as announced in today's
paper. I think this goes right to the kernel
of the whole question. How can we have a
plan if we do not have doctors participating
in it? To continue, Mr. Speaker:
More than 4,500 of the province's 6,500
practising doctors have already signed indi-
vidual declarations saying they will not
take part in the province's Medicare plan
as it now stands.
That is, the bill before the House.
They endorsed a series of resolutions
passed at a special meeting of the OMA
council on January 7. It was sent out in
a letter to the OMA's 7,500 members on
January 25.
One resolution insists that the fee sched-
ule is not "open to negotiations" except
when the profession wants to make special
deals on its own.
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
697
Another resolution says: "The profession
should not enter into any billing or other
contractual arrangements with the govern-
ment." This now means that doctors will
insist on billing patients directly and pa-
tients will have to collect from the gov-
ernment.
Mr. T. L. Wells (Scarborough North): May
I ask—
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if this is the
true expression of the medical profession, the
most obvious questions are: How can this
plan that is before us at present, work? How
are all those people on welfare and so on,
who are to be in the government plan, going
to do it if the doctors insist on billing patients
direct? How are all these individuals who are
to go into the plan, going to work it, unless
the doctors are a part and parcel of this and
are prepared to co-operate?
I think this casts grave doubts on the whole
approach of the government. The govern-
ment has to clarify these points. For these
reasons at least, these resolutions should be
supported. For these reasons the govern-
ment should take this bill back and consider
it a little further, and be prepared to come
into this House and tell us two things: (1)
What is it prepared to do with the federal
government and on what basis; (2) Is it pre-
pared to take on the Ontario medical associ-
ation or is it not?
Does the government mean what it says?
Is it going to be determined? Is it going to
pass laws and enforce them or is it not?
For those reason, Mr. Speaker, we will
support the amendment. We think that be-
fore anything is put to a vote, we should
have ample clarity— clear decision from the
government— and we have not had it yet.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
hon. member a question? He is willing to
read some of the resolutions purported to
come from the OMA. Will he read all of
them that are quoted in the paper?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
support and emphasize the propositions that
have been put to the government in relation
to this bill. I do not want to abuse your
generosity, by going over again the matter
that the hon. member for Downsview raised
with regard to the apparent position of a
substantial majority of the doctors of the
province in relation to the bill. I do think,
however, that it is imperative that the people
of Ontario and this Legislature hear from the
government at the earliest possible oppor-
tunity as to what its position is in this matter.
I judge from what you were saying a few
minutes ago that you might consider it out
of order if the hon. Minister of Health tried
to state the government's position at this stage
during this debate. I believe, however, that
all hon. members of the House, certainly
members of this group, would be willing to
agree to a certain stretching of the rules
in order to permit the hon. Minister of Health
to make such a statement. We consider it
so important we think it should be made at
the earliest possible opportunity, preferably
before this bill receives third reading. And we
believe that if possible it should be made in
this House.
We would facilitate matters by raising
no objection if the hon. Minister indicated a
wish to state the position of the government
clearly on this matter. If he does not feel
inclined to do it now during the debate on
third reading of the bill, then I submit to
him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he
should do so at the earliest possible oppor-
tunity.
There is another matter which I think also
cries out for clarification before the House
is called upon to decide whether it finally
approves this bill. It arises out of some rather
cryptic, teasing remarks made by the hon.
Prime Minister when he wound up the debate
on second reading. He referred to the fact
that spokesmen of the province of Quebec
have shown some disposition to have the
opting out principle, which has now been
accepted in regard to some programmes,
extended to unconditional opting out. That,
I think, is a fair summary.
I do not want to take time to go into
the whole question again, but the hon. Prime
Minister had certain comments to make with
regard to Quebec's position as it affected this
particular bill. He ' said on page 457 of
Hansard of February 11:
You can see if this principle is accepted
—I do not know whether it will be; so far
it has only been advanced by the province
of Quebec— but you can see where this
could lead. You can see what effect it might
have on what we are discussing here this
morning.
Namely, the second reading of this bill. I
continue:
You can see what an effect it might have
on all the national programmes we have in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps our powers of vision
are limited, but frankly I cannot see, and I
am sure that there are many people in the
province who cannot see, just where this
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is going to lead. The reason we cannot see
is because the government will not state its
position.
I can see that a great many different
things might arise as the result of this new
development, but I cannot see what specific
thing will happen, because this government
flatly refuses to say what its position is in
relation to proposals that have been made
by the government of Canada.
I would suggest to the hon. Prime Minister
that before this debate is concluded, he
should be prepared to state his position, so
that the members of this House, the people
of Ontario and the government of Canada
will see precisely where we are heading. I
am going to suggest to him that the close-
to-the-vest sort of poker playing that he
seems to fancy in federal-provincial negotia-
tions is nothing but an abdication of leader-
ship on the part of the province that ought
to be giving leadership in these matters.
The federal government has made certain
proposals. It is true that they have not as
yet put them in the form of a resolution or
a bill before the House of Commons, and I
think they can be faulted for that neglect.
They are now doing that, I understand— they
are bringing in a resolution soon. But the
point is that their proposals were quite clear-
cut and this government simply sits back
and says: "We will not say whether we are
for or against them; we will not say if we
accept them in principle subject to certain
reservations; we will not say if we reject
them totally in principle."
The government just does not say anything.
It sits at the back of the pack trying to find
out how everybody else is going to move
before it makes its own move, and I suggest
that this province should be giving a lead
to all the rest. This is the province with the
greatest resources and the greatest popula-
tion and it should be taking a position of
leadership in all our negotiations with the
federal government.
The poker-playing approach it uses, and
is using here, leads to absolutely nothing, in
my opinion, Mr. Speaker. In fact—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask a quest ion of the hon. member?
Is he suggesting that leadership of the
people who live in tin's province constitutes
saying "yes" to every proposition that comes
from Ottawa or any other government of
this country?
Mr. Brydcn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
how the hon. Minister of Labour could con-
ceivably have drawn that inference from my
remarks. I said that leadership consists in
stating your position and stating it clearly
so that people can understand it, both the
people at Ottawa and the people of the prov-
ince. I think that constitutes leadership.
Sitting back saying: "We will not say, we will
wait and see, we want to wait and see what
everybody else does before we decide what
we are going to do"— that is, in my opinion,
the reverse of leadership.
I was just going to go on to my final point
in this connection before the hon. Minister
of Labour asked his question. It means
that this province really has no influence on
the course of negotiations and I think that
came out clearly in relation to the Canada
pension plan when it followed exactly the
same procedure as now. It ended up accept-
ing the principle of the plan but with abso-
lutely no influence at all on the detailed
implementation of it. It had views on it-
many of which I agreed with— but it came
into the picture so late that the whole matter
had been predetermined and I hope—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The whole thing has
been predetermined and there is no oppor-
tunity for bargaining with Ottawa.
Mr. Bryden: Is that now the government's
official position, Mr. Speaker, that it has all
been predetermined by Ottawa and there
is no room for bargaining? I am suggesting
to the hon. Minister of Labour—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, once
again I must object, because I think it is a
very valid objection. We are so far away
from this bill or anything to do with this
bill. We are now into a rather acrimonious
discussion about relations of this govern-
ment with the federal government. This is
not—
Mr. MacDonald: On Medicare!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: On Medicare nothing!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thought the
hon. Prime Minister was raising a point of
order, but he is not so I wish to continue
and I would point out, sir, that I could
finish in two minutes if these hon. gentlemen
would just sit down.
I was pointing out that the way the gov-
ernment approaches these matters with this
total lack of leadership means that we have
no influence. If it is true, as the hon. Minis-
ter of Labour says, that the government at
Ottawa predetermines these matters, in-
cluding the one with which we are con-
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
699
cemed in this bill, and they cannot be
negotiated, I suggest that they get some
backbone over there and go to Ottawa and
say: "Look, fellows, we are going to sit down
and talk about it."
But I think they have to say in principle
where they stand. This is where the diffi-
culty arises. The government will have
absolutely no influence on the ultimate de-
velopment of a national plan any more than
they had in the final development of the
Canada pension plan if they continue to take
the attitude they have been taking, of sitting
back waiting to see what will turn up, wait-
ing for everybody else in the country to
give leadership instead of giving it them-
selves.
I would suggest that the hon. Prime Min-
ister clarify his position.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour that the
bill now be read a third time will say "aye."
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make one comment before this vote
is put. I think it is quite obvious that I
have checked into this procedure and I
really have no intention to answer what was
brought forward in the debate on this
amendment. It would simply require me to
repeat everything I said in this House a
week ago this morning. I sketched out at
that time the position of the government. I
pointed out the various reports that are still
to be studied; I pointed out that this is part
of a very great whole; the Medicare bill
cannot be treated in isolation in the field
of federal-provincial relationships.
I recognize full well that this party over
here— this small group— take this stand be-
cause they want to push this Medicare
down everybody's throat willy-nilly; this
group over here, the apologists for their big
brothers in Ottawa.
But we stand here looking after the
interests of the people of the province of
Ontario and I just refer hon. members to
the remarks I made in this House a week
ago today in answer to these points that
have been raised this morning.
I consider this motion to be out of order,
however, and I certainly will vote against it.
Mr. Speaker: Following the procedure of
rule 56, we shall now put the question: Shall
the third reading of Bill No. 6 be now read
a third time?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
As many as are in favour of the bill now
being read a third time, please rise.
As many as are opposed, will please
rise.
AYES
NAYS
Allan
Ben
Auld
Braithwaite
Beckett
Bryden
Boyer
Bukator
Brunelle
Davison
Butler
Freeman
Carruthers
Gaunt
Carton
Gisborn
Cecile
Lewis
Cowling
(Scarborough West)
Demers
MacDonald
Downer
Newman
Dunlop
Nixon
Dymond
Oliver
Edwards
Paterson
Evans
Racine
Ewen
Renwick
Gomme
Sargent
Grossman
Singer
Harris
Smith
Haskett
Spence
Henderson
Taylor
Hodgson
Trotter
(Scarborough East)
Worton
Hodgson
Young-24.
(Victoria)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Knox
Lawrence
(St. George)
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Noden
Olde
Peck
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Robarts
Roberts
Rollins
Rowe
Rowntree
Spooner
Stewart
Thrasher
Walker
Wells
White
Wishart
Yaremko— 51.
700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 51, the "nays," 24.
Mr. Speaker: The "ayes" have it.
Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.
Clerk of the House: Order of the day for
the third reading of Bill No. Frl8.
TOWNSHIP OF CHARLOTTEVILLE
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin) moves third
reading of Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting
the township of Charlotteville.
Motion agreed to; third reading of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker: While we are awaiting the
presence of the Honourable the Lieutenant-
Governor, I am pleased to announce that we
are always pleased to have visitors to the
Legislature, and just before the clock showed
12, the grade 8 students from Thistletown
public school, Rexdale, arrived in the east
gallery.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
entered the chamber of the legislative as-
sembly and took his seat upon the Throne.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Lieutenant-Governor):
Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province has,
at its present sittings thereof, passed certain
bills to which, in the name of and on behalf
of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully
request Your Honour's assent.
Assistant Clerk of the House: The follow-
ing are the titles of the bills to which Your
Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill No. 6, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
Bill No. Prl8, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Charlotteville.
To these Acts the Royal assent was an-
nounced by the Clerk of the legislative
assembly in the following words:
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor doth
assent to these bills.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was pleased to retire from the Chamber.
Clerk of the House: The second order,
resuming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, I ask your indulgence with which
so far, at least in my case, you have been
most generous.
I would like to speak for a few momenta
today on the occasion of the debate on the
Speech from the Throne regarding a matter
somewhat removed from the important and
far-reaching matters with which this House
has been engaged for the last two weeks.
Perhaps it will serve as a change of pace
and I hope my comments and my requests,
which I will try to make as simple and fair
and constructive as possible, will gather
some support throughout this House.
Mr. Speaker, as the House well knows, my
riding is one of those which has been desig-
nated for special assistance under the ARDA
programme and, as a so-called depressed area,
is available for special tax incentives for in-
dustrial development purposes under the
federal area development agency.
Hon. members might be interested in a
summary of the feelings prevalent in these
northern areas as citizens are deluged from
time to time with press releases, brave
speeches by visiting officials and pronounce-
ments of intended endeavour that emanate
from agencies from both levels of govern-
ment. I could quote all day from such
verbiage, but I have no intention of criticiz-
ing what may be well meaning but so far
ineffective gestures. It would suffice to say
that the ARDA directorate and the Ontario
development agency as well as the local
tourist council under The Department of
Tourism and Information are the three
agencies which we in Algoma-Manitoulin
have counted on for constructive support and
effort.
At this point, these three are beginning
to look a bit sick as compared to what seems
to be more realistic and ambitious approaches
by the two federal agencies involved in
northern development. I refer to the area
development agency and the industrial de-
velopment bank. It is becoming more evident
to the local people that these two agencies
are at least doing something other than talk
about the problems.
Mr. Speaker, the details of these various
programmes will be dealt with later in the
estimates. Right now I wish to make refer-
ence to excerpts from the Speech from the
Throne that refer to northern development
and to agriculture. I will pick two areas in
which recent legislation, if not more care-
fully considered, is in a fair way to compound
rather than help the problems of rural pov-
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
701
■erty and depression in the north. The first
of these I will need to deal with at some
length and I refer to The Milk Act, passed at
the last session of this Legislature, which
seemed at that time a fairly innocuous but
very necessary piece of legislation. It was
not until the regulations began to appear
that the possibly alarming consequences be-
came apparent.
Mr. Speaker, I admit to feeling fairly com-
fortable on this topic, having been engaged
in both the production and processing sides
of this industry, most of my life. I do not
hesitate in stating at once that never was
effective legislation needed more and never
was the commission faced with a bigger or
more complicated and important task than
this one. The hon. Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Stewart) and the members of his com-
mission have my deepest sympathy. And in
this spirit I wish to appeal to the hon. Min-
ister's good judgment regarding proposed
regulations under the Act. He will forgive
me if my concern is primarily for the effect
of these regulations on the dairy industry in
northern Ontario and agricultural develop-
ment there in general.
In order to approach this matter properly
it seems necessary to build some background
and some reasons for the confusion and utter
chaos that had developed in the industry
prior to the introduction of The Milk Act.
Looking back into the days of the original
milk control board of Ontario, then subse-
quently the milk industry board, it becomes
apparent that these boards were not blameless
in their lack of ability to enforce the regula-
tions under the then existing terms of then-
authority. The major area of weakness was
that of the board's refusal to implement
properly the enforcement of the territorial
boundaries part of their authority.
Mr. Speaker, I readily agree that the free
enterprise system is desirable but in a major
industry— almost a utility, as the milk industry
is— free enterprise without some control can
oe and it was— disastrous. The facts were
that there was legislation calling for some
protection of producer and processor group
areas which was exercised in some cases and
not in others. Mr. Hennessey, in the report
from his famous milk inquiry committee,
was properly critical of this aspect of the
board's function. While producer and pro-
cessor groups were, by licensing, restricted
to areas zoned for their protection, it did not
take long for a few of the large independents
to seize on a technicality to cross boundary
lines and invade what they considered the
more lucrative, heavily-populated areas of
Ontario. They were able to by-pass existing
legislation affecting territorial licences by
establishing what we will call wholesale
accounts, in some cases through large jobbers
and chains, even possibly falsifying records
to show that these jobbers in effect took de-
livery at the plant. There were two immedi-
ate results of this expanding type of invasion.
These operators were not obliged to provide
delivery service, had no collection problems
and by virtue of the fact that they were not
licensed in these new areas, were therefore
not obligated to provide service to other than
large wholesale outlets of their choice. This
immediately put them in a position with
which the local operators could not compete.
The first result of this situation was to
eliminate by purchase or starving out smaller,
more vulnerable operations. The second re-
sult is a situation we have today in which
in spite of existing legislation, there just are
virtually no territorial boundaries other than
those automatically established by distance
and transportation difficulties. Since this prac-
tice has had the effect of placing the indus-
try under the control of a comparatively
small number of large operators, it is abso-
lutely essential that the commission or the
marketing board, whichever finally accepts
the responsibility, take a really careful look
at establishing a policy of territorial bound-
aries or boundary extensions for the orderly
marketing of milk in Ontario.
I think it is fair to recognize at this point
that it is possible that this strenuous and cut-
throat competition had a beneficial effect,
however temporary, on the consumer. And
since this is the case it probably worked for
the overall good of Ontario except for one
thing. As the sales in most parts of the prov-
ince moved out of the hands of small oper-
ators, and into the hands of the big three
and a few large independents, the production
also moved out of the hands of local pro-
ducer organizations and individuals into the
hands of large producers available to the
large milksheds. Mr. Speaker, here is one
great reason for some of the pockets of agri-
cultural poverty.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, it is going to
be very difficult to reinstitute territorial
boundaries, even though in my opinion this
is desirable. But unless bold measures are
adopted in an attempt to control this trend
of the industry, we will be confronted with
the inevitable situation of rapidly disappear-
ing small-producer and processor organiza-
tions, to the point where this industry will
shortly be controlled by the mammoths. I
feel sure that the department has recognized
702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that this was the most important reason for
disbanding the milk industry board and the
whole official structure of boards and groups
which made up the control of the industry.
But I want to point out that merely chang-
ing the name of the authority and establish-
ing new faces in position of control— unless
a realistic approach is taken to regulations
under the Act affecting prices and controls-
is merely putting off the evil hour.
Mr. Speaker, one of the important new
regulations regarding adjustments in prices
of milk for both primary, which is fluid
milk, and for secondary, which is industrial
or manufactured milk, is aimed at reducing
the wide spread between primary and
secondary prices. And I am alarmed that
these early regulations in this regard may
have the very opposite effect. In other
words, the new commission seems to be
taking the approach of giving more to those
that have and less to those that have not.
Let me speak about this for a moment,
Mr. Speaker. I just do not believe that
regulations which will have the effect in
the north of raising the primary producers'
price and therefore the consumers' price is
in the best interests of producer, processor
and certainly not the consumer, until the
secondary or manufactured price in Ontario
is brought closer in line with primary prices.
Let me try to explain this statement. First,
this is in direct contravention, in my opinion,
of the stated aims of the milk marketing
board, which seems to recognize that of
prime importance is narrowing the wide
spread between these two prices within the
structure.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I have sat on both
sides of the bargaining table at different
times, between producer and processor, and
I do not agree that the producers in northern
Ontario really wish their top prices raised.
Certainly they want, and they deserve, a
greater return; but what they really want
and need far more than a few cents more per
hundred pounds of milk is a bigger share of
their own markets.
There is only one way that this can be
achieved. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker,
that milk for industrial purposes can be pur-
chased for 40 per cent less in southern
Ontario than the product with which it com-
petes in northern Ontario. This is the part
of this whole question that perplexes and
worries me. And the answer to this is to
increase the price in northern Ontario?
In 1961 I was invited to prepare and pre-
sent a brief to the milk inquiry committee
on behalf of producer and processor groups
in northern Ontario. I think at that point
we were able to convince the committee that
large dairy interests in southern Ontario— and
I will not name them— should be forced by
reclassification to cease and desist from the
practice of exploiting northern markets with
products which could be bought from pro-
ducers at considerably lower prices.
It will be interesting to note that these
same products were not offered extensively
in southern Ontario and in competition with
top price fluid milk there but rather in
northern Ontario. This will require a bit
of explanation, and since it is hard to keep
from getting lost in technicalities in this
whole question, I will merely generalize on
the principle involved.
For many years, in areas where cheaper
milk was available manufacturers of milk
products, such as powder and concentrated
and condensed milks, have been able to pur-
chase this product at roughly half price
merely by falling into a classification as in-
dustrial milk processors. Large interests
were very shortly able to get themselves into
this classification with all of the cheaper
buying privileges by simply removing some
of the water from the milk. This product
was classified as liquid concentrated milk
and the operators were immediately allowed
to purchase the raw product at manufacture
or secondary prices. Therefore, not being
exactly fluid products in the full sense, they
were able to by-pass territorial boundary
legislation and immediately move large
amounts of these products into northern On-
tario where, since there were no large
amounts of surplus milk, the product by
virtue of adding the water back in was
immediately in competition with top price
fluid milk.
The Hennessey inquiry committee recog-
nized that the success of the product and the
inability of fluid milk to compete had been
accomplished by little more than the use of
a technicality. And it was expected that one
of the first regulations that would appear
upon the formation of the new milk com-
mittee would be reclassification of this
product for buying purposes, which would
not have had the effect of taking the product
off the market but would merely allow
northern producers to compete with southern
producers on an equitable basis.
Instead of this, the northern primary and
selling prices are to be raised. As far as we
know no reclassification of liquid concen-
trated products is being ordered and the
field is opened more widely than ever to
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
703
this type of exploitation of northern markets
by these large interests.
This is, in my opinion, the second major
mistake of the commission.
Third, most of the ills within the indus-
try can be cured by volume. In northern
Ontario we do not have this cure, but we
should have it to a much greater degree, we
would be able to develop our own secondary
and manufacturing industry. Producers
would be encouraged to develop larger herds
and make expenditures against a steadily
growing potential market if they could be
given assurance that markets that should be
theirs could be protected against raiding by
products purchased at lower southern prices.
I am sure that given such assurance of a
greater share in the market, they could make
sure also that consumers would be protected
against rising costs.
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to suggest
that the necessary milk is not available in the
north. The north has many large potentially
productive areas full of farmers who have
been disillusioned time and again by their
inability to compete with the practice I have
mentioned. Give them some assurance that
the markets are their own and they will
produce the goods.
Fourth, some northern processors, to pro-
tect themselves and the industry against this
poaching on their markets, and having been
discouraged at the lack of government action,
have introduced products called "recon-
stituted" products which use only a small
amount of milk as basis, but which they
have been able to put on the market at
lower prices and therefore have managed to
save themselves from extinction.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that vast
amounts of this type of product might not
be in the best interests of the industry, but
we also realize that many housewives are
prepared to purchase an acceptable alterna-
tive product in the interests of economy.
We must also recognize that self-preservation
is the first rule of business. The fact is, also,
that some northern production is involved
in these products, and both northern pro-
cessors and producers are naturally violently
protective of northern industry against un-
fair southern competition, but now even that
weapon is being taken away.
The most recent regulation from the board
states, and I quote from section 15 of The
Milk Act, 1965:
Except as provided in the regulations,
no person shall process, sell, offer for sale
or have in possession for sale, reconstitu-
ted milk.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. Minister of
Agriculture to examine these proposed regu-
lations. I ask him to stop producing milk
regulations detrimental to industry in the
north. I ask him also to—
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. mem-
ber a question? Is he opposed to the
abandonment of reconstituted milk? Is he in
favour of continuing reconstituted milk in
the north? And by distributors?
Mr. Farquhar: What I am trying to get to
is that the first major problem in the industry
should be attacked first, before these par-
ticular areas are legislated for or against.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not implemented
yet. The hon. member quoted a regulation,
but it is not implemented yet.
Mr. Farquhar: I know it is not; I ask the
hon. Minister to re-examine this proposed
regulation.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has not yet said whether he is in
favour of the dairies continuing reconstitu-
tion distribution or whether he is not. This
is a thing I would like to know because I am
vitally interested in the point he raised. I
think he has made an excellent presentation
up to this point; I would like to know what
he thinks of this particular aspect of it.
Mr. Farquhar: Mr. Speaker, I will clear
this as I go along.
I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to
examine these proposed regulations. I ask
him to stop producing milk regulations detri-
mental to the industry in the north; I ask
him to recall the fine phrases in the Speech
from the Throne related to northern de-
velopment; to consider implementing legis-
lation that will attack the most vital areas
first; and, as The Milk Act is being developed
to its fullness, try to keep the horse in front
of the cart before the northern milk indus-
try is further exploited and finally destroyed.
There is one further area I would like to
discuss that could amount to a constructive
approach to orderly marketing in Ontario,
and could even cure some of the ills or
dangers I foresee in these new regulations.
Let us examine the makeup of the commis-
sion and the marketing board charged with
the responsibility to lay down and to carry
out the regulations under this Act.
The commission itself is made up of five
members. Next comes the milk marketing
704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
board, the legislative and enforcement arm,
made up of 13 producers. Beyond this has
been established an advisory committee
made up of 16 members, eight of whom are
processors and eight of whom are producers.
I ask hon. members to note that on this
advisory committee, which should be repre-
sentative of the industry over the whole
province, there is only one member north of
Huntsville, a Mr. Cazabon, from Sudbury.
Would it seem right, or even proper, that
such an advisory committee should be made
up of 16 members from northern Ontario to
rule on, or to make adjustments to control,
the whole province? It is no more right that
the north be put in a position from which
it cannot present, in strength, its problems
related to this question.
I have said earlier that lack of population
is no indication of lack of problems. In fact,
exactly the opposite applies. The problems
caused by transportation and climatic condi-
tions are different and unique, even in north-
western Ontario as opposed to northeastern
Ontario. There are special problems at the
Lakehead, for instance, that do not exist in
Moosonee, and more representation, at least
on this advisory committee, is essential for
the proper recognition of these problems. I
suggest that there is nothing magic about the
figure 16; I ask the hon. Minister to immedi-
ately consider appointments to this board
from these areas so that regulations affecting
the industry can be discussed and decided
upon by the people qualified by knowledge
and experience to deal with them. So much
for The Milk Act.
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the atten-
tion of the House for a moment to another
phase of society in the north. I sometimes
become quite perturbed when I hear remarks
of derision— and sometimes they come from
hon. members of my own party— directed to-
ward the subsidization of certain farmer
groups in Ontario. We hear remarks about
farmers' Cadillacs and 1,000-pound milk
quotas and winters in Florida, but I can
assure you that, in my opinion, this is not
the group that the ARDA programme should
be directed toward.
The groups I wish to discuss are those
who may have an old pickup truck, one cow
and a few chickens, and who may get to To-
ronto once or twice in a lifetime. Believe
me, we have many townships full of these
groups, caught in a society that does not
understand what to do about it, or which
refuses to believe that such utter hopeless-
ness exists.
These farmers are in an age group which
formerly, by farming standards, led a fairly
good life on small farms. Now they find
themselves on farms that are either too
small or too unproductive to compete with
modern agricultural techniques. They have
burned themselves out in the long struggle
to raise large families from the land, and
they are now at an age when it is impossible
to develop new trades or skills by which they
might share in our affluent society. There
is now nothing left for them but to try to
equip their children for a job elsewhere—
send them away and live on an old age
pension until they die.
Mr. Speaker, many try to accomplish this
by taking part-time work away from the
land. But in an area 100 or so miles away
from an industry, even this is virtually im-
possible. What is this Legislature supposed
to be doing about these people? I will tell
you one or two of the things that we do not
need to do to make their lot harder. In
Algoma— and I know the same holds true
for many of the depressed areas in the north—
the low-income factors are directly related to
the number of unorganized townships. What
I am trying to say is that the conditions that
result in low incomes are the same that pre-
clude the possibility to raise the revenue
necessary to operate an efficient municipal
government in a day when the demands on
local government are so high.
In these unorganized townships, and in
Algoma alone we have dozens of them, The
Department of Lands and Forests levies what
is called a provincial land tax. This is a
practice, Mr. Speaker, that I want to examine
for a few minutes, and I am sorry the hon.
Minister (Mr. Roberts) is not in his seat.
Residents, farmers and part-time farmers,
eking out an existence in these unorganized
areas, normally pay a share towards the up-
keep and maintenance of their roads through
either a local roads board or a statute labour
board. They contribute towards area or local
public and secondary education through a
school board assessment. They pay higher
than normal insurance rates, not having any
fire protection. They build and maintain their
own churches and, on top of this, an assess-
ment through the provincial Land Tax Act.
Let us examine this tax.
The Department of Lands and Forests,
to my knowledge, does not have qualified
assessors within its own personnel and there-
fore must contract for reassessment services
throughout these areas. This is done every
three years. I know something about the
cost of the collection procedures they have
to undertake in many of these areas and the
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
705
disputes and applications for appeals; dozens
of them are constantly going on. The net
proceeds to the department of this whole
procedure do not readily come to light in an
examination of receipts and costs, but looking
at the whole operation and the revenue
involved, I am forced to the opinion that the
whole operation is a complete exercise in
futility. If this is not the case, let me ask
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests just
what the department gives in return for this
charge on real estate? I assure the hon. mem-
bers that in Algoma at least, the department
does not build roads, at least roads that
would in any way benefit farmers. The de-
partment certainly provides no fire protection,
or it is not available to any farmer that I
know of.
So why continue to go through this ridic-
ulous exercise, one that can have no effect
but to build up accounts which within five
years, in the words of one of the local clerk-
treasurers, will complete the job of leaving
these people homeless?
It will be understood that my request is
not directed to the hon. Minister on behalf
of timber licensees or commercial tourist
enterprises, although in my opinion there
are small commercial and supporting busi-
nesses that are unduly assessed. But after all,
these people recognize that to a point at
least, they are privileged to share in Ontario's
economy. I ask the hon. Minister, who is a
humanitarian, to remove this tax completely
on farmers living in these unorganized town-
ships, whether they derive a living from till-
ing the soil or not.
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged at this point
to note that Bill No. 2, standing in the name
of the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests,
recognizes that this tax is no longer a sacred
cow. I support the principle involved, which
to me is aimed towards deriving revenue
under the Act from the groups and corpora-
tions best able to pay it. I would hope that
he has given or will give consideration, by
the same token, to removing tax from those
unable to pay tax under the Act. I feel I
am on safe ground and I look forward to
some support from other northern members
when I say that the average yearly income of
the group to which I refer would approxi-
mately equal the average monthly income of
the members of this House.
I know the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) knows and understands the condi-
tions to which I refer, and if the whole pro-
vincial land tax as it relates to these farmers,
cannot be removed in total, at least those
farmers who contribute to upkeep of roads
should be relieved of the provincial land tax
burden.
I will refer to the recent Speech from the
Throne relative to these conditions and the
aims of The Agricultural Rehabilitation and
Development Act. I quote:
The consolidation of abandoned or un-
economic farm units will be continued in
northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope to see some
real effort in this regard, but I am aware of
the extreme difficulties in moves in this direc-
tion. I know such a programme will not be
immediately successful and I have tried to
point out at least one way in which the situa-
tion could be even temporarily alleviated.
I can see no reason for delay.
Mr. T. L. Wells (Scarborough North): Mr.
Speaker, just as you can sometimes be fooled
when you drive a car, I was fooled when the
hon. member before me came to a very
abrupt stop.
It is my pleasure to take part in this
Throne speech debate, and I would like to
begin, as many others have done, by com-
plimenting you, Mr. Speaker. I would par-
ticularly like to compliment you on the
innovation which you have instituted, that of
having the procession, or whatever it is
called, of the Speaker and the Clerk, and so
on, come from the first floor up here. I think
that this will establish a little more pageantry,
another tradition to this House, which I think
will impress those many visitors and school
children who come here. I know it has
always impressed me at Ottawa to see this
procession of the Speaker into the House of
Commons and I think it is a good addition
here.
I might add my words of welcome to the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and
the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith)
and welcome them to this House.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin
by saying that for the past two years it has
been my pleasure to be a member of the
select committee on youth of this House. As
a member of this committee, I have had a
chance for these past two years, to tour this
province and meet with many of the groups
interested in young people, indeed meet with
many of the young people in all areas of this
province.
Being on this committee has given me a
chance to get into areas that I had not had
the opportunity to visit before and in a
way, probably, which a tourist would never
have. You visit an area and from serving on
one of these committees you learn what the
706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
people think in that area. I would say this,
Mr. Speaker, that from my observations, the
young people of Ontario are a very good
group of people. There is eertainly nothing
wrong with them. They do have hopes, they
have aspirations. They are looking for things.
They are looking to us to enact policies and
to bring in legislation that will help them
attain their hopes and their aims.
I think that we have to keep in mind that,
generally and by far, they are a good group
of people, and that the unreached youths,
the delinquent youths, represent a small
portion of the total youth population of this
province. We have to keep this in mind when
we bring forward legislation and various
policies.
However, sir, in keeping this in mind,
we cannot neglect the unreached youth, and
certainly there is a definite need for specific
policies and specific pieces of legislation in
this area also. I know that I and all hon.
members will look forward to the introduc-
tion of the report of the select committee on
youth, in order that young people will be
able to take an even great part in the affairs
of this province.
Part of our studies on the select committee
on youth concerned themselves with looking
at statistics. I would like to quote from one of
the reports that we had by our research
officers. Talking about the median age, it
says:
Median age represents the age above
which and below which half of the popu-
lation lies, and it is estimated that in the
period 1961 to 1971, the median age will
fall below 25 years of age.
In 1961 the median age was 26.3 years,
a decrease from the high of 27.7 years at
the 1951 census. By 1991, 50.6 per cent of
the population will be in the zero-to-24
age sector of the population. This increase
will come as a consequence of a high birth-
rate and a low death-rate combination.
The figures for 1965, Mr. Speaker, show that
of a population of 6,731,000 in Ontario, 46.9
per cent of this total population are under 25
years of age. The figures— when you go into
the detailed figures— also show that the num-
ber in the age group 15 to 24 is increasing
rapidly. I think that the implications of the
immense influx of young people, particularly
in this ago group of 15 to 24, should play a
very dominant part in our consideration of
legislation for the people of this province.
In other words, what I am saying is that
in a very few years, more than 50 per cent
of the people of this province will be below
25 years of age and we should remember
this when we enact legislation for all the
people of this province.
One of the areas that I think is worthy of a
few moments' consideration this morning, is
one that has already been debated on a
resolution, but I am afraid that I did not have
the opportunity to take part in that debate.
It is certainly a matter of principle and will
eventually be a piece of legislation which will
affect this very large group of young people
we have and which will become an ever-
increasing part of our population. This, of
course, concerns the matter of lowering the
voting age to 18 years.
This is a question, as I said, that has been
debated here and in the press and in maga-
zines and on radio— it has been debated in all
kinds of forums. Out of all the debate on this
matter, I think there are several dominant
themes— or dominant trends— that can be pin-
pointed. One of the dominant trends is, I
think, that generally— and I think this can be
supported— the people who now vote are not
in favour of lowering the voting age. I did
a survey in my riding recently— I referred to
this in the medical health insurance debate.
I asked the question on that survey, "Do you
favour lowering the voting age to 18?" About
75 per cent of the respondents said that they
did not favour lowering the voting age to 18,
and they gave many reasons why. I think
that is one of the dominant themes. Many of
the people in the voting population today are
not in favour of lowering the voting age.
The second dominant theme seems to be
that young people are split on this matter.
We will find groups who are in favour of
lowering the voting age; we will find many
who are not. There was a newspaper survey
done by the Toronto Daily Star which asked
a number of young people whether they
favoured lowering the voting age and about
six said "no" and three said "yes" and gave
very detailed reasons. I notice that a group
had a meeting at the Eaton auditorium a
week or so ago— young people in favour of
lowering the voting age and I believe only
35 or 40 attended this meeting.
Certainly, from our discussions with young
people in our select committee on youth
meetings across the province, there was no
general feeling that young people them-
selves favoured lowering the voting age.
Now, I would like, in discussing this matter,
to read a few comments into the record, Mr.
Speaker, which I think are interesting. These
come from a battle about the same subject
which took place many years ago, but about
another group of people, women. These are
some comments that were recorded in a
FEBRUARY 18, 1966
707
book that was written about the women's
suffrage movement. They are in connection
with a speech by Viscountess Amberley of
Stroud in 1870, and they are taken from a
book published in 1902. I think that this is
a very interesting comment when you con-
sider what we hear today generally from a
lot of people— that the voting age should not
be lowered because all the young people
will be radical socialists. They are all going
to vote socialist and that is a good reason
not to lower the voting age. Others will
dispute this point and say that they do not
think so, but prefer not to take a chance,
but to leave the voting age where it is, Mr.
Speaker.
This is a comment made about the
women's suffrage movement in 1870:
A teacher was asking her class: How
does an ordinary man of the world answer
when he is asked if he is in favour of
women voting? He does not say, "I am
afraid of their influence at elections; they
will all be Tories"; he does not say that
it would subvert the political and social
order of things, they would all be radicals.
No, he generally just smiles benignly and
says, "I do not think that the ladies wish
to vote," and turning if he can, to some
pretty doll-like girl, he will appeal to her
to confirm his statement.
Men on each side expect that the vote
will be a leap in the dark in favour of the
other side, whichever that happens to be
and opportunists on either side in these
days wish for evidence of the truth of
Miss J. G. Wilkinson's assertation at the
trade union congress in Aberdeen in 1884,
that "it is absurd to suppose that women
will vote all Conservative or all radical;
they will do nothing of the kind."
Now what I am trying to point out, Mr.
Speaker, from this quote, is that this argu-
ment "Do not lower the voting age because
young people will vote this way or they will
vote that way" is an old, old argument
that has been used time and time again.
It was used when the vote was extended to
women and, of course, it did not prove
true then and I do not believe it would prove
true now.
Young people, Mr. Speaker, will vote just
the same as those over 21; there will be a per-
centage that will vote for one party and there
will be a percentage that will vote for an-
other party, and this will change from elec-
tion to election.
Going back to look at the women's suffrage
movement it is interesting to note that there
were a lot of women opposed to extending the
vote to women. As an example, in June, 1888,
in a newspaper called The Nineteenth Cen-
tury, there was inserted the following adver-
tisement:
A Woman's Protest. The undersigned pro-
tests strongly against the proposed extension
of the parliamentary franchise to women,
which they believe would be a measure
distasteful to the great majority of the
women of the country, unnecessary and
mischievous both to themselves and to the
state.
This was signed by 104 well-known English
ladies.
Also back in those days, generally the
press was against extending the franchise
to women, during the women's suffrage move-
ment and one interesting editorial in the
Saturday Review of July 1, 1886, had the
following editorial:
We have no right to bamboozle anyone
and least of all have we a right to bam-
boozle women by pretending to give them
a sugar plum and really give them a dose
of salts. What does voting imply? It implies
soliciting, reproaching and humbugging and
cajoling. Why are respectable women, be-
cause they happen to be spinsters or
widows and live in houses of their own, to
be exposed to the impertinent intrusions of
agents, canvassers and candidates, to be
besieged alternately by the adulation of
fools and by the insolence of bullies?
Of course, we would not agree with the last
comments about canvassing during elections,
I am sure, but the interesting thing here is
that it was suggested that all manner of evil
would happen to women if the vote was ex-
tended to them. I would like to quote further
from one pamphlet that was printed in favour
of women's suffrage in 1847. It said:
The wise, virtuous, gentle mothers of our
state or nation might contribute as much
to the good order, the peace, the thrift
of the body politic as they do to the well-
being of their families which, for the most
part we all know, is more than the fathers
do.
I think, Mr. Speaker, in quoting from these
books, I am not, of course, arguing the point
about whether women should vote or not,
but trying to show that the arguments used
for and against lowering the voting age to
18 are the same old arguments that were
used back in the days of the fight for the
women's vote. The arguments that the young
people themselves do not want the vote,
and that if they are given the vote they will
all vote radically, or they will vote for one
party or the other. Of course, I do not think
708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that either of these are true. Mr. Speaker,
from looking at these matters myself, and
considering them over the past few months
and listening to the various debates here
and in other areas, I think that because of the
increased level of education of our young
people— and certainly we can prove this,
more young people are staying in school
longer. Retention figures from all our sec-
ondary schools will show this now. Young
people are becoming better educated. This,
I think, is an indisputable fact.
Because of the increased interest of young
people in politics and world affairs, I would
like to tell you that we had a meeting of the
Young Conservatives in our riding last night
and I was surprised and very pleased to find
35 young people were there, many high
school students. There is an increased inter-
est among these people in politics and world
affairs; I think because of these things, Mr.
Speaker, the time has come to lower the
voting age to 18 years. I think that it should
be considered soon in this province, and I
hope that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and the members of the government
will consider it, as we are considering it in
our select committee on youth. I, personally,
feel that the voting age should be lowered to
18 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will continue with
this debate. Next week we will be into
estimates; I believe the first department to
be dealt with will be The Department of
Reform Institutions. By Monday I hope to
be able to give you a list of five or six of
the major departments ahead, in order that
you may prepare yourselves.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Will there be
estimates on Monday?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There will be no esti-
mates on Monday. There seems to be some
question of whether there will be a night
sitting. I believe the Whips are discussing
it. I am not in a position to say at the
moment whether there will be or there will
not be.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 25
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Bebate*
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 21, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 21, 1966
Gasoline Handling Act, 1966, bill intituled, Mr. Simonett, first reading 711
Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Simonett, first
reading 711
Law Society Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 711
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 711
Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 712
Change of Name Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 712
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 712
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 712
Licensing and regulation of nursing homes, bill to provide for, Mr. Dymond, first reading 712
Condolences re passing of the Honourable Paul Comtois, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec,
Mr. Robarts, Mr. Thompson, Mr. MacDonald 715
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Wells, Mr. Trotter,
Mr. Gisborn, Mr. Thrasher, Mr. Gaunt 716
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Yakabuski, agreed to 738
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 738
711
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE GASOLINE HANDLING ACT, 1966
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, The Gasoline Handling
Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
this is a complete revision of this Act. It
was last revised in 1936.
The purpose of this revision is: First, to
confine the scope of the Act to the safety
aspect of the handling of gasoline and the
associate products to which the Act will
apply; second, to provide for the creation and
administration of a complete and up-to-date
safety code.
The administration of this Act was trans-
ferred on January 1, 1965, from The Treasury
Department to The Department of Energy
and Resources Management.
THE ONTARIO NORTHLAND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Simonett moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Ontario
Northland Transportation Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, at the
present time, by order-in-council, we have
permission to build and lease spur lines up
to ten miles. We would like to increase this
to 20 miles.
Monday, February 21, 1966
THE LAW SOCIETY ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Law Society Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
may I ask if that bill has had the requisite
two days notice?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): I
have not checked the order paper today, Mr.
Speaker, but I thought it had. I shall check
now.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that notice was
given on the 17th.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, a brief
explanation to the House: This small amend-
ment to the Act gives authority to the bench-
ers of the law society to delegate their
powers with respect to the compensation
fund to referees and to committees of them-
selves, that is the benchers, in order that the
workload may be handled without undue
delay.
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Condi-
tional Sales Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This bill, and a com-
panion bill which I propose to introduce
immediately, is to facilitate the method of
financing the sale of rolling stock of railway,
oil and steel companies.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Attorney
General a question in regard to this matter.
Does the introduction of this bill preclude
the introduction of the so-called Katzman
bill?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, not at all, Mr.
Speaker. This is just one very small amend-
ment to meet a situation which is giving us
712
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
some concern and some difficulty, but it will
in no way obstruct or delay report No. 3 of
the law reform commission. The bill is being
improved from that report and we are pro-
ceeding with that, I can assure the House,
with all due despatch.
Mr. Singer: I would like to see it in this
session.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would hope so; I think
we may count on that.
THE BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL
MORTGAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Bills of
Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this is the
companion bill of which I spoke a moment
ago and the purpose of it is the same as the
amendment to The Conditional Sales Act.
THE CHANGE OF NAME ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Change
of Name Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The purpose of this bill,
Mr. Speaker, is to permit an unmarried
mother to change the name of her child.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Judica-
ture Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this new provision is to clarify the
law with respect to costs awarded to the
Crown, and to place the Crown in the same
position as any other litigant.
It will enable the Crown to recover costs
in proper cases where the solicitor or coun-
sel who acts for the Crown is a salaried law
officer of the Crown. A similar provision is
to be found in The Supreme Court Act,
which is Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952,
chapter 259.
In the second section included in this
amending Act, it is required that the report
of the auditor of the official guardian's
accounts, be transmitted to the inspector of
legal offices instead of to the Provincial Sec-
retary.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Attorney General would permit a ques-
tion on that? Will the fact that these amend-
ments are to The Judicature Act preclude
other amendments dealing with injunctions
at a later stage in the sittings of this House?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not think so,
if it were deemed the policy to bring in
such amendments. There have been quite
frequent occasions where two bills have
been in the House to amend the one Act,
but they are generally consolidated at the
end.
THE DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Devolu-
tion of Estates Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the first
section in this amending Act makes a change
in the law of devolution of estates in the case
of a person who dies intestate and is survived
by a spouse and children, and then the
spouse remarries and dies intestate, leaving
the children by the first marriage still infants.
This amendment will provide that the
surviving step-parent will not be entitled to
the preferential share of the estate but only
to the distributive share.
The other three sections are complementary
to the amending provisions which we have
introduced with respect to The Registry Act.
NURSING HOMES
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to provide for the licensing and regulation of
nursing homes.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to
authorize The Department of Health to
license and regulate nursing homes in On-
tario, and prescribe standards for their estab-
lishment, maintenance and operation.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of personal privilege.
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
713
Following my remarks on the Throne debate
last Thursday, there appeared in the Toronto
Daily Star last Saturday, the following
article:
Frost Calls MPP's Demand for Trust
Prohe Fickle
Former Premier Leslie Frost described
a demand for a probe into last fall's
merger of the British Mortgage and Trust
Company and Victoria and Grey Trust
Company as fickle from a man who doesn't
know any better.
Edward Sargent, Liberal from Grey
North, said in the Legislature Thursday
that the government had come to the
rescue of big business by using public
funds to guarantee the credit of British
Mortgage up to $3 million in order to
protect depositors. He said Mr. Frost, a
director of Victoria and Grey Trust Com-
pany, was a frequent visitor to Queen's
Park during negotiations that ended with
the government agreeing to the guarantee.
"Any statement that I discussed," said
Mr. Frost, "this matter with the Cabinet is
completely unfounded and untrue. I did
not discuss it with Mr. Robarts or Mr.
Allan either."
Mr. Frost described the transaction be-
tween Victoria and Grey Trust Company
and British Mortgage and Trust Company
as a takeover and he said this was done in
a manner which was in the public interest.
So that there be no misunderstanding, Mr.
Speaker, that the public of Ontario will not
get any false information on this whole sorry
mess, I make the following statement: The
press statement was that Mr. Frost said I
did not know any better. Another press state-
ment is that I was heckled unmercifully.
Another press statement was that the govern-
ment was not taking this seriously.
May I say that I have never been more
serious in my life than I am today, when I
state that if a government can break the laws
that we pass here in this House by not re-
voking the charters-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: —of these companies for their
illegal use-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member would
now like to correct the statement that was
made about him, I understand.
Mr. Sargent: I am going to correct it
eventually.
Mr. Speaker: But I would ask the mem-
ber to come to the point immediately in
order to not abuse his privilege of rising in
the House on a matter of personal privilege.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing
out the fact this government is breaking the
laws that are passed in this House by not
revoking the charters of these two companies;
and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they further
compounded the felony by making public
funds available without authority-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: —contrary to law, to bail out
the offenders.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid the mem-
ber is not getting to the point which I
requested.
Mr. Sargent: I will eventually.
Mr. Speaker: The member-
Mr. Sargent: I will do it in capsule form
then. The director of British Mortgage, Mr.
Lawson, states that the government action
was illegal; hundreds of editorials across the
province say that the act was unprecedented;
the chartered banks turned them down; the
trust companies turned them down-
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order-
Mr. Speaker: The member has a point of
order.
Mr. Bryden: I have refrained from getting
up till now but this is getting beyond all
reason. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
gentleman did not have a point of personal
privilege in the first place. He just had a
disagreement with Mr. Frost, which is an
entirely different thing. And he has not said
anything yet that is in order. If this hon.
member is to be allowed to make statements
like this before the orders of the day, then
the rest of us will govern ourselves accord-
ingly.
Mr. Spe°ker: Before the member pro-
ceeds, I will have to ask him to desist from
making any further remarks if he does not
come to the point where he was misquoted,
or correct some misinterpretation by the
paper.
Mr. Sargent: All right. Mr. Frost states
that he did not talk with the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) or the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan). He inferred that his
visits to this House were of a social nature.
714
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Once
again, I would have to join my friend, the
hon. member for Woodbine-
Mr. Sargent: I am getting to the point,
please sit down.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I try to be as indul-
gent as I can because of the complaints of
the Opposition; but this is obviously, com-
pletely and absolutely out of order. I would
like to suggest, sir, that if this type of privi-
lege is to be allowed to this hon. member,
then we are heading for complete confusion
in this House. I am prepared to abide by
your rulings, and the rules of the House,
and I think every other member should
do the same.
Mr. Speaker: Will the member please
be seated?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I will not be
seated.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. If I ask the
member to be seated, he has to obey the
rules of the House.
Mr. Sargent: You have broken the rules
of this House by passing these laws-
Mr. Speaker: Order! I ask the member
to be seated. When the Speaker is standing
and he asks the member to be seated, he
should take his seat; otherwise I shall have
to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the
member.
Mr. Sargent: You are giving privileges to
the trust companies that you are not giving
to other-
Mr. Speaker: I have asked the mem-
ber to be seated.
Mr. Sargent: If you can break the laws
for the trust companies, you can break them
for me, too.
Mr. Speaker: I have asked the mem-
ber to please be seated. When the Speaker is
standing it is courtesy on the part of the
member to take his seat.
Mr. Sargent: When is the hon. Prime
Minister going to reveal these facts to the
House, then? What kind of a democarcy
have we?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The mem-
ber will have to desist from making any
further remarks, as I rule him out of order.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Attorney General. Is the
hon. Attorney General aware that the docket
in magistrates' court H, at 87 Richmond
street west, Toronto, lists over 300 cases to
be dealt with by April 15 next? If the answer
is "yes," what steps is the hon. Attorney
General taking to relieve the congestion in
that court? And if it is "no," what steps will
he take?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware as to how the hon. member arrived at
his figure. He says 300 cases. According to
the information I have received, there are
approximately 843 charges pending in the
magistrates' court H, for the period February
21, 1966 to April 15, 1966.
Of this total, 506 constitute new charges
and have not been before the court, while
337 constitute charges that have previously
been adjourned to a date within this period
of time.
I am further advised that the caseload is,
in the opinion of the administrator, no heavier
than what it has been for similar periods for
past years, and that with approximately 23
or 24 cases being disposed of each day, it is
anticipated that this existing caseload will be
properly dealt with over the period specified.
While new charges may be laid with ap-
pearance dates being fixed within this speci-
fied period of time, approximately 40 to 50
per cent of these cases will be dealt with on a
plea of guilty; many of the remaining charges
will be adjourned to future dates for the
convenience of counsel and their clients. At
the same time, many of the new charges that
have been fixed for appearance within this
period of time will be adjourned to other
dates. The balance between the new appear-
ances with the adjournments will likely result
in a balancing of the figure, so that it will
remain relatively constant during the period.
Since these cases will be dealt with in the
period specified, we do not contemplate tak-
ing special steps with respect to this court. As
the hon. member may be aware, we have had
several meetings with the chairman of Metro-
politan Toronto requesting accommodation for
the magistrates' courts, but since this is so
related to the pending discussions about the
old city hall, I am not in a position to make
any definitive statement at tin's time, as to
negotiations that are underway.
I have taken the liberty of providing this
answer in some detail, because I know the
hon. member's concern since it is difficult
to state a simple and short answer to this
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
715
rather complicated question of caseloads in
the metropolitan courts.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, there
are two points I would like to raise.
First, a question to the hon. Minister of
Health: Can the hon. Minister give the House
a further report on the ban on milk pick-ups
by the medical officer of health in Pittsburgh
township because of quarantine from scarlet
fever?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The ban was lifted
February 11, 1966.
Mr. MacDonald: The second point, I think
you will concur, is a non-controversial one.
I hope I can have all hon. members of the
House join with me in paying tribute to
something within my own riding, something
I rarely rise to draw attention to.
On Saturday, at the end of a nine-day
tournament which originally started out with
78 hockey teams, the Weston Dodgers finally
emerged as the champions in the pee wee
international hockey.
The news reports indicate they had gone
seven games without a defeat; that in the
course of the finals in the championship they
had three shutouts and allowed only seven
goals, and therefore their goalkeeper was
awarded the particular tribute as the best
goalkeeper in the whole tournament.
I repeat, I am sure all hon. members would
like to pay tribute to this group of future
NHL stars.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the
Opposition): I have a question of the hon.
Prime Minister, notice of which has been
given.
Would the hon. Prime Minister inform
this House the cost of the advertising cam-
paign of The Medical Services Insurance Act,
and: (1) When were the advertisements dis-
tributed to television and radio stations, and
when was approval of the content given by
the hon. Minister of Health prior to their dis-
tribution? (2) When did the government book
time for the commercials with television
and radio stations traffic department? (3)
What advertising agency and/or commercial
films production house was assigned to pro-
duce commercials? (4) What fee was involved
for the following: the advertising agency; the
production house or film company, and Mr.
Aldred, the announcer?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As you can see from this
question, it is going to require a little
research, and I would hope to have a detailed
answer for the hon. leader of the Opposition
tomorrow. I was not able to get the complete
answers to all the parts of that question, but
I think I will have them complete for you
tomorrow, at this time.
Before the orders of the day, I would like
to refer to the tragic death this morning of
the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, the Hon-
ourable Paul Comtois, when that very historic
Bois de Coulonges, as it is called, outside
Quebec City was destroyed by fire, just some
100-odd years since its predecessor was des-
troyed in the same way.
This has been a very great shock to all of
us. We regret his passing and to his widow
and to his family, I think I speak on behalf of
all of us when I tender deep condolences.
On behalf of the people and the Legislature
of this province, I have extended by telegram
our sympathy to members of the legislative
assembly of Quebec, to the legislative council,
to the government and the people of that
province.
I think M. Comtois was particularly well
known to the members of this Legislature,
in that he had entertained many of us in
Government House during the course of a
visit we paid to the Quebec capital two or
three years ago. He was very kind and
gracious to us, and I know that I am speaking
for all of us when I say that this great,
great tragedy has its effect on every one of
us. We extend our most heartfelt sympathy
to not only his immediate family, but to those
people in Quebec whom he represented and
of whom he was the Queen's representative.
Mr. Thompson: I would like on behalf of
myself and my party to concur with the
remarks of the hon. Prime Minister. I know
that all of us feel a sense of tragedy at not
only the fire, but in particular at the death
of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of
Quebec and we would wish to extend our
sympathy to his family on this occasion.
Mr. MacDonald: As the hon. Prime Minis-
ter has indicated, some of us in this House
had the opportunity of visiting Quebec in a
visit sponsored by the press galleries two or
three years ago, and on that occasion not
only experienced the hospitality of M. Com-
tois, but also had an opportunity to see this
historic government house, which had been
there for some 100 years. Certainly for those
of us who were on that visit, we have a sense
of personal loss, since we know of the build-
ing and had an opportunity to meet the man.
We in this group would like to join with
the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. leader
716
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the Opposition in expressing our condol-
ences to his immediate family and to the
government in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order; re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion to an
address in reply to the speech of the Honour-
able the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening
of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. T. L. Wells (Scarborough North): In
rising this afternoon to continue my remarks
in this Throne speech debate, I would like
to begin by saying a few personal words
about the death of another person today— a
very close personal friend of mine, who I
think is well known to many of us in this
House. I, and I know many in this House,
would like to join with many in our province
and nation who are paying tribute today to
George Hogan, a young man— I guess just a
year older than I am— but one who I think
has made a significant contribution to our
party, and to this province of Ontario.
George was a personal friend of mine,
whom I have known for many years. In
fact, it was he who invited me to join the
Conservative Party when we were both at
Malvern collegiate in 1946. He got me to
come out to my first Young Conservative
meeting and since then I have remained a
Conservative.
I am sure that all of us feel as I do, that
our deepest sympathy goes out to his wife
and to his daughter.
It is just a month since the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) issued his white paper
on the report of the Royal commission on
Metropolitan Toronto, headed by Dr. H. Carl
Goldcnberg. In that statement, the hon.
Prime Minister indicated in broad terms the
principles which the government would
apply when they bring forward the detailed
amendments during this session to The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
The hon. Prime Minister's statement, while
not satisfying everybody, presents a prac-
tical, acceptable and equitable plan which,
I think, applies the valuable lessons of ex-
perience gained over the years both here in
Metropolitan Toronto and in other juris-
dictions throughout the world.
The truth of this statement can be justified
by the fact that during the last month, since
the report was issued, it has gained a high
degree of acceptance by the large majority
of the people in Metropolitan Toronto.
In the white paper issued by the hon.
Prime Minister, he accepted and endorsed
the main principles of Dr. Goldenberg's
report. These are: 1. The continuation of
the two-level federated system of metro-
politan government; 2. The consolidation of
the constituent municipalities rather than
total amalgamation; 3. An increase in the
authority and responsibility of the govern-
ment of Metropolitan Toronto; 4. A metro-
politan-wide uniform school tax levy to
provide a basic educational programme for
the metropolitan area; 5. A reform of the
system of representation. In other words,
representation by population.
I feel that the key proposal in this report
is the strengthening of the power, authority
and responsibility of the central government
of this area. That is, the metropolitan coun-
cil and at the metropolitan school board. I
feel these two bodies must assume respon-
sibility under a two-level system in an even
greater way for decisions and for planning
in this whole area.
I suppose each one of us, had we been
given the authority to make the decision,
might have come up with slightly different
proposals— some more radical and some less
radical. Personally I feel that the six-borough
system is the right one at this time for this
area.
I think I personally would have preferred
six boroughs of more equal population in
which the rigid adherence to the old munici-
pal boundaries was completely forgotten and
new communities were forged using the
natural boundaries of expressways, super
highways and valleys in order to bring
people together rather than to divide them.
However, I think the point now is that we
have accepted the six-borough system and as
I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the
fact that in less than a month it has gained a
high degree of acceptance among the people
of this area speaks well for this plan.
This high degree of acceptance does not
seem to apply to the editorial writers of the
three Toronto daily newspapers. However, I
would like today to read into the record part
of an editorial from the Mirror, a weekly
newspaper distributed in Scarborough and
North York; and I would like to point out
that this weekly newspaper has a total circu-
lation of 125,000 in Scarborough and North
York and this is only 30,000 copies short of
and daily circulation of the Toronto Globe
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
717
and Mail in this Metropolitan Toronto area.
The editorial reads as follows:
More Strength On New Metro
For four years Scarborough has been
fighting for its political existence. On Mon-
day, Premier John Robarts chose to pre-
serve the basic idea of Metro government
despite four years of sustained pressure for
amalgamation from Toronto politicians and
Toronto newspapers. He thus preserves
this township's existence. He also gives
this township more strength in a reformed
Metro. Instead of one voice on metropoli-
tan council, this township will have five.
For the people who live in Scarborough
and Metro government, Monday was a day
of victory. Scarborough has reached matur-
ity and status in an exciting urban govern-
ment. Robarts' Metro reform demonstrates
a government philosophy that preserves
the values which permit the reasonably in-
telligent and reasonably well-informed citi-
zen to understand the local government of
which he is a part.
This new Metro government enables the
citizens of this municipality to participate
in the management of the affairs of their
community without undue difficulty. It
also recognizes an important democratic
principle of representation by population.
The Premier has recognized the pitfalls
of amalgamation. An amalgamated gov-
ernment serving more than a million per-
sons becomes incomprehensible to the
majority of citizens. The people see little
or no purpose in their attempt to influence
the state of affairs. They feel the govern-
ment increasingly tends to leave decisions
to experts and planners.
Our Metro government has been an out-
standing success and it has been recognized
as such around the world. This became
more apparent during the Goldenberg hear-
ings when a number of municipalities and
individuals quoted praise for Metro by ex-
perts from cities around the world.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this editorial ex-
presses my opinions and the opinions of many
in our area of Metropolitan Toronto, regard-
ing the white paper presented by the hon.
Prime Minister.
However, I would like to deal with one
area of which there was no mention in the
white paper and, indeed, no mention in the
Goldenberg report, and yet one which I think
merits consideration as we overhaul the
metropolitan government in this area. This is
the area of hospital capital construction
grants. I would hope that in drafting the de-
tails of legislation this area would be looked
at and some definite changes in the system
that is now in effect in the metropolitan area
will be suggested.
During my remarks last year, Mr. Speaker,
in the Speech from the Throne debate, I out-
lined a proposal for the formation of a Metro-
Toronto hospital co-ordinating council. I am
very happy that the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) saw fit to establish such a
council and it is now being organized in
order that it may be in full operation in a
very few months. This will bring to the hos-
pital field in this area an element of co-
ordination which has been lacking and which
I feel is badly needed.
At this time I would like to renew my plea
that the Metropolitan Toronto hospital co-
ordinating council, as one of its first duties,
survey the whole area of public fund-raising
for hospitals in this Metro area. I strongly
feel that there should not be individual hos-
pital drives, but one hospital drive raising
money for all metropolitan hospitals in order
that the moneys raised from the business and
industrial communities in our area may be
used over the whole area; not just for some
of the hospitals, but for all those hospitals
which need funds.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have
downtown hospitals that are conducting fund-
raising drives here in this area, and as part
of their drives they are covering most of the
big business community in Toronto and they
are making it almost impossible for suburban
hospitals to carry out any real public fund-
raising drives. I feel that because of the
interdependence of everyone in Metro on his
neighbour and of every community on the
community or municipality next to them,
money collected from hospital fund-raising
drives in this area should be collected jointly
for all hospitals and shared with all the hos-
pitals that need funds.
Mr. Speaker, carrying this concept logically
one step forward, I feel that all municipal
funds for hospital construction grants should
be raised by a uniform tax levy over the
whole of Metro, with no special levies for
hospital purposes in any of our individual
municipalities such as we now have in Scar-
borough and North York. This would mean
that there should be just one municipal grant
—a municipal hospital construction grant— to
hospitals in this area and this grant would
come from the metropolitan council. Of
course, this grant should be larger than the
present Metro grant. It should be raised so
that it would be roughly one-third of the
capital cost of a hospital bed.
718
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If we adopted this proposal, Mr. Speaker,
it would mean that none of the five boroughs
for the city of Toronto would have the
power to raise money for hospital capital
construction. Only the metropolitan council
would have this power and this, I feel, is
a very logical step because, as I have already
said, hospitals are really a metropolitan re-
sponsibility because of our economic inter-
dependence in this whole area. If we can
spread the cost of school construction over
the whole of Metro, as we now do, why
should not hospital construction costs like-
wise be spread over the whole of the metro-
politan area?
I hope that the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. Spooner) will look carefully into
this proposal during the detailed drafting of
the amendments to The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Act.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to pass on
to another subject I would like to deal with
this afternoon, and that is education. In its
second annual report, just recently published,
the economic council of Canada recom-
mended that "advancement of education at
all levels be given a high place in public
policy and that investment in education be ac-
corded the highest rank in the scale of
priorities." I agree with this statement, and
I am very happy that our government agrees
with this statement, and particularly that our
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) and the
hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Davis) agree
with this very important pronouncement of
the economic council of Canada.
Of course, the recent Budget which was
presented to this House just a week ago
shows that the hon. Provincial Treasurer not
only agrees with this statement in voice but
also in action. The Budget shows that the
total net expenditure for The Department
of Education is forecast at $575.5 million
for the coming fiscal year, an increase of
$124 million over the current year. It
further outlines that the amount required by
the universities and colleges of this province
from the federal government and our gov-
ernment together for 1966 and 1967 is esti-
mated at $122 million; the portion of this to
be provided by the Ontario government is
$91.4 million, an increase of 41 per cent over
the current year, or $26.8 million.
Education costs money, Mr. Speaker; it
costs a lot of money, but it must be accorded
the highest priority in our list of spending
and our people must realize that we will
have to sacrifice through taxation in order to
provide the educational opportunities for the
young people of this province and of this
country in order that we may assure an even
greater future for Canada. We all must re-
alize that education is the escalator in a free
society. The development of our human re-
sources rightly deserves our highest priority
and our greatest sacrifice.
In the last few years under the capable
leadership of the hon. Minister of Education
there has been much forward movement in
The Department of Education, Mr. Speaker.
We saw the introduction of the Ontario tax
foundation plan; the extension of free text-
books to grades 9, 10, 11 and 12, the intro-
duction of new financial arrangements in
connection with the cost of operating schools
for retarded children; the introduction of a
programme of colleges of applied arts and
technology; the reorganization of The De-
partment of Education and the appointment
of a new Deputy Minister; the introduction
of a programme and new emphasis on edu-
cational television; and the formation of the
Ontario institute for studies in education.
And of course, Mr. Speaker, this govern-
ment has also created the new Department
of University Affairs. It set up the university
capital aid corporation and in the past few
years has established new universities in
this province.
Another important step, I think, Mr.
Speaker, taken by the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation, was the establishment of a commis-
sion on the aims and objectives of education,
This commission is under the chairmanship
of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. I feel, Mr.
Speaker, that this committee has an exceed-
ingly important task to carry out and I look
forward with great anticipation to the report
which they will present.
Now today I do not want to presume on
what they will talk about in their report but
I would like to present a few random
thoughts of my own on the aims and objec-
tives of education, and a few thoughts on
what I think the schools of tomorrow will
be or should be like.
Mr. Speaker, before my election to this
House, it was my privilege to serve as a
trustee on the Scarborough board of educa-
tion for seven years and as chairman of the
board for two of those years. In the last
couple of years I have had the privilege of
being a chairman of the programme advisory
committee of the Canadian educational
showplace. And I would like to say, Mr.
Speaker, based on my experience to date in
educational matters, that education perhaps
more than any other field has a traditional
way of doing things.
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
719
I found that very often new and fresh
ideas get pushed aside. They get pushed
aside, however, not on their own merits or
lack of merits but because administrative
convenience too often blurred the judgment
when new ideas were suggested.
In education I think that tradition very
often gets in the way of progress. I think
the merits of many new ideas in education
get only lip service from people in educa-
tion, while uppermost in their mind is the
red tape and the administrative inconveni-
ence that would be needed to put these ideas
into effect.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are still
many today who see the school as a fairly
rigid, well defined organization with a very
rigid, very well defined job to do. I think
that many of these people fail to look at our
schools, and the job that they can do, with
a broad enough perspective.
Not so many years ago when our country
was very young, the approach to education
naturally was quite narrow. The overwhelm-
ing emphasis was on reading. Little else
mattered if a child could learn to read. How-
ever, hand in hand with reading, came writ-
ing and then arithmetic, and these became
known as the "three R's" as we have heard
them referred to many times. When we look
at that very narrow type of curriculum and
approach of the schools of the past, when
we look at their emphasis in developing the
young receptive minds of children in those
days, we cannot call the programme we have
today narrow in its approach to develop-
ing the young and receptive minds of our
youngsters.
But still, Mr. Speaker, I feel that our
approach should be even broader. I feel it
should be even more comprehensive than it
is today. By this I am not necessarily
suggesting that we just slip new courses into
the curriculum; although I will admit that I
sometimes become very agitated when I hear
people in education say that the curriculum
is full already and there is no place for any
new courses. This is a harping back to the
traditional way of doing things, letting
administrative inconvenience, I feel, over-
ride a new idea that has come along.
However, what I am suggesting rather is
that educationalists conscientiously take a
wider responsibility in developing each of
our youngsters to his full potential as he
moves through the primary grades into high
school, into community college, into univer-
sity, and then out into the world. For some
time now I know that some educators have
recognized that courses of study required to
obtain a high school diploma, or even a
college degree, do not necessarily equip a
student to meet the challenges and respon-
sibilities which will inevitably confront him
as an adult.
Recently in the United States, the follow-
ing question was posed to the presidents of
leading colleges and universities throughout
the country. This was the question, Mr.
Speaker:
To what extent, if any, should the school
of tomorrow stress courses and programmes
specifically calculated to prepare students
for the problems and the challenges that
they will face as adults, such as (a) the
need to compete for employment oppor-
tunity, (b) their responsibility as heads of
families, (c) their responsibilities as citi-
zens to foster and maintain good represen-
tative government as well as world peace?
The results of this survey showed that a
significant number of the university presi-
dents believe these things: (1) That students
are indeed finding it more difficult to cope
with the practical problems of daily living;
(2) That there is an immediate need to pro-
vide students through formal schooling as
well as through the home, the church, the
synagogue and the community, with practical
work tools so that they can successfully
cope with these problems.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if these views
continue to prevail and become accepted by
our educators we will witness a formal intro-
duction and a development of a new dimen-
sion in education. Specifically, we could call
it education for living. Mr. Speaker, at this
time it is certainly not my place to suggest
the manner or means by which an education
for living programme could be integrated into
our educational process. Certainly I think that
this is the type of thing that the committee
headed by Mr. Justice Hall should be grap-
pling with. However, I would like to present
a few of my thoughts on this subject.
The teaching of facts, the transmission of
knowledge, is a basic responsibility of our
schools. They must give our young people a
firm foundation in the course subjects, which
would of course include reading, mathe-
matics, history, geography and, particularly,
English.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with our emphasis in
recent years on the teaching of a second
language in our schools, usually French.
However, I think we must watch that in our
desire to teach French in our public schools,
and to teach other foreign languages in
our secondary schools, we do not downgrade
the whole matter of the teaching of English
720
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and of communication skills— that is, of writ-
ing, reading, speaking, public speaking and
spelling, with a high degree of efficiency.
I think particular emphasis needs to be
placed on this. Much of our success in life
depends on our ability to communicate. Our
students should be capable of handling, to
the fullest degree, the English language. I
think that particularly biting is a remark that
is attributed to Yale University's late presi-
dent, A. Whitney Griswold, who said this, Mr.
Speaker:
Every college student should be required
to take two years of English so that he
may become familiar with some language
besides his own.
Our schools, I think, should also show our
young people how and why they should be
good citizens. They should also give them a
grounding in habits of diligence, perseverance
and clear thinking. Our educational system
should be geared to make sure that each
child will eventually be able to think for
himself, that he will know right from wrong
and that he will have healthy, wholesome
attitudes towards himself, towards others, to-
wards his country and towards life.
I think there is no question that the current
curriculum revitalization in this province,
which we are now experiencing, is taking a
giant step in this direction. But I think we
have to go one step further. There is more to
this whole process than what falls between
nine in the morning and four o'clock in the
afternoon. There is a need for the greater
involvement of the whole family in the edu-
cational process.
During a recent trip to Flint, Michigan,
with the youth committee, we all saw a
marvellous example of this in the community
school programme in that highly industrialized
city. To many of us on that committee, there
seemed to be much benefit to be derived
from this type of programme.
I would like to tell you about an experience
of my own, at the neighbourhood public
school in our area, where my child goes.
The principal recently introduced a pro-
gramme which I think illustrates this com-
munity school concept I am talking about.
Every evening for a week, the school held
curriculum meetings for parents. The purpose
was to explain just what the school and the
teachers are doing with our children during
the clay.
Grade bv grade, the teachers explained
the curriculum, showing each of the parents
whit was being taught, how and why. The
meetings were a tremendous success. They
were attended by over 600 parents, where
you are lucky to get 75 or 100 out to the
normal home and school meeting. And most
certainly I would say these meetings did a
lot to create closer ties between the parents
in our community and our public school.
This particular school has gained new
respect and new status in our community.
This type of project is to my mind a step
towards the concept of the school as a family
community centre in the evenings.
There is much more that could be done
and there is so little that is being done in
this regard at the present time. Let us take
the whole matter of family life education, or
sex education. Some people say that it is none
of the school's business. Others say it is. Some
of the loudest voices— but I do not feel that
they are necessarily the majority— claim that
the responsibility of telling our children about
the mysteries of life and reproduction belongs
only to parents. But I feel there are enough
young people in trouble today, many more
than perhaps we realize, to convince me that
most parents never seem to get around to
tackling this responsibility. This was certainly
my experience from the hearings we held on
the select committee on youth.
Why could not our schools set up a series
of evening meetings on sex education and
family living, to be attended by both the
parents and their children? Let the parents
bring their youngsters. Make it a joint project;
the home on the one and the school on the
other, working together as a community
agency to further this type of education.
I feel that if sex education is to be taught
in the schools, beginning in the elementary
schools, as I feel it should, we will have to
work out some type of programme like this,
where we can join the parents and the school
in the responsibility for this type of educa-
tion. It will have to involve both the teachers,
the students and the parents.
This same kind of evening programme
could be expanded and set up for youngsters
and their parents who are having difficulties
in school, for recreational activities for fathers
and sons and for mothers and daughters.
The number of worthwhile evening pro-
grammes that could be set up in present
school buildings for parents and their children
is limitless. There is no doubt in my mind that
this kind of project could create a valuable
new kind of mutual respect and rapport
between the home and the school. This could
be something quite tangible and yet quite
subtle. It could reach right down to make the
nine-to-five job of the teacher easier and
more effective. This whole thing all ties in
with the concept of education for living.
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
721
I think the test of the effectiveness of the
education for living concept would be the
extent to which it imparts to each student the
ability to think clearly, objectively, dispas-
sionately and independently. Students would
be taught that learning to think is not just a
matter of the quantity and quality of the
books read, courses taken, facts, rules and
principles committed to memory, or grades
obtained. But rather the ability to apply the
knowledge obtained to practical, everyday
problems and experiences, making careful
observations and evaluations of the results, so
that they can be used for future application
and use when these problems again arise.
I believe students would quickly realize
that a truly educated man is not one neces-
sarily possessed of a number of academic de-
grees alone, but one who, in addition, has
so effectively developed his ability to think,
that he inevitably ensures for himself and for
his family, and eventually all of society, a
more peaceful, harmonious and satisfying
way of life.
By embracing this concept, our educational
system would be assuming greater responsi-
bility for preparing the individual student for
his role as a total member of society and of
the community, and not just as a worker or
an employee or an employer.
For a few minutes I would like to look at
some of the other directions in which I think
education is moving. I think that as the years
go by, the schools will be paying increasing
attention to each child as an individual. The
recent emergence of non-grading in elemen-
tary schools will, without question, mush-
room. This is the system whereby our
present grades— one, two, three, four, etc.—
in elementary schools vanish, and all students
move through the curriculum at their own
speed, depending on how they can progress.
I personally think this would be a good thing.
From what I have seen of it, non-grading
represents an ideal. It is a complex system
that can be very difficult to set up and diffi-
cult to operate. Its merits, however, will
overpower its difficulties.
Non-grading seems to me to be the most
feasible plan known today to allow our
youngsters to break out of the group patterns
of the present. It will allow them— in fact,
it will force them— to proceed at their own
best rate.
If a pupil is bright, a non-graded system
will not keep him waiting. It will encourage
him along and upwards as fast as he can go.
If a pupil is below average, a non-graded
system will take the pressure off; pressure
that could make him feel substandard and
inferior, because he could not match the
average.
I think I am quite safe in saying, and in
speculating, that non-grading or an adapta-
tion of it will become the pattern of the
future. Its advantages and benefits are over-
whelming. The group will no longer set the
standard of what and when each child learns.
Each youngster will set his own standards.
There is an interesting experiment along
these lines at present being conducted in
Perth avenue school in Toronto. I have talked
to the vice-principal about this, and it is an
exciting programme. I am sure we will see
it expand in the Toronto board of education
system and probably in many other systems.
The schools we visited in Flint, Michigan,
had a non-graded system in elementary
schools. They said is was a very significant
system and one that was working well for
the young people in their area.
It is also interesting to note that when
there is a non-grade system, when a young-
ster starts school, he receives a complete bat-
tery of tests. When these tests are given, one
of the by-products of this system is that emo-
tionally disturbed children— children with per-
ceptual handicaps and children with other
learning disabilities, are noted at the time
these tests are given. This is much earlier
than under our present system and certainly
the early detection of these learning disa-
bilities is a definite advantage.
I am sure that this will be very helpful
to the teachers in our system, who realize
that in the future they are going to have to
assume, to a much greater degree, the detec-
tion and the assistance of children with
learning disabilities. The non-graded sys-
tem, and the testing and the screening
that goes with it, presents the ideal setup
for detecting these learning disabilities so
that they can be pinpointed early and the
teachers and the other ancillary staff can take
the necessary action to see that these chil-
dren receive the proper treatment and the
proper courses so that they may advance to
their full educational potential, the same as
our normal children.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I think that today
our schools are designed like egg crates.
Standard box classrooms are arranged along
a corridor and they are all about the same
size. I think that the design of the school
of the future is going to change quickly.
Tomorrow's schools will be based on large
rooms in which 100 or 200 people can easily
sit with no partitions or anything to disturb
them so that classes can be grouped and re-
grouped depending on the course that is
722
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
being studied or the task that happens to be
under study at that hour or on that day.
Then, as the curriculum dictates, these large
rooms will be able to be blocked off by
movable partitions; they can be snapped in
place to form small rooms of any size. I think
that this kind of change in school architec-
ture will be very desirable and I hope that
The Department of Education is working in
this direction at the present time, both in
regard to giving leadership in new design
features and also in revising the basis on
which capital construction grants are made
to schools so that they do not adhere to a
rigid grant per classroom basis. If the class-
rooms vanish and the school becomes four
or five large rooms, there will need to be a
revision in the grant structure.
Third, I think that in a few years-perhaps
longer than a few years-but definitely we
will see a federal office of education estab-
lished, perhaps as part of the new Depart-
ment of Manpower in the federal govern-
ment. An office established not to interfere
with the provincial constitutional rights in
the field of education but as a research and
co-ordinating office, as an office that can
handle the disbursement of federal grants
to education. I think that this is something
that is definitely on the horizon.
Fourth, I think that we will see our schools
rather than operating roughly 1,000 hours a
year as now, in a very few years we will see
them operating at least 4,000 hours in the
year. By this I mean that in future education
will become a lifelong process for everyone.
I think that the schools will be working both
day and evening, for our young and middle-
aged and for the old. They will be open for
education and re-education, for training and
retraining, for the arts and culture and recre-
ation and for civic purposes. Portions of the
building will be designed for children only,
but adults will find accommodation there in
the late afternoon and in the evenings, 52
weeks of the year.
Last, Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the
signs of the future is this, that since education
is everybody's business support will, some
day in the future, derive more and more from
the provincial and federal governments and
less from the homeowners of a municipality.
Up to the present time I think that it has
been desirable that every homeowner should
be required to support, at the municipal
level, educational services.
But ideas and times are rapidly changing.
We are, to some extent, in an international
educational race. Education is now becoming
the first business of a modern country and
education that is left largely to the whims
and generosity of local governments risks
our national security. For in the long run,
our liberties will be secured not by military
force but by a universally informed people.
The school is a weapon; it is a battleship, a
fortress, in the national fight to raise the
standards of our people and to protect their
rights.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
eventually we will see a larger degree of sup-
port coming from the principal benefactors,
the province and the nation, from the pro-
vincial government and the federal govern-
ment.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to the hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario for the leadership that he is giving
to this province and to this country.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this needs to be
said. I feel personally that when the history
of this time of delicate dialogue between
province and province and between province
and national government is written, I think
that history will record what many of us
now believe, that here is one of the truly
Canadian statesmen of our time. Here is a
man who is leaving his mark not only on this
province, but on all of Canada. I personally
feel that history will show this perhaps to
an even greater degree than we now realize.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to pay my respects
to you as the Speaker of this assembly. On
occasions we have challenged your decisions
but I assure you, sir, that you are personally
respected and carry out the duties of your
vital position with dignity and good will.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I may say you carry
out your duties with a great deal of charm.
I have even been told by women spectators
that you are so charming it was a pity you
did not have more opportunity to speak. I
must say, Mr. Speaker, in my own personal
view if I had a magic wand and could bring
about improvements that this slow moving
government is too lazy to implement, I would
create a special constituency for you. I know
it has been suggested on many occasions, but
nothing has been done. It would be the con-
stituency of Queen's Park and make you its
member and you would be the permanent
Speaker of this House. I would even raise
your pay.
But alas, Mr. Speaker, I am not the gov-
ernment, I have no magic wand and all I
can give you is to pay you my respects.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you have
attempted to improve the dignity of this
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
723
House by marching in with your staff each
day as we open. Well, I do not know if the
innovation helps, but I am sure that the
extra walking is both good for you and your
staff.
But, Mr. Speaker, while you are making
changes, I wish you would make one change
immediately. It is the one thing that de-
tracts from your dignity as a person and
from the dignity of your office and that is
that silly hat that you wear. I note that you
are in the Speaker's chair a very short time
before you take it off. The hat is completely
out of style for modern-day government.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the government of
Ontario, with the exception of the federal
government, is the biggest business in the
province and I can hardly conceive of a
chairman of a board of directors wearing
that hat, I can hardly conceive of you teach-
ing school wearing that hat or selling insur-
ance wearing that hat. So please, Mr.
Speaker, send the hat to the Royal Ontario
museum. You look much better without it
and I am sure it will improve the dignity
of this House.
While I have this opportunity, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to extend my congratu-
lations to the two new members, the hon.
member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith) and the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and,
of course, to remind you once again, despite
all the predictions that were going to take
place in those by-elections, that they are
both Liberals. I think this has set a pattern
for future elections here in the province of
Ontario. I may, while I have this oppor-
tunity, extend my congratulations to the
mover and seconder on the Speech from the
Throne; they did an excellent job consider-
ing the limitations they have because of their
party politics.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that the govern-
ment of Ontario is the biggest business in
the province, second only to the federal
government. While this is quite true, it is
much more than that. The government of
Ontario must give inspiration to the people
of this province, for Ontario is not only our
home but is the conservatory where we nur-
ture the hopes and aspirations of the people
of Ontario. Each member of this Legislature,
by spending what abilities and energies he
has, gives a part of his life to the govern-
ment. And, by so doing, we each give a small
part of ourselves that will live on in the
government of Ontario long after we as in-
dividuals are forgotten.
It is for that reason alone, Mr. Speaker,
that we should expect in the Speech from
the Throne food for thought, and inspiration
to do great things for the people of the
province of Ontario. Instead of food for
thought we get a sickening mishmash. In-
stead of inspiration, we listen to 24 mumbled
pages deliberately designed to say nothing.
And this at a time in our history, Mr.
Speaker, when we need answers to the great
problems which face our province, and
which face Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at just a few
fields in which the government today should
carry out bold and imaginative action, and
where instead it just staggers from expedient
to expedient leaving a mess to posterity.
The Department of Municipal Affairs is a
disgrace. For many years it has been obvious
municipal government is completely out-
dated. The Baldwin Act of 1849 which
fathered our present system of municipal
government may have been good in its day,
but in our day it is like an albatross around
our necks. Because of our lack of regional
planning, because of our outdated and over-
burdened property tax system, many regions
of Ontario are shackled in attempting to
develop economically, and our legislation per-
taining to health and welfare is a disorganized
patchwork.
Mr. Speaker, the present Tory govern-
ment governs Ontario under laws that were
passed in order to settle disputes over the
breaking of a farm fence and damage done
to stray cows. What we need are laws that
will meet the demands of a rapidly expand-
ing urban population, an industrial economy,
a technological revolution, and supply serv-
ices to our people for a high standard of
living.
Despite all the expert knowledge that is
available, despite the suffering of hundreds
of municipalities, the limitations of the prop-
erty tax still has not dawned upon the
present hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner). The limitations of the prop-
erty tax are more than obvious to the suffer-
ing homeowner.
It should be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that
municipalities should be relieved of services
that have nothing to do with property. The
property tax was meant to service property.
The Baldwin Act was passed over 100 years
ago. But it would seem that the present Tory
government is completely unaware that prob-
ably more changes have taken place in the
world during the last 50 years than in the
previous 5,000. Many of the old truisms are
not necessarily valid today. And many ways
of doing things that were once taken for
granted are being questioned.
724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The demands of the public today for edu-
cation, health and welfare, hospitals, and the
administration of justice, are far greater than
ever dreamed of in 1849. It was never meant
that municipalities should pay for such serv-
ices. Municipalities were meant to finance
the basic civic services such as roads, water-
works, police and fire protection. The present
administration is appallingly stupid. And as
a result of the government's stupidity, there
is an inability on the part of many people to
maintain their homes in good repair. Many
areas of Ontario fail to receive the services
they should receive, simply because the gov-
ernment of this province fails to measure up
to its responsibilities.
The large volume of annexation and amal-
gamation proceedings in this province, and
our wide variation in the quality of services
and tax levies, make an overwhelming case
for regional government in Ontario. Many of
the local governments that are still in exist-
ence today were set up to co-ordinate local
administration to cover an area where it was
a day's journey by horse or by oxen to reach
the administrative centre.
We live in the jet age but we use oxcart
methods. Some regions, like the Toronto
region, have problems of tremendous growth.
Other regions, like the Georgian Bay district,
and the eastern townships of Ontario, have
tremendous economic problems because they
have been neglected by the provincial gov-
ernment. Surely, provincial government has
the responsibility to see to it that every sec-
tion of Ontario obtains a basic minimum level
in education and in health and welfare, in
the administration of justice in local services.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the farm com-
munity of Ontario that has probably suffered
most because of the lethargy of this Tory
government. Agricultural labour now forms
only about eight per cent of the labour force
of Ontario. Thousands of family farms have
passed into history. The farmer's son has
drifted to the cities to obtain employment in
our factories. In most cases the farmer's son
has had less opportunity than others to obtain
a good education or to learn a trade; as a
result, once there is a layoff at the factory, it
is the farmer's son who is among the hard
core of the unemployed in our large urban
centres.
This government has not taken, and tragic-
ally does not give any indication of taking,
bold overt action by means of regional plan-
ning or any other type of planning to assist
the farm communities. Of the approximately
950 municipalities which are in the province
of Ontario— I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is some
place in the neighbourhood of 973— most of
their boundaries no longer bear any realistic
relationship to local responsibilities and prob-
lems; producing, as a result, a multiplicity of
municipal bodies, with fragmented authority
and overlapping functions. The time is long
overdue to really find the role and functions
of local government and overhaul The Muni-
cipal Act and related statutes accordingly.
I know that the government set up a select
committee on municipal affairs and they gave
a very full report; but where, Mr. Speaker, is
government action? The Speech from the
Throne gave us 11 lines on municipal affairs,
two of which told us that the new legislation
will establish a development board as a muni-
cipal corporation to provide services in
Moosonee. I am glad to see that Moosonee
is going to receive some help. But I have no
confidence whatsoever that this administra-
tion has any intention of going to the heart
of the problems that face us in municipal
affairs.
The present hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs is always telling us that he does not
want to interfere with local autonomy. But,
Mr. Speaker, this administration is always
passing legislation that interferes very drasti-
cally with local autonomy that amounts liter-
ally to taxation without representation. For
example, last year in this House we passed
The Child Welfare Act, which made the local
municipalities legally bound to provide certain
welfare services and pay a share of the costs.
The costs, so far as the municipalities are
concerned, will be borne largely by the over-
taxed homeowner. Much as child welfare
legislation is needed, the cost should be borne
by the province.
And even more recently, Mr. Speaker, some
local councils wished to stack their present
pension plan on top of the Canada pension
plan, but along comes the present hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs— and I hope he will
not be there too long— and tells the munici-
palities they just cannot do that, he will not
let them.
Where, oh where, Mr. Speaker, is local
autonomy in that instance?
So you see, Mr. Speaker, when the govern-
ment wants to shirk the responsibilities that
it has, it will hide behind that phrase local
autonomy. But when it suits its own pur-
poses it just could not care less about local
autonomy.
So again I say to this House, through you,
Mr. Speaker, that in The Department of
Municipal Affairs we need bold action in
order to get out of the oxcart age. We need
stronger units of local government on a
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
725
regional basis so that we can co-ordinate
planning and development of urban and
rural land uses and interurban transporta-
tion; and all these other problems that a
growing and complex society must solve if it
is to give its people the standard of living
and the services to which they are entitled.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly
speak on a subject on which I have spoken
on every occasion that I have had an oppor-
tunity on the Throne debate and that is on
mental health. Practically anything to be
said on it to this date has been said before,
but I keep repeating it and repeating it,
because I feel it is a matter of utmost
importance that should be emphasized again
and again.
As in other years, Mr. Speaker, I looked
in vain for some word and for some hope in
the Speech from the Throne that there might
be a bold and vigorous plan to attack mental
illness throughout the province. I made my
first speech in reply to the Speech from the
Throne in 1960 and at that time, and on
every Throne debate since as well as on
other occasions in this House, I have
laboured away on behalf of better mental
health facilities.
This government moves at a snail's pace
in regard to the problem of mental illness.
During my years in public life I am appalled
at the lack of initiative both on the provin-
cial and the federal levels of government.
When the government in Ottawa passed its
legislation which made possible universal
hospital care, I believed that it was wrong
not to include mental and TB patients
in the scheme and I made no hesitation in
saying that I believed that the federal gov-
ernment has a great responsibility toward
improving the lot of mental patients. It is
a problem so vast that it is time that all
governments woke up to the extent of the
cost of mental illness.
The cost of mental illness, Mr. Speaker, is
simply tremendous. I have used the example
before and I say it again. It is this: It has
been calculated that the cost of running
Canada's mental hospitals for a year, paying
welfare charges for families of the mentally
ill, plus the indirect cost of loss of earnings,
family breakdowns, suicides, crimes and
accidents, if eliminated, would wipe out
personal income taxes for every Canadian
earning up to $5,000 annually.
I do not think that the public in general
are aware of the fact that approximately
half of the patients who are in our hospitals
in Ontario and in Canada today are mental
patients. It is time that we treated mental
patients on the same basis that we treat those
who are physically ill; but today we spend
one-sixth as much per patient on a mental
patient as we do for a person who is being
treated for physical illness.
It is true that the province of Ontario has
done something on this problem; yet when
one considers the need for bold action, it is
shocking that no leadership is shown by the
government of the province of Ontario.
Neither the government of this province nor
the people of this province have faced up to
the fact that mental illness is the biggest
single social and medical problem not only
in Ontario but in all of Canada. In its
various forms, mental illness keeps more
people in hospitals than all other diseases
combined, including cancer, heart disease,
TB and every other crippling disease.
The time has come to treat mental illness
on the same basis as physical illness. Instead
of spending approximately $5 a day on a
mental patient and $30 a day on the patient
suffering from physical illness or injury, we
can give some equality of treatment.
Perhaps when we can get rid of that
monolithic pre-Confederation house of
horrors at 999 Queen street we may be mak-
ing a step forward. When you pack hundreds
of people into a place like 999 Queen street
west, Toronto, how can even the ablest of
medical staff accomplish much? And believe
me, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness and in all
frankness, there are many extremely able
and extremely dedicated men who work on
the staff of our mental hospitals. I have
always been impressed with the medical men
working in our hospitals. I have always
admired their dedication to their patients,
despite the fact that the people of Ontario,
through its government, give them very
shoddy support.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there are approxi-
mately 200 people at 999 Queen street who
are there simply because they are old and
there is no place to put them. No doubt
some effort is being made to change this,
Mr. Speaker, but the fact still is that insofar
as The Department of Health is concerned
in this province we are crawling out of the
dark ages. And what bold action do we get
from the Speech from the Throne? We get
this, under the word "health," Mr. Speaker:
The increasing involvement of the gov-
ernment in the varied field of health
services has resulted in a complete re-
organization of The Department of
Health. Entering into this planning is the
development of the administrative patterns
which are concerned with co-ordination,
726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
long-range planning and priorities and
phasing.
Then under the title of healing arts, we get
this from the Speech from the Throne, Mr.
Speaker:
It is the purpose of my government to
establish a committee to inquire into all
matters pertaining to the preparation,
education, training, licensing, control and
disciplining of all those involved in the
practice of the healing arts.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is Tory mumble-
jumble that we are going to do very little, if
anything. Again it is the old story of stagger-
ing from expediency to expediency— and
leaving the mess to posterity.
Mr. Speaker, I have one final item that I
would like to deal with. I think it is important
to all of us, not only as citizens of Ontario,
but particularly as Canadians. Mr. Speaker,
I was thoroughly disgusted with the perform-
ance of the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development (Mr. Randall) last February 3,
when in reference to a speech by the Quebec
Minister of Health, Eric Kierans, he said
this:
If he makes any more statements of this
kind, I would prefer he made them in his
own jurisdiction. If he wants to commit
economic suicide, he can go do it there.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Mr. Kierans
when he made a speech recently in Toronto,
was referring to the American government's
so-called "economic guidelines." Mr. Kierans
said that such guidelines would have a
disastrous impact on the Canadian economy.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr.
Kierans was very much in the right; and yet
here is our Minister of Economics and De-
velopment very much disturbed because
Mr. Kierans' speech would be reported in
financial centres throughout the world under
a Toronto dateline and could be construed
as having the support of Ontario. Imagine,
Mr. Speaker, here is one of our own
Ministers in Ontario all in a great sweat be-
cause a Minister from a sister province came
to Toronto and spoke the truth and has prob-
ably disturbed the Americans.
Perhaps Mr. Kierans was indiscreet, when
he wrote his letters to the American govern-
ment, but I do not think that the Canadian
nation will be very strong or last too long un-
less we have a great many more "indiscreet"
Canadians from Ronavista Ray to Vancouver
Island.
Our hon. Minister of Economics and Devel-
opment, Mr. Speaker, thinks it might upset
their applecart. Whose applecart? The
American applecart? Is our hon. Minister
going to go tip-toe around saying: "Oh, gee
whiz, do not upset the American applecart"?
It would be high comedy if it was not a
national tragedy.
Here are the cold, hard, economic facts
that might be the requiem mass of a nation.
Here is the proportion of foreign ownership
and control of our major industries: Oil and
natural gas: Foreign ownership— 60 per cent
(Foreign control, 69 per cent); Mining — 62
per cent (59 per cent); Manufacturing— 54 per
cent (59 per cent); Pulp and paper— 51
per cent (46 per cent); Rubber— 88 per cent
(99 per cent); Agricultural machines— 47 per
cent (54 per cent); Auto parts— 90 per cent
(97 per cent); Electrical apparatus— 73 per
cent (78 per cent); Chemicals— 65 per cent
(79 per cent).
Mr. Speaker, how can we possibly expect
to maintain a Canadian identity, to seek
our own individuality, if we keep selling
out to foreign control— mainly the Americans?
Take the rubber industry, sir, where 99 per
cent is foreign controlled; we have hardly
anything left to give away, let alone sell. It
amazes me that there are Canadians who see
no harm in letting our banks, trust companies,
insurance companies, and our newspapers,
come under the domination of foreign financial
interests.
The hon. Minister of Economics thinks that
Mr. Kierans is committing economic suicide.
For a certainty, we will commit national
sucide unless government, both provincial and
federal, takes bold action, because it is just
not a federal matter. Let us remember that
Ontario is the most powerful financial juris-
diction in Canada, with the exception of the
federal government. We could have a tremen-
dous amount of influence in how our indus-
tries arc going to be owned and controlled,
and it is time that we spoke up.
Of course, we need capital— just as the
United States of America needed capital
when it started to build as a nation. The
comparison is often made of how the United
States needed foreign capital to build itself,
and we in our time need the same. Rut the
Americans never made the mistake of allow-
ing their most vital economic establishments
to come under foreign control.
It is one thing to borrow money by means
of mortgages and bonds, and another thing
to sell the equity, the control of one's
resources, to foreign capital. Let us bear in
mind, Mr. Speaker, that even in a country
like Mexico, where they want foreign capital
invested and where sale equities do take
place, they still insist that 51 per cent of a
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
727
company is owned by the people of Mexico.
Yet we sit blithely back and say, "It is
government interference."
Certainly, the American government, when-
ever called upon on various occasions, have
not hesitated to interfere in many of the
activities of their own companies. And
whether we are active in provincial politics
or federal politics, it should be obvious to all
that if governments do not take bold action
we will most certainly toss into the ashcan
the efforts of Macdonald and Laurier, as well
as hundreds of thousands of Canadians who
have gone before us.
I am one of those people who does not
want this country to be the largest in the
world over which the Stars and Stripes is
flying.
Whether we like it or not, it is obvious that
a great deal more active leadership from
government, both provincial and federal, is
required. Some say it is interference with
private enterprise. But after all, the American
government, that great mecca of private
enterprise, is not hesitating to interfere, not
only with American enterprise in the United
States, but in Canada.
It is obvious that the United States sub-
sidiaries here are no longer profit-seeking
extensions of their parent companies. They
are instruments of Washington. The American
Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Fowler,
when he announced what has become the
"guidelines," emphasized that international
companies in the United States "had not only
a commercial importance, but a highly signi-
ficant role in United States foreign policy."
So, here we Canadians find that the bulk
of our manufacturing, mining, and petro-
leum industries are foreign controlled, and
now these foreigners who control us are
ordered by their government to serve the
aims of American policy and seek approval
for the reinvestment of earnings, dividend
and financial policies of their foreign subsidi-
aries.
All this theoretical nonsense about dealing
with independent decisions of thousands of
businessmen has gone forever out of the
window. We are dealing with hard-boiled
American policy. And I do not blame the
American government. It is only reasonable
that it would act in its own national inter-
ests. It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we
Canadians started to act in our own national
interests.
It is necessary to remind even the Tories
that Sir John A. Macdonald believed intensely
in the Canadian nation. Even Lord Carnar-
von, who was the Colonial Secretary at the
time Confederation came into being and who
is the man who first moved The British North
America Act in the British Parliament, said
this:
We are laying the foundation of a great
state, perhaps one which at a future day
may even overshadow this country.
Perhaps Lord Carnarvon at that time thought
he was being kind to the colonial boys who
were sitting in the gallery listening to his
speech at the British Parliament. But the
truth of the matter is— and I believe this
sincerely— with our resources, with the extent
of our lands and with the tremendous possi-
bilities of our people, it is quite conceivable
that in the not-too-distant future our capaci-
ties will greatly outdistance those of the
mother country.
But if we are to do this, we have to show
far more confidence in ourselves than we
have in the recent past. We must make up
our minds that we no longer are willing to
sell our heritage for a mess of pottage and for
a quick profit.
The hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment who was a director of some Ameri-
can companies, says that any he has had
anything to do with are efficient, they are
up here, and they make a profit. They would
not be here, Mr. Speaker, if they were not
making a profit.
I do not object to seeing foreign capital
here, but I object to allowing so much of it.
It is a matter of degree. So much of it is
invested in equities that we are literally
about to lose control of this country. It may
not happen immediately— it is not that obvi-
ous—but remember that in the history of this
country, and virtually in the history of the
world, the flag follows trade, and in trying
to look ahead, in looking over 25 years or
50 years ahead, we can see there will not be
a Canadian nation.
One of the saving graces we have is men
like Mr. Kierans. I do not agree with every-
thing they say— but certainly one of the best
insurances we have today that there will be
a Canadian nation is the fact that the prov-
ince of Quebec is waking up. Some of them
disturb a lot of us in English-speaking Can-
ada, but it still may well be that what they
are doing in Quebec will save this country
because we have become so lethargic. It
is just good for business. It being just good
for business on the short term, is it good for
Canada in the long term? I say that we
have, both on a provincial and a federal
level, been making a mistake over the last
quarter of a century and we are continuing
728
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to make a very serious and a disastrous error
in our policies.
Mr. Speaker, what are we going to tell the
rising generations of our own people— people
we want to settle and stay in Canada? Shall
we spend half a billion dollars each year to
give them an excellent education and then
tell them to go to the United States where
the pay is higher? Shall we tell them to use
all kinds of enterprise and work hard and
build a business and sell out to the Ameri-
cans or to sell out to the highest bidder? Is
this to be our future or our vision of the
future of Canada?
I think that this is simply not something
for us to contemplate. In the old days, if
they became successful they liked to go to
London and get a title. While, of course,
this has become nonsense, there are still a
few people who do this, and it is a pity.
I have often said the only title that anyone
should get these days is "Lord Grand Duke
of Bunk and Nonsense," because I cannot en-
vision a red-blooded Canadian wanting to
decorate himself with some fancy aristocratic
title.
But maybe, Mr. Speaker, this is some of
the illness that has perhaps retarded the
growth of the Canadian nation, and that is
our spiritual dependence upon the United
Kingdom and our geographical proximity to
the United States. These are problems we
have to face. But the truth of it is we have
actually come a long way and we could do
much better if we would but will it.
I think that this is going to be an issue
in our lifetime that we have to face up to.
It will be decided in our lifetime whether
we are going to have a Canadian nation.
It is not a question of being anti-British or
anti-American. Let us face it, we would not
be speaking here as free people if it had not
been for the British people; and today our
best defence are those people who are to the
south of us. But remember this, Mr. Speaker,
that when Thomas Jefferson was retiring from
the presidency of the United States he ad-
vised his countrymen to "marry yourself to
the British navy." Jefferson is the man who
wrote the declaration of independence, but
he was shrewd enough to realize that at that
time, in his day, the most powerful and great-
est protection the American nation had was
the British navy. That did not mean he
wanted Americans to become stereotype Eng-
lishmen; just as in our day the fact our great-
est protection is the American war potential
should not mean that we become stereotyped
nephews of our Uncle Sam.
We serve ourselves best by being ourselves,
just as the Americans serve Great Britain best
and help to defend Great Britain by being
themselves and growing strong. By catering
after old ways and taking outmoded steps and
not being ourselves and not facing up to the
world as we live in it, we will not serve the
future generations of Canada or liberty in
general.
I think it is shocking, Mr. Speaker, that a
Minister of the government of Ontario would
rather dance to the American fiddler's tune
than listen to an outstanding Canadian from
a sister province.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker,
we needed in the Speech from the Throne
strong evidence of boldness and inspiration.
We received neither, and it should be the
lament of all citizens of the province of On-
tario. I think we in this province have a long
way to go to give inspiration and leadership,
not only to the people of Ontario but to the
people of Canada.
As it was said in this assembly just a few
days ago Ontario is in a very key position,
just as it was in the days of Macdonald.
Macdonald said what is good for Canada is
good for Ontario, and I believe that is true
in 1966. What is good for Canada is good
for Ontario, and we here in Ontario have to
take far bolder action and show far more
interest in what is happening to this country
on the economic level, because we are selling
out for a mess of pottage. When we look in
the years ahead we are going to regret deeply
what we have done for the last 25 years.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that from now on
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment will bend more of an ear and give more
of a friendly listen and follow some of the
advice of men who are up to date and are
anxious to preserve the Canadian nation.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, last week during the Throne debate
my colleague, the hon. member for York-
view (Mr. Young) dealt briefly with the ever-
increasingly serious problem we are facing in
regard to the pollution of our lakes, rivers and
streams on the North American continent. I
want today, sir, to expand somewhat on the
other aspects of our environment that are
affected by pollution and also present what
action the New Democratic Party feels this
government should take to deal with this
most serious problem.
The pollution of our air, our water and our
soil is becoming dangerous. Health hazards
for humans and animals are mounting each
year. We breathe filthy air; many of our
waters are nothing but sewers; our soil is
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
729
being poisoned by chemicals; our fish and
wildlife are infested by radioactivity and
pesticides; we eat contaminated food.
Overall pollution of our environment is our
major health problem in the coming years.
What is the provincial government doing to
cope with pollution? Next to nothing. The
government of this province does not even
understand the scope of the pollution prob-
lem.
Let me make it abundantly clear that in
my point of view a demonstration of disaster
is not required. We have learned enough
from sources other than the provincial gov-
ernment to know that we have a stupendous,
multi-million-dollar task on our hands.
What would it cost to clean up our air,
our water and our soil? No one knows,
simply because a concerted campaign against
overall pollution has never been attempted.
Ontario's losses from air, water and soil pol-
lution amount to about $494 per person per
year. This figure, calculated, amounts to a
total of $437 million annually, the highest
rate of any province in this country.
The biggest hazard of pollution is that we
still allow sewage to be discharged into our
lakes and rivers without adequate treatment.
In many cases this poisonous sewage gets no
treatment at all. The resultant water pollution
upsets the ecological balance; it depletes the
fish population; it makes our lakes and rivers
unsafe for swimming, dangerous for irrigation
and undesirable for recreational purposes.
Besides the pollution of water from human
wastes the biggest offender is industry, yet I
am not prepared entirely to blame industry
alone. There are no laws setting effluent
standards for industry. Since industrial pol-
lutants are far more insidious than domestic
sewage, their removal calls for specialized
measures, measures we have not yet at-
tempted to develop. Many industries have
already started to deal with their own in-
dustrial wastes, but I maintain that all
industries must be made to follow this
example, either by persuasion or by coercion.
We know that 34 years from today our air
will contain 25 per cent more carbon dioxide
than at present. This enormous increase comes
from burning coal, oil, natural gas and from
the exhaust of millions of automobiles. This
continuous air pollution will modify the heat
balance of our atmosphere. What does that
mean? It could mean a drastic change in our
climate to the worse. What then happens?
Nothing we do in the year 2,000 can stop
this climatic change.
I concede to you, Mr. Speaker, that long-
term air pollution does not necessarily impede
our health, yet it has been shown that the
probability of death between the ages of 50
and 70 from lung diseases is twice as great
for persons living in a polluted-air area, than
for those who live in a clean environment.
Pollution is constant and much of it is in-
visible. Factories, furnaces, automobiles are
constantly spewing harmful gases into our
atmosphere. We cannot rely on shifting winds
to protect our health. It is not that the On-
tario government is ignorant of the dangers
of pollution. It has been told, time and
again, but has chosen to ignore the clear
warnings by experts.
May I quote briefly from the bulletin of
the conservation council of Ontario, of Octo-
ber, 1965:
In the long view of history something
much more definitive than space and
nuclear technology may characterize this
period. Mankind has reached a level of
population which makes it possible for him
to change his environment on a scale never
before known. What he does in space may
be far less important in the long run than
what he does to the earth, air, water, plants
and animals which support his life on this
planet.
Incidentally, the author of this quote is the
United States Secretary of the Interior,
Stewart Udall.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to outline very
briefly the inherent dangers of pollution to
our environment. Let me now be more
specific. I would like to suggest the following
measures as the minimal effort of the Ontario
government:
Unless the government wakes up to the fact
that everyone in the province has a constitu-
tional right to a healthy environment, it is
gambling with the lives of people and
animals. The role of ail governmental authori-
ties—local, provincial, and federal— in pollu-
tion problems should be complementary and
mutually supporting. The Ontario government
should work in co-operation with the appro-
priate American agency in the significant
areas of water pollution to bring about more
effective pollution abatement of downstream
water use. In particular, I am referring to
the multiple problems of the upper St. Clair
River and its effect on the Detroit River.
The United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare has charged Canada
with not being vigorous enough in its efforts
to improve the situation.
In specific regard to air pollution, the
special importance of the automobile should
be recognized. Exhaust control systems on
all new cars and trucks should be considered
730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as standard equipment. Conclusive proof is
available from tests done in the state of
California to show that the hydrocarbon rate
can be reduced by 70 to 80 per cent and the
carbon monoxide rate by 60 per cent. Regu-
lations should be imposed which would
require registration before new substances are
added to motor fuels. Many of these additives
are not eliminated by the combustion process
and thus cause further pollution.
Precise measurements of the nickel and
carbon monoxide contents of the atmosphere
should be undertaken so that these can be
compared with the standard value. We recom-
mend that the Ontario government stimulate
industrial development of more economic
processes for exclusion of sulphur compounds
from stack effluents. The Ontario government
should encourage the development of atmos-
pheric instrumentation needed for warning
systems to predict strengths and locations of
intense pollution in metropolitan areas.
The Ontario government should expand
substantially its own and sponsored research
into the acute biological effects of common air
pollutants, and the effect on man and animals
of chronic low level pollution such as domestic
and industrial fumes, fallout, and motor
vehicle exhausts. The Ontario government
should establish a clean air Act, for the control
of exhaust systems such as afterburners, to
reduce the large amounts of unburned hydro-
carbons and carbon monoxide that are now
released.
Turning to the question of water pollution,
I would like to quote from a statement made
by the President of the United States:
No one has a right to use America's
rivers and America's waterways, that be-
long to all the people, as a sewer.
This statement is in no way inapplicable to
the situation in Ontario.
Within this frame of reference, the Ontario
government should immediately encourage
a group of federal, provincial and municipal
officials to study all problems caused by out-
moded, combined sewerage systems. This
group should undertake an intensive study
of the broad area of disposal of sewage,
trash and garbage which would incorporate
the use of the innovations developed in the
technology of solid wastes. This agency
should also consider the problems of sewage
treatment and water supply as a single com-
bined system. This agency should undertake
an intensive study of the interaction between
various disposal systems as they affect the
interrelationship of solid, liquid and gaseous
pollution of the environment. All municipali-
ties should be responsible for providing a
minimum of secondary treatment plus ade-
quate disinfection of the effluent.
It has also become clear, Mr. Speaker, that
pollution can take many forms. The proper
use of pesticides, for example, is not simple;
and while they destroy harmful insects and
plants, pesticides may also be toxic to ben-
eficial plants and animals, including man.
The Ontario government must recommend
that measures be taken to ensure that con-
tinued exposures to small amounts of these
chemicals in our environment will not be
harmful over long periods of time.
The Ontario government should, through
The Department of Agriculture and private
industry, accelerate the development of im-
proved equipment and methods for applying
pesticides more selectively. We recommend
that the wasteful routine treatment schedules
of pesticide practices should be replaced by
treat-when-necessary schedules.
The Ontario government should immedi-
ately urge the federal government to pass
legislation regarding the labelling and pack-
aging of pesticides to ensure public safety.
In particular, I am referring to the use of
spill-proof containers and child-proof house-
hold sprays. The Ontario government should
immediately impose a legislative ban on the
importation of any pesticides not already
registered under The Pest Control Products
Act, as it did in the case of the imported
plastic cooling devices.
The Ontario government should appoint a
permanent committee to study the develop-
ment of new pesticides which are more effec-
tive and break down more quickly. It should
also research the mechanisms controlling sizes
of pest populations, to accurately predict pest
population trends. Man is now able to change
his environment on a scale never before
known. However, unless he is able to pre-
dict the ultimate effect of these changes, and
govern himself accordingly, he may find
that the natural community will no longer
be able to support him in the style to which
he is accustomed.
As a result of this situation, we recommend
that the Ontario government take the follow-
ing steps in the area of land conservation:
The Ontario government should engage
actively in the development and demonstra-
tion of new or better equipment and methods
of the handling, treatment, and use of farm
animal wastes;
We recommend that The Department of
Mines take steps to improve the storage
and turnover of junk auto steel;
The Ontario government should initiate
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
731
development and demonstration projects for
new and improved systems of collecting and
transporting solid wastes to show what can
be done to approach the problem from other
than traditional methods;
A tax should be devised to provide an in-
centive for eliminating the long-term storage
of junk automobiles;
The Ontario government should improve
its research facilities to include deeper
studies of pollution on wildlife and fisheries
directly and through their environment; it
should also study the effects of common pol-
lutants on beneficial insects, crops, forests,
domestic animals and birds, and agricultural
lands; this agency should make suggestions
as to new or additional courses of action and
it should report its findings annually to the
Ontario Legislature;
The province should give leadership and
provide the co-ordination necessary for the
development of an outdoor recreational pro-
gramme that will meet imaginatively the
enormous demand for recreation expected in
the future;
A provincial environmental quality survey
should be instituted immediately which
would provide information as to the average
condition of the environment— in this way a
basis for comparison would be established
for populations under pollution stress;
We recommend that the Ontario govern-
ment draw more heavily on the experience
and technological skills of private industry
in developing instruments and devices for
measurement of pollution;
We recommend that every opportunity be
seized to acquaint young people with careers
in fields related to environmental pollution;
We recommend that the Ontario govern-
ment be authorized to award, on a competi-
tive basis, grants to universities and other
qualified institutions for research and re-
search training in scientific and engineering
fields related to environmental control;
We recommend that the Ontario gov-
ernment be authorized to provide grants
covering up to 100 per cent of costs to univer-
sities, or other non-profit institutions, for
the establishment of projects devoted to
research and research training in environ-
mental health, science and engineering.
One of the most subtle and yet most
dangerous forms of pollution is radioactivity.
Much has been said but much less has been
done. We are all familiar with the Elliot
Lake situation. In fact, the Deputy Minis-
ters' committee reported on the subject of
radiological pollution in 1965. In this report,
they recommended that 10 to 3 picocuries of
radium-226 per litre of water should be
adopted as the initial objective to be attained
in public drinking waters in the Elliot Lake
and Bancroft areas.
It would be interesting to inquire as to
the source of the Deputy Ministers' infor-
mation, for I doubt the accuracy of it. I
would now like to quote from a bulletin of
The United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare— radiological health
data:
Radium-226, one member of the
uranium series, is the most hazardous,
with a maximum permissible concentra-
tion of 3.3 pc/litre for the population at
large. The 1962 public health device
drinking water standards set the limit for
radium-226 at 3 pc/litre for public water
supplies.
Does the committee actually believe that the
citizens of Elliot Lake and Bancroft have a
greater tolerance level for radium-226 than
the average American?
It is obvious that the recommended
standards for healthy drinking water in
uranium mining areas is not only inaccur-
ate, but exceedingly dangerous. We recom-
mend that the Ontario government take steps
immediately to correct this gross error. We
recommend that:
1. The Ontario government should instal
water-softening equipment in the appropri-
ate uranium mining areas; this equipment
has a 98 per cent effectiveness in removing
the highly toxic and radioactive radium-226
from the drinking water;
2. The Ontario government should institute
a medical examination programme for the
people of suspected areas of contamination
in order to assess the effects of such con-
tamination;
3. The Ontario government should estab-
lish a radium monitoring network to provide
needed continuous data on radioactivity
contributed by uranium mining and milling
operations; the purpose of this network
would be to define both natural and indus-
trial sources of radioactive pollution, and to
measure either improvement or worsening of
waters due to the continuance or abatement
of these pollution sources.
It should be noted that the uranium-
processing mills in the Colorado river basin
in the United States have successfully main-
tained negligible radioactivity contributions
through their efforts to provide proper treat-
ment and containment of milling waste
products.
732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that, from my recommendations, it
is evident that an overall antipollution pro-
gramme is not going to be cheap. I have
spent considerable time finding out what
other countries are doing. My recommenda-
tions are the quintessence of this research
and I challenge the Ontario government to
prove that pollution is not a problem.
Again may I emphasize that a demon-
stration of disaster is not required. Many
kinds of pollution can still be prevented by
employing ecological foresight. This, un-
fortunately, the government has not done.
We need basic research, immediate action,
and sufficient funds to deal with the pollu-
tion.
At this moment, responsibility in dealing
with pollution is either non-existent or
widely separated among government depart-
ments. In many cases of pollution, no one
has been assigned to look into it. The result,
quite naturally, is an inexcusable hodge-
podge. From all these factors, one con-
clusion emerges very clearly: Every Ontario
resident is affected by pollution, directly or
indirectly. We are already certain that
pollution adversely affects the quality of our
lives. And I have great misgivings about the
future, where pollution could quite easily
shorten our lives.
In view of these facts and expert pre-
dictions, no government can morally afford
to sit and await what might happen. Time
has already been wasted. But if we start
dealing with pollution today, we will at least
have the assurance that our future is secured.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat
a quote by the President of the United States
of America:
Of all the reckless devastations of our
natural heritage, none is more shameful
than the continued poisoning of our rivers
and lakes.
Mr. I. W. Thrasher (Windsor-Sandwich):
Mr. Speaker, I envy you your ability, when
the House is in an uproar, to be able to stand
up and bring the House to order with a
whimsical smile on your face. I really do
envy you.
I would like to welcome the two new hon.
members for Nipissing (Mr. Smith) and
Bracondale (Mr. Ben). I. too, came in on a by-
election and I know how you feel. I welcome
you and hope that you will enjoy the House
as much as I do.
Mr. Speaker, a situation has developed that
has to do with planning a community. There
is an old axiom, which I learned from many
years in the real estate profession, that has
convinced me that planning is for people.
Planning a community is good; it is like rear-
ing a child— you should not confine activities
to such an extent that you stifle initiative,
creativeness and intuition.
When you plan a community you must not
create a monstrous straitjacket of limited
vision; for if you do this, the natural growth
of the community is bound to suffer. I be-
lieve that any community should be planned
so that we will work and play and live and
shop in one area. We now have a great
problem with our traffic and I believe a
planned community such as this would do a
lot to alleviate the traffic problems.
We have a community that has recently
gone through annexation, that has increased
Windsor's population from 117,000 to 190,000
good people. We are on the threshold of
unprecedented industrial growth. We are de-
termined, as a people, to continue to capital-
ize on our strategic location to enhance the
recently concluded trade pact with our neigh-
bour to the south. However, Mr. Speaker, we
are developing a serious problem in the area
of planning the community's growth. The
municipal government has allowed itself to
be entranced by planned growth and a devel-
opment programme which, in my opinion,
will stifle our growth and our tremendous
industrial potential in its envious stage.
Our municipal government has seen fit to
import a planning consultant from Toronto,
and possibly the basic problem is that he is
too far from the city of Windsor since this
man's place of origin might have deterior-
ated his comprehension of Windsor's desire
to become the industrial giant of Ontario.
This man has come up with a scheme that
will place Windsor in a planned straitjacket.
He has come to the conclusion that the
growth in the city of Windsor, encompassing
residential, commercial and industrial growth,
can only take place in the most easterly part
of the greater city of Windsor, which was
formerly a vast expanse of vacant land in the
east end of the former town of Riverside. He
has convinced our planning board, and is
coming terribly close to convincing the city
as well, that there is only one area in Greater
Windsor where future development can take
place. The reason for this may seem plaus-
ible to provincial planning, since in that sec-
tion of the greater city of Windsor we have
a sewage treatment and a water filtration
plant near at hand.
The argument, of course, is that the muni-
cipality's financial capabilities will not be
strained in confining its extension of essential
services to this pocket of recommended future
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
733
growth. The problem as I see it is that
everyone over the next five or ten years wish-
ing to buy a house or build a factory must
build in this particular area.
Further, industry that wishes to locate in
Windsor must locate in this confined area.
Textbook planning principles must be fully
satisfied with this constricted concept of
growth, but I doubt whether industrialists
and people wishing to buy a home can live
in this straitjacket. The great danger here is
that Windsor will lose a golden opportunity
to provide the wide range of industrial sites
with varied facilities that industry today gen-
erally demands. Industry's requirements are
very diversified. There is a need for a variety
of transportation facilities, including railway
sidings; motor transport facilities, with the
highway and thoroughfares to provide easy
access and egress from planned sites; water
shipping facilities with warehousing and
docks near at hand. Mr. Speaker, if this area
is planned as such it will not provide these
amenities. This wide range of facilities can-
not possibly be provided in the little pockets
located by our Toronto planning consultant.
The danger is even more pronounced when
we reflect on the distinct possibility of a small
handful of even two or three enterprising
developments acquiring the land in this re-
stricted development area for residential con-
struction.
Now under these conditions, do you control
the price at which houses will be sold to
the ultimate purchaser? Is it proper to plan
a planning concept of this kind to create
a monopoly in the sale of future homes and
industrial sites? This frightening desire on
the part of the government to control every
last vestige of a free citizen's choice of a
place to live, work and play is sometimes
carried to extremes.
I am sure that unless the Windsor civic
government examines itself it might be de-
nying the very freedom that Canadians have
a right to expect.
How do planners with this concept of
development hope to assimilate, in one pocket
of a little community, people who have a
variety of cultural, financial and social back-
grounds? Surely they must consider the point
that people have the right to build their
homes in an environment which is compatible
with their background. Surely these planners
cannot expect to force everyone over the
next 15 years or so to move into only one
restricted area of his choice.
The city of Windsor has made tremendous
strides during the last three years and the
future certainly looks bright. The former
administration of Mayor Michael Patrick
led the groundwork for this potential growth.
The Windsor Daily Star has been a potent
force in welding the community into one
vibrant unit and the Greater Windsor found-
ation, which is a grassroot citizenship to
which most of our influential and ambitious
citizens belong, has established an atmos-
phere in Windsor that gladdens the hearts
of everyone who can recall the dejected
spirit of the people of the city of Windsor
during the middle fifties.
Mayor John Wheelton and his new admin-
istration have the ability and the know-how
to carry the city through to a glorious future.
I sincerely hope that under John Wheelton's
leadership the city council will not accept a
development plan which will stifle the future
growth of Greater Windsor.
There is an alternative to this planning
straitjacket that is looming on our horizon,
and that alternative must be found in order
to make it possible for an industry to decide
tomorrow, for example, to locate in a great
industrial area around the Detroit River which
was formerly the town of Ojibway; or for
that matter to use the many industrial sites
in the west end of the city. The need at the
moment which threatens the prospect of
such a development taking place in the west
end of our city is a lack of a sewagt treat-
ment plant and other municipal services.
Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of financ-
ing for capital works Windsor was forced
last year to put its funds in an interceptor
sewer that cost approximately $2 million.
This interceptor sewer will not be used until
the year 1968. We have, you might say,
buried into the ground, for four years, $2
million at six per cent; which is $120,000 a
year over four years, .which is almost $400,-
000 wasted.
This is my money, your money and some-
body else's money! Surely we can get a
system of planning that will bring these
interceptor sewers and plants into focus at the
same time so we do not waste this money.
The city of Windsor has come through a
difficult period of financial stabilization. A
large debt has been reduced to the point
where Windsor's per capita debt is one of
the lowest in the province of Ontario; and
possibly for that matter in all of Canada. Its
credit rating is one of the very best. To
maintain proper municipal physical jpolicy
it is absolutely essential that the city of
Windsor place a ceiling on its capital works
programme; or in other words the creation of
new debts to finance the construction of
sewer treatment plants, arterial roads and
734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
all that goes with the development of a pro-
gressive community.
Windsor must not be left to handle this
problem alone. The alternative to this restric-
tion on the creation of capital debt is in
my opinion provincial assistance. The Ontario
water resources commission is ideal in play-
ing a part in such a plan. Many communities
in Ontario I am sure can use an expanded
financial participation plan for the develop-
ment of services under the sponsorship of the
OWRC.
At the present time the commission is re-
stricted, as I understand it, to the financing
and operation of sewage treatment plants,
interceptor and water filtration plants and
other works for municipalities. Even today
the limited services which the commission
is empowered to handle are reluctantly ac-
cepted by the Ontario municipalities. My
hope would be that legislation would be
brought in to extend and broaden these
services.
I understand now that there is a third plan
for municipalities such as this to finance and
I quote:
In August, 1965 a new provincial finan-
cial arrangement was extended to include
sewage works as well, both on an area
and an individual municipality basis. This
will mean that sewage will be accepted
and treated at provincially owned plants
with a charge levied on the basis of
volume. Some of the advantages of this
new programme will be immediately ap-
parent. No capital debt as such will have
to be undertaken by a municipality. This
will be recovered over the years through
the water and sewage rates based on usage.
Another major benefit arising from this
programme is that the province may con-
struct oversize works, depending on the
anticipated growth of the municipality.
The cost of oversizing will be carried by
the province until the added capacity is
utilized.
Through the development of such a
project, on an area basis, the benefit to any
individual municipality will be greater
since the cost of the works will be amor-
tized over a longer number of years.
Furthermore, it will mean that the earlier
problems experienced with respect to
compromises in the degree of necessary
treatment and type of construction will be
eliminated. The certainty that this system
of financing will give a new stimulus to the
construction of water supply and pollution
control works in the province is evident
from the fact that almost 100 applications
have been received from municipalities
desirous of entering into this arrangement.
Only the small municipalities will accept the
rather stringent set of rules set down by the
commission. The larger municipalities that
can sell debentures at approximately the
same cost that the commission charges for
its financing refuse to participate with the
commission in sewage works. I think with
this new plan that the larger municipalities
will be enticed to come into this plan of
financing. The reason for this, I believe, is
because of the unrealistic policy of the On-
tario water resources commission to charge
the municipalities not only the cost of retiring
debt but operating costs and administrative
expenses in addition, and insist on charging
municipalities for the creation of a sinking
fund or depreciation reserve for replacement.
The requirements of the municipality to
pay into this reserve fund is so high that it
discourages all municipalities who have the
ability to sell debentures in the open market
at a reasonable rate of interest. With this
policy, the commission has the effect also of
requiring today's citizens not only to pay
for the construction of the facility which it
finances, but also to establish a reserve for
replacement at some time in the future.
The period for replacement in some cases
is unrealistic in that it is set for much too
brief a period. I urge the government, Mr.
Speaker, to establish a committee to study
this set of rules, so that the commission can
play a more successful role in providing the
finances for construction of sewage plants
and other sewage facilities throughout the
province. That again is where I think this
third plan will be very good for larger muni-
cipalities.
The pollution of our waters is one of the
important problems facing the province to-
day. Surely we cannot let this condition con-
tinue. We have an obligation to future
generations who will inherit a terrible situa-
tion unless this water pollution is cleaned up
at a rapidly accelerated rate.
In my home town, such a change in
Ontario water resources commission policy
would undoubtedly be received with open
arms. This would permit Windsor to com-
plete the second sewage treatment plant in
the west end of the city, together with an
interceptor sewer serving the former town
of Ojibway, those parts of Sandwich West,
Sandwich East and Sandwich South, which
have recently been annexed to the city of
Windsor, and that part of Sandwich West
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
735
which has remained as a separate munici-
pality, with the sewer service required to
permit immediate development.
I am not advocating a plan of uncontrolled
growth. I would certainly recommend
strongly that the need be shown for these
facilities before these large expenditures on
sewerage works and roads is permitted.
However, if that need is evident, the in-
ability of the local municipality in financing
these tremendous projects should not be in-
hibited. Let us not be timid, sir, about
extending financial assistance to these muni-
cipalities. We all know a system can be de-
vised whereby these loans by the commission
to the local municipalities can be paid back.
It is only necessary that the term of repay-
ment is not restricted to an unrealistic short
period of time. There is immediate need to
get on with the solution to this problem of
growth.
In Windsor, it is of prime importance that
this problem be treated as one of extreme
urgency. Opportunities for industrial growth
must be encouraged. I am anxious that
people in my constituency and in all Greater
Windsor are permitted to take advantage of
this opportunity for industrial growth— to
enable the young children of today to find a
future in the industrial expansion of Canada
in their own neighbourhood, rather than
finding it necessary to scatter to all corners
of the country.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to participate in the Throne debate,
it is always traditional that one conveys to
the Speaker the congratulations and best
wishes of the House for the fine manner in
which he conducts the affairs from time to
time. I will not say any more about that,
other than I want to be associated with all
the remarks that have been made by hon.
members in that connection. I do this to
avoid repetition.
I also want to take this opportunity to
congratulate the hon. member for Nipissing
(Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bracon-
dale (Mr. Ben) on their respective elections to
this House. I also pay tribute to the voters in
those ridings, because I think they exercised
wise and very deliberate judgment on those
occasions, and I am sure that the hon. mem-
bers will, as representatives of those ridings,
contribute a great deal to the affairs and to
the goings-on in this House.
I also want to pay my respects to the
mover and seconder of the Speech from the
Throne. I think it is traditional that these
two people are given this role. They are
bright young lights who are showing lots of
potential within the party. In this sense, I
want to offer my congratulations to the
mover and seconder, because we will be
watching them very closely from here on in.
I want to deal with a number of things
this afternoon. Before I get into the main
body of my speech, I would like to comment
on two or three things that have been
brought up from time to time by hon. mem-
bers in the Throne debate.
The one that is of particular interest to
me at this point, is the matter brought up
by the hon. member for London South (Mr.
White), in regard to disabled pensions. Over
the course of my office in this House, I have
had occasion to encounter a number of
people who have made application for dis-
abled persons' allowance, and I am always
amazed at the degree of disability required
before one is able to actually qualify for dis-
abled pension.
As the hon. member for London South
very aptly pointed out, one almost has to
be disabled to the point of not being able
to lift a hand, or I think as he put it, flutter
an eyelid. In my mind, this is wrong. I
think this government should approach
Ottawa and do everything possible to en-
courage them to loosen the reins and perhaps
bring in an amendment to the Act, in order
that the stringent regulations as they apply
to the disabled persons' allowance would
become more relaxed, making it easier for
some of these people to qualify for such a
pension.
The other thing I want to mention is in
connection with my hon. friend's remarks—
from Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), I
believe. He was talking about a number of
things, but the one item I want to make
reference to is his remarks about education.
I say at this point that I agree with his educa-
tional theories. I think they are valid and I
just want to make that point. As far as I am
concerned, the schools have failed to take full
account of the evidence which shows that
many children can learn both at an earlier
stage and more rapidly than the school
assumes, provided we are prepared to be
flexible in our methods and arrangements
for learning. It is particularly clear that there
are very few programmes in Canada extend-
ing from kindergarten through university
which really challenge gifted students.
The secondary schools have traditionally
had a strong academic bias and a tendency to
regard vocational training as second-class
education. Consequently, it is not surprising
that we ignored the changes taking place in
736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the labour force until it was brought for-
cibly to our attention that school dropouts
simply were not employable, and that schools
were not providing enough highly trained
graduates.
I want to turn to another facet of the edu-
cational structure, and this deals particularly
with the capital grants as they apply to the
building of new schools.
It has been said that taxes are not a pen-
alty, but rather a system by which we agree
to pool our resources and public spending to
buy those services which we can more effi-
ciently purchase as a group. Because of the
mobility of people, a situation has emerged
where a high percentage of the labour force
may be resident in one municipality and em-
ployed in another. This creates a situation
where the industrial and commercial tax base
in a municipality may bear no relationship to
the services required for the people by the
municipality.
This inequitable tax base results in the
inequitable tax burden as between munici-
palities. The same mobility cf people creates
concentration of requirements for educational
facilities in areas without corresponding con-
centration of assessment.
It has been the case for a number of years
that the biggest single item on one's tax bill
is education. This has been so for seme years,
as I say, but the squeeze continues to get
tighter and tighter. The cost cf education
continues to spiral and this has created real
problems for the municipalities. The muni-
cipalities have been crushed underneath the
load. This has resulted, from time to time, in
many people suggesting that the government
take over the entire cost of education. In-
deed, the Ontario federation of agriculture
has taken the position that property should
bear the cost of services to property, and that
people should bear the cost of services to
people. The el im is nrd" that each year
real property becomes less representative of
the total income-producing wealth of the
nation. Of course this would mean that prop-
erty would be relieved of the burden of pay-
ing for educational costs and that senior levels
of government should bear the burden of the
educational costs.
Without arguing the pros and cons of this
particular situation, I want to, ?s I said at the
outset, get into the area of capital grants for
school construction and the need for raising
the limits. This point was particularly under-
scored last year— 1965— because of the high
construction costs. The unemplovment rate
was at its lowest in years. All the contractors
had more than they could do, to the point
where in many cases only one construction
company offered to bid on a school construc-
tion project. I know this was the case in my
own area, and I am sure it applied right
across the province.
In the Budget this has been partly recog-
nized. There will be an approximate 50 per
cent increase in spending for education. Edu-
cation takes the largest share of revenue
derived from the increase in taxes— nearly
$158 million. The budget of The Department
of Education will reach $575.5 million. Much
of the money will be used to increase grants
to school boards by $52.4 million, partly to
pay for increases in the government grant
formula announced a few weeks ago.
The province will also set aside the entire
proceeds of the Canada pension plan contri-
butions for investment in educational facili-
ties and aid to municipalities. This means
that, on top of the direct provincial grants,
universities and school boards will share in a
$267 million bonanza of low-interest loans
f-om the Canada pension plan fund. The
$267 million is expected to be available in
each of the next ten years, as the pension
plan builds up contributions to be paid out
in the future.
As I understand it, Ontario can borrow
from the fund at an interest rate equal to the
rate the federal government pays on long-
term securities. Apparently the government
is going to lend the money to the universities
and to the school boards, at about the same
rate that it pays. This would mean that the
government would be lending the money out
at roughly 5.4 per cent a year, or about one
per cent below what they can borrow the
money at now. This could possibly lead to
lower interest on debentures for other pur-
poses.
Large amounts of money will be required
for construction of educational facilities for
e!ementary and secondary schools as well as
universities — a well-established factor. If
these funds are made available to municipali-
ties and school boards then they will be able
to nlan their capital programme in a more
effective manner.
When one looks at the future budgetary
needs of the province, it is perfectly evident
that the pattern of budget requirements for
education fits very well with the develop-
ment of the Canada pension plan. This will
tend to relieve the terrific burden on the
municipalities for educational costs. How-
ever, all these things will only allow the
school board to cope in part with the ever-
increasing cost of operation. Let us study
the present situation, as it applied in 1965.
FEBRUARY 21, 1966
737
There was a capital grant of $20,000 per
classroom, with the school board obtaining
only a percentage of that $20,000. For the
sake of example, let me use my own area.
The percentage, as applied to the $20,000
capital grant, was 80 per cent. This means
that the highest possible grant that would be
available would be $16,000-80 per cent of
$20,000. This percentage is arrived at by
considering a number of factors, such as the
basic tax relief grant, the equalization grant,
and the capital grant.
Once again using my area as an example,
this year I was told that the average cost
per classroom was $31,000. This meant, in
effect, that the capital grant from the de-
partment took care of only 50 per cent of the
cost of constructing a classroom. This means
also that the burden placed on the local
municipality in this kind of situation is
almost intolerable.
The fact is that the authority to raise
the limit rests entirely with the Minister.
The last time that this grant was raised,
according to my information — and, Mr.
Speaker, I should point out at this juncture
that I called The Department of Education
and inquired about this matter— it was
approximately 1946. Costs have risen tre-
mendously since that time— it goes without
saying.
Let me quote a few statistics since 1961 to
illustrate my point. These figures were
obtained in the DBS reports, business and
finance division, operation section: In 1961,
the labour content for construction of public
buildings in the province of Ontario was
$172,666,000. In 1965, the labour content
in the construction of public buildings in
Ontario, accounted for $208,145,000, or an
increase of 17.3 per cent in labour costs in
the five-year period.
The other components in assessing build-
ing costs, namely, the cost of materials used,
amounted to $1,077,333,000 in 1961 as it
related to the construction of public build-
ings. In 1965, the cost of materials used
accounted for $1,577,175,000— or an increase
of 34 per cent in the last five years. This
means that the total cost of constructing
public buildings has risen 51.3 per cent in
the last five years. That being so, then it
certainly follows that there has been a
drastic increase in construction costs, both
in terms of labour content and cost of
materials used since 1946— the last time the
ceiling capital grants were raised.
Let me underline this matter by reading
to you from a letter which I received from
the Culross-Teeswater school area board.
This board is in my own area. It was one
of the many representations that I have had
from time to time in this connection. I want
to read from the letter. Mr. Speaker, I
should point out that the Culross-Teeswater
school board was involved in the construc-
tion of a new school this year.
Approval has been received from The
Department of Education of grants to the
amount of $237,556 for construction of a
new 11-room classroom school, plus one
general purpose room, for a total of 12
rooms. The architect's final debenture
estimate, including full contract price,
architect's fees, furniture, contingencies,
and so on, was $326,297. The lowest of
three tenders, open November 9, 1965,
was $398,000. Other tenders were
$419,500 and $430,198. The major prob-
lem the board is confronted with is a
definite need for improved classroom and
playroom facilities, plus the fact that the
Culross school area board is in a low-
assessed district with the main source of
taxation revenue derived from farm and
residential assessments. The total assess-
ment—
and I am still quoting from the letter:
The total assessment for 1965 taxes is
$2,287,293.53, which means that one mill
will raise approximately $2,200. The pres-
ent mill rate is 14 mills for a farm and
residential, and 16 mills for business and
commerce.
Now if the board were to accept the
above-mentioned tender, it would mean
that the total elementary school mill rate
would increase from 20 to 22 mills if the
present grant system is continued. In the
opinion of the board, this figure is exces-
sively high even with the cost stretched
over 20 years which is the term customar-
ily used for debentures.
We, the board of trustees of the Culross-
Teeswater school area, do therefore request
The Department of Education of Ontario
that immediate consideration be given at
the January session of the legislative
assembly to the increasing of the amounts
of grants per classroom approved by The
Department of Education for school con-
struction in comparison with the continual
increasing costs of construction in order
that costs of elementary education can be
kept at a reasonable level.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it is redundant
for me to elucidate any further. The matter
was very clearly and accurately stated in the
letter from the board.
738
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In addition, however, I would like to point
out that from 1946 to 1959 the municipal tax
load had moved from $13.9 million to
$42,290,000, an increase of more than 200
per cent in 13 years. During the same 13-
year interval, the net income from farming
operations registered an overall increase of
29 per cent, so you can see the situation, Mr.
Speaker.
I am urging that something be done to
rectify, at least in part, this type of situa-
tion. Whether this can be done by simply
upping the maximum from $20,000 to
$30,000, or thereabouts, or whether some
change is needed in the entire grant struc-
ture, I am not prepared to say. It is a very
complex and complicated area, so it follows
that a layman in these matters cannot set
out in precise terms what should be done.
There are so many formulae involved in the
establishment of a grant structure that it is
impossible for anyone, except the experts in
The Department of Education, to figure out
the basis and the mechanics upon which the
desired results should be achieved.
However, of one thing I am sure: Some-
thing must be done in the way of alleviating
the financial burden on the municipalities
for educational purposes. I therefore urge
the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Davis)
to give this matter his immediate attention,
commensurate with the urgency and the im-
portance of the matter.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South) moves
the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow I would like to proceed
with second readings, from orders No. 6 to
12 on the order paper— and second readings
of the private bills. We will deal with
private members' business between 5 p.m.
and 6 p.m.
In the evening we will go into the esti-
mates of the Provincial Auditor, the Lieuten-
ant-Governor, myself, and The Department
of Reform Institutions. When I say myself,
I mean The Department of the Prime Min-
ister.
Following The Department of Reform In-
stitutions will be The Departments of High-
ways, and Tourism and Information. I will
arrange for this list to be given to the Whips.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6 o'clock, p.m.
No. 26
ONTARIO
Hegislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
Third report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 741
Third report, standing committee on standing orders and printing, Mr. Ewen 741
Reading and receiving petition 741
City of Hamilton, bill respecting, Mrs. Pritchard, first reading 741
Statement re retail sales tax on construction contracts, Mr. Allan 742
Statement re mass picketing at Tilco Plastics Ltd., Peterborough, Mr. Wishart 742
Parole Act, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, second reading 743
Grand River conservation authority, bill to establish, Mr. Simonett, second reading 743
Kenora Rink Company Ltd., bill respecting, Mr. Gibson, second reading 743
Toronto aged men's and women's homes, bill respecting, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, second
reading 743
Strathroy-Middlesex general hospital, bill respecting, Mr. Olde, second reading 749
City of Port Arthur, bill respecting, Mr. Freeman, second reading 749
Huntington University, bill respecting, Mr. Sopha, second reading 749
Guelph district board of education, bill to establish, Mr. Worton, second reading 749
L'Institut Canadien Francais de la cite d'Ottawa, bill respecting, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence,
second reading 749
Town of Thorold, bill respecting Mr. Morningstar, second reading 749
Gananoque high school district, bill respecting, Mr. Apps, second reading 749
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Boyer 749
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Boyer, agreed to 758
On notice of motion No. 7, Mr. Worton, Mr. Kerr, Mr. S. Lewis, Mr. Singer,
Mr. Eagleson, Mr. Sopha, Mr. Robarts 758
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Cowling, agreed to 769
Recess, 6 o'clock 769
74*
i ,1
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's third report which was
read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Pr4, An Act respecting the Greater
Niagara general hospital;
Bill No. Prl9, An Act respecting the town
of Weston;
Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the police
village of Baden;
Bill No. Pr22, An Act respecting the board
of education for the city of London.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Prl7, An Act respecting the Cana-
dian national exhibition association;
Bill No. Pr29, An Act respecting the Excel-
sior Life Insurance Company;
Bill No. Pr34, An Act respecting the city
of Sudbury.
As the following bill has been withdrawn,
your committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties and the actual cost of
printing be remitted:
Bill No. Prl3, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Michipicoten.
Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth), from the
standing committee on standing orders and
printing, presented the committee's third re-
port which was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee recommends that the peti-
tion of the corporation of the city of Hamilton
relating to the proposed Salada planetarium
be accepted and that for this purpose the pro-
visions of Rule 66, respecting advertising, and
Rule 63, with respect to time for presenting
the petition and the time for introducing the
bill, be suspended; special fees provided by
subsection 3 of Rule 64, having been paid.
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
Clerk of the House: The following petition
has been received:
Of the city of Hamilton praying that an!
Act may pass confirming an agreement with
Salada Foods Limited and the Salada Plane-,
tarium Foundation of Hamilton.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
CITY OF HAMILTON
Mrs. A. Pritchard (Hamilton Centre) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act respect-
ing the city of Hamilton.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
the answers to a question asked me by the
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Thompson)
yesterday.
The sum of $518,900 for advertising, in-
formational literature, application cards, re-
turn postage and so on, has been approved
by the Treasury board.
1. (a) Radio tapes were despatched to
radio stations on February 10 and film was
despatched to television stations on February
11. These materials were designed to com-
municate the broad outline only of the plan;
(b) Materials were approved by the Minister
on February 9, 1966.
2. Contracts with broadcast media were
authorized at the end of December, 1965.
3. Material was produced under the direc-
tion of McKim Advertising Limited by Peter-
son Productions Ltd. and Wilder Productions.
4. (a) The commission that accrued to the
advertising agency for the referred to TV
production was $3,262.50; (b) The production
cost of the TV commercials in question
totalled $18,485.19; (c) The total payment to
Mr. Aldred for the five radio commercials
employing his voice was $400.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
How does that compare with the Canada pen-
sion plan advertising?
742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan).
Mr. V. Singer (Downsview): For $500,000,
they did not get very much.
Mr. Speaker: Order
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member is dis-
appointed, I know.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a statement
before the orders of the day.
Our sales tax branch has had a number of
inquiries from contractors about the effect of
the announced increase in retail sales tax on
construction contracts entered into at fixed
prices prior to the Budget announcement
made by me on February 9.
The hon. members may recall that when
the retail sales tax was introduced in 1961
there was a somewhat similar situation. On
fixed price contracts entered into prior to the
Budget announcement contractors would not
be able to reimburse themselves for their
additional expenditure due to the retail sales
tax. The contractor is considered to be the
consumer for purposes of retail sales tax. He
is not in the same position as, say a retail
merchant who collects the tax from his cus-
tomer and remits it to the Treasury.
In 1961, we exempted such fixed price con-
tracts which were entered into prior to the
time of the announcement about the incep-
tion of retail sales tax from application of the
tax. I should like to inform the hon. members
that we propose to take comparable action
at this time, so that construction contracts
entered into on a fixed price basis prior to
February 9, 1966, will give rise to retail
sales tax at the three per cent rate. Contracts
entered into after February 9 will be treated
as ordinary transactions and contractors will
be subject to retail sales tax at the five per
cent rate with respect to tangible personal
property consumed in the performance of the
contract from April 1, 1966.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I should like to welcome to the Legislature,
in the west gallery, students from Graven-
hurst high school, Gravenhurst.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the remarks I am
about to make should be made to the House
in the light of an article which appeared in
the Toronto Telegram, the noon issue, today.
In that newspaper, there is printed on the
first page an article with the headline "Pickets
Plan to Defy Court."
The article reads as follows; it is headlined
Peterborough:
Two hundred labour council pickets
here are prepared to defy a court order
limiting picketing outside a strikebound
plastics plant.
The mass picketing is scheduled to start
tomorrow morning, despite an injunction
that states that only 12 members of the
striking textile workers union can parade
at the gates of Tilco Plastics Ltd.
The labour council has the full backing
of Ontario federation of labour president
David Archer, who led the mass picketing
at the strikebound Oshawa Times.
This article attributes to the textile workers
union at Peterborough an intention to openly
defy an order of the supreme court of this
province.
Mr. Speaker, I attempted to reach Mr.
Archer and was successful in doing so only a
moment ago. I spoke with him on the tele-
phone and read the article to him and par-
ticularly drew his attention to the last
paragraph, stating that this mass picketing is
being done with the full backing of Mr.
Archer.
I must say to the House that in fairness
to Mr. Archer he says that he has not advised
such action, and in our discussion I was able
to say to him that I felt that no friend of
labour would advise defiance of the law. He
did admit that he had advised members of
labour unions that they might hold rallies,
but he was not in favour of what is called
mass picketing, which would be certainly a
defiance of the law and would amount to,
I think, watching and besetting if nothing
else.
However, I had prepared my statement
after having attempted to reach Mr. Archer,
and without success up until a moment ago.
I prepared this statement and I propose to
read the rest of it, having stated that I have
now seen him and discussed the matter with
him. I feel somewhat reassured from the re-
marks which he made and which indicated
to me that he felt a responsibility in the mat-
ter and he would use his influence to exert
that responsibility.
I say that no man who is a friend of labour
would advise that the law be defied or set
aside. All the rights which labour enjoys
are protected by law and any action which
would set the law at naught is the first step
toward the destruction of the rights which
labour, along with all other citizens, enjoys.
The man who would counsel that type of
action, which is here indicated, would be no
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
743
friend of labour. If they were to take that
type of action— as suggested in the newspaper
article— I would point out that they are taking
the first step toward destroying their own
security.
In answer to a question from the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) on Feb-
ruary 7, I indicated in what I hope was
clear and explicit language the views of this
government toward any citizens who would
undertake this type of action. I repeat here,
Mr. Speaker, that any person who defies the
law or seeks to bring about disrespect for
the judgment of the courts of the land is
seeking, whether he realizes it or not, to
destroy the society in which he lives and in
which his own rights as a citizen are main-
tained and guaranteed.
It behooves every man for his own secur-
ity, for the future of his children and for the
reputation of his country, to see that the
law is respected and obeyed.
Above all, it is the duty of the state to see
that law and order are maintained and that
the law is upheld. In this, the government
has the right to expect the support of every
citizen since it acts in the interest of all.
In order, Mr. Speaker, that there may be
no misunderstanding on the part of any man
as to our position in this matter, we have
met with a responsible leader of labour and
have indicated our express intention that
any violations of the law arising from dis-
obedience to the laws of this country, or the
orders of our courts, will be prosecuted in
the manner that our community demands.
If any person shows contempt for our courts
in these matters, he will be brought before
our courts to answer for that contempt in the
manner prescribed by our laws. Nothing
less will serve for the preservation of the
laws upon which our country has been
founded.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. Attorney General permit a
question on his statement? Will he obtain
and table in this House as quickly as possible
a copy of the injunction to which he refers?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I could under-
take to do that. I do not know how soon I
may have it here in the House, but I will be
glad to get it. That injunction is, of course,
on file in the court where it was obtained;
and of course it is a public document and
can be seen by any person.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I have another question for the hon.
Attorney General.
In view of some pronouncements about an
eviction order in Hamilton, does the same
statement apply to threatened actions in that
regard?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know exactly
to what the hon. member refers, Mr. Speaker.
I can only say that the law of this land will
be upheld.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE PAROLE ACT
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions) moves second reading of Bill No.
28, An Act to amend The Parole Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management) moves second
reading of Bill No. 32, An Act to establish
the Grand River conservation authority.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
KENORA RINK COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. R. W. Gibson (Kenora) moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr2, An Act respecting
the Kenora Rink Company Limited.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TORONTO AGED MEN'S AND
WOMEN'S HOMES
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr5, An Act
respecting the Toronto aged men's and
women's homes.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a word in respect to the
principle of this bill. To be consistent with
the protests that I made in private bills' com-
mittee in respect of the principle enunciated,
I can accurately and fairly say that at one
time in the deliberations of that committee,
I had won the support of my friend, the hon.
member for St. George. He and I had agreed
upon an amendment to one of the clauses in
section 1, which was all but carried until
744
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cow-
ling) came in. The hon. member for High
Park is like one of the Bourbon kings; he
neither learns anything nor forgets anything.
He divided the committee on partisan lines
and in the result a very unsatisfactory com-
promise was, in my opinion, reached.
If you will look with me, Mr. Speaker, at
section 1, subparagraph 2 of the proposed
section— the bill has only one section— you
will see the matter that was an issue with
respect of the principle of this bill.
This organization comes to this House and
wants to acquire a grant of powers to invest
moneys. Of course, the moneys that this
group invests are, in every sense of the word,
trust moneys, for their money is gathered, I
suppose, from a variety of places including
public subscription for the purpose of the
furtherance of the objects of the corporate
organization.
In paragraph 2 you will see that the or-
ganization wants:
—powers to invest and reinvest property,
proceeds of real and personal property
that come into the corporation, subject to
any trusts in any manner for the time be-
ing prescribed by statute for the invest-
ment of trust funds.
2. In the bonds, debentures or other
evidences of indebtedness, any company
incorporated under the laws of Canada,
whether such bonds, debentures or other
evidences of indebtedness are secured or
insecured.
Those are very wide powers. I would sub-
mit, sir, that other evidences of indebted-
ness would include a promissory note, for
example, which had no more guarantee than
the assurance of the maker of the note that
he would repay the money.
I would think that the affairs of the
Atlantic Acceptance Corporation— which, of
course, is in another field of corporate
finance— are much too recent in the minds of
all of us, and particularly in the mind of
the government, to permit the grant of such
wide and loosely phrased powers of invest-
ment as encompassed within the four corners
of that paragraph.
Surely, when other people's money comes
into the hands of trustees, there ought to be
quite severe inhibitions about the type of
security in which that money can be in-
vested. Of course, that is consistent with
the law of the land. There are several
statutes in force in this province where very
strict inhibitions are imposed by the Legis-
lature, and have been imposed for many
years, upon the investment of trust moneys.
I recall that the solicitor, a very alert young
man from a good law firm, had as one of his
arguments in protesting the adoption of this
section, that some very good people make
up the board of trustees, the board of gov-
ernors or whatever the governing body is
called, of this association. This argument,
of course, completely misses the point. It is
not the good people that presently run an
organization of this nature with which we
need to be concerned; it is the people who
might gain control of its affairs, and whose
identity, characteristics and qualities of dis-
cretion, honour and integrity we know
nothing about.
It is for those uncertainties, after all, that
legislatures make laws. In short, Mr.
Speaker, I do not feel that this Legislature,
being entirely too conscious of the harm,
distress and, indeed, the ruin that can result
to people in our province from loose borrow-
ing and lending practices as evidenced in the
affairs of British Mortgage and Trust and
Atlantic Acceptance, would want to go be-
yond that which is prudent and discreet. I
have no desire, and I do not use the floor
of this Legislature, to criticize civil servants,
but the emissary that we heard from the
Attorney General's office, supposedly stating
the policy of that department of government,
left many questions unanswered in respect
of the supervision that the Attorney General's
department or the Provincial Secretary's de-
partment exercises over charitable founda-
tions.
It raises this question of whether the
general law respecting the investment of
trust funds is good enough. If it is found in
the mid-part of the 60's that the policies of
the Legislature enunciated in the statutes,
The Trust and Loan Corporations Act, The
Insurance Act and other statutes governing
financial institutions, if they are no longer
realistic or meet the needs of the day, then
perhaps those laws need to be revised to some
extent. But then, I ask rhetorically: If those
laws are good enough, why should another
group such as this— albeit it is a small group,
carrying out very worthy purposes in the
community in advancing much needed relief
of human suffering and work toward the
amelioration of the affairs of an important
part of our community— come to the Legis-
lature and ask for the grant of powers that
have no limit and no control over their
facility to invest? Examples were used. This
paragraph would permit the investment of
trust funds in penny stocks on the Toronto
stock exchange, companies without even a
scintilla of financial responsibility. I have
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
745
mentioned that it would permit the invest-
ment of funds on the basis of a promissory
note.
You will recall, sir, that one of the things
being investigated by Mr. Justice Hughes is
the lending of some $650,000 of Stratford
people's money to the president of Atlantic
Acceptance Corporation on a promissory
note.
For the purposes of comparison, Mr.
Speaker, will you look at the Strathroy-
Middlesex general hospital? It is an organiza-
tion from the very area represented by the
first citizen himself. They come to the Legis-
lature, they ask for a revision of their powers,
and note the way they put it: The board of
that hospital asks for powers that it may in-
vest in such securities as are authorized by
law for investment by trustees, any moneys
that at any time come into its possession in
connection with the hospital. That is all the
Strathroy-Middlesex general hospital wanted
—power to invest money along those avenues
that the Legislature of the province imposes
upon the investment of trust moneys gener-
ally.
Then why, I ask, should the Toronto
aged men's and women's homes feel that the
facility, the discretion, to invest trust moneys
that come into its hands— as provided by the
general law of this province— is not sufficient;
at one time in the bill, indeed, the amount
of power they wanted, sir, was unlimited.
They had included power to invest in bonds,
debentures or other evidences of indebtedness
of any state of the United States of America.
I wonder how the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Randall) would feel
about that one, when he is engaged in a
programme dedicated toward the attraction
of capital into this country. This small organi-
zation wanted to have the power to go into
the United States and buy the bonds of
Alabama or Nevada or Idaho, or Utah, to
enumerate some of the states with a lesser
degree of financial strength. The draftsman
of it simply contended this: "We will go to
the Legislature and we will ask for unlimited
powers to invest these trust moneys."
They almost did not get the power,
Mr. Speaker. As I say, my friend, the
hon. member for St. George and I had
worked out a compromise which would have
given them the power to invest their trust
moneys only in institutions of a certain degree
of financial strength. We had arrived at that
point — institutions which had proved their
financial responsibility. Indeed, if you look at
paragraphs 3 and 4 you will see that the
powers limited in there appertain to in-
stitutions of good financial strength.
What will happen, of course, is that this
will set a precedent for other charitable
organizations to come to the Legislature and
ask for similar powers; I have sat on the
committee on private bills long enough to
know that as soon as a protest is enunciated
by a member of that committee, somebody
gets up and says, "Well, you did the same
thing for so-and-so a couple of years ago.
We only ask for the powers that you gave
the town of Duntroon or you gave the town-
ship of South Dumfries." And so it goes.
Once the precedent is set, it is like the first
set of tracks across the newly fallen snow.
Everybody wants to travel down them. In-
deed, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner), himself, the most constant
attender from the Cabinet ranks at the com-
mittee, often faces this when he tries to pro-
test a grant of power. He is met with the
argument that somebody else got it, and often,
as I told you last year, sir— and it continues
into this year— I am the only friend there,
who consistently supports him.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): He is a great snow
tracker.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, he is a great snow jobber.
Well, there it goes and I protest only that
I took the time of the House only in order
to be consistent with what I said at the com-
mittee at the first meeting. I should report
that it was put over a week and at the first
meeting of the committee there seemed to
be virtual unanimity that these powers would
not be granted. They were sent away to
think it over and perhaps revise the thing.
At the second committee meeting, Mr.
Speaker, I did not anticipate the attendance
of the hon. member for High Park who ap-
parently—I do not think I do him a disservice;
he did not pay much attention to the dis-
cussion, and I do not know if he was there
at first meeting— but when we were work-
ing out the compromise to limit their powers,
he suddenly intervened and the first thing we
knew the committee was split in partisan
minds. We and our friends to the left voted
against this section. He marshalled the sup-
port of those of the same political stripe as
himself and I said to him in closing, as I say
it to him here: The private bills committee,
after all, is the most democratic institution
that emanates from this House, where often
we do not divide on para-party lines. I voted
against my Liberal colleagues there and I
have seen Conservatives vote against their
colleagues.
So I said to him, "You should not come
here and divide this committee on party
lines," and his answer— let us put it in the
746
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
record— was, "There is nothing wrong with
that; it is aU in the game/' So I said to him,
"Is that what we are doing, in attempting to
carry out our responsibilities, playing a
game?" And he said, "Yes, that is what we
are doing, we are playing a game." So that
was the fate of the deliberations of that com-
mittee.
In the final result, the Toronto aged men's
and women's homes walked away with the
grant of powers they had asked for. This
grant of powers in the final analysis means
that in respect to the trust moneys that come
into their hands there is no limit at all on
how they may be invested. They may invest
them tomorrow in some penny stock in the
unlisted market and when they are swept
away and somebody comes along and asks
the treasurer or the president, where the
money went, the answer will be, "We in-
vested it in Long Lost Echo gold mines and
the company went broke. We did it under
the power granted to us by the Legislature.
We got that power from the Ontario Legis-
lature and we exercised it. We have no re-
sponsibility to anyone when the investment
turns sour."
That is my complaint, sir, for what it is
worth.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
What section is that last power under?
Mr. Sopha: Paragraph two of section one.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, as usual I am not much impressed
with what the hon. member had to say, and
especially those lovely things about me.
Really very fine.
Now this same speech was made in the
private bills committee. I do not know
whether the hon. member has ever visited
these homes specified in the bill or not. I
have. I am very familiar with them and I
have had many friends and constituents there.
Has the hon. member ever visited these
homes, Mr. Speaker? No, he is not saying
anything; so he really does not know what he
is talking about.
Now the people who operate these homes-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Did
the hon. member say his prayers last night?
Mr. Cowling: Yes, I say them every night.
Yes, I do. And I very often pray a bit for
the hon. member, too, that someday he might
see the light.
Mr. MacDonald: Charity begins at home.
Mr. Cowling: That he might see the light,
I hope. I think we should all pray for him
from time to time and I am sure that the
hon. member for Sudbury needs our prayers
from time to time.
Mr. Sopha: We all do.
Mr. Cowling: I know he does.
I was very much impressed by the list of
Toronto citizens who take an active part in
the operation of these wonderful homes.
Now, the hon. member, I do not think he
knows any of them; and after all, for him to
be speaking with such authority on a Toronto
situation is somewhat amusing, too.
The hon. member took a little dig at me
and I did not mind it because it is all part
of the game, about dividing the committee
on party lines. I did not realize I had that
much sway with the committee members, Mr.
Speaker. I have not had up to now, so things
must be looking better.
Mr. MacDonald: That is the truest thing
the hon. member has said so far.
Mr. Cowling: Yes. I am going to say
another little prayer for the hon. member
tonight.
We heard the arguments; we heard the
very reasonable argument by the solicitor
representing the homes. I have every confi-
dence in the fact that if given these powers
of investment the people responsible for the
homes would use it with discretion and they
were not getting any more power than that
which appears in many other similar bills.
Now the people presenting the bill were
satisfied with the arrangements, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member who introduced the bill
was satisfied with the present arrangements.
The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
and his staff were quite prepared to go
along with what they were asking in the
bill; and after all, that is a pretty powerful
array of talent advising the committee on
whether to support the bill or not. I was
quite satisfied that this bill was going to do
what the people wanted done and yet not
implicate the government in any way that
they did not wish to be implicated.
Now it is interesting to note that in a bill
following this one— I wish the hon. member
for Sudbury would pay a little more atten-
tion, I feel that what I am saying is falling
on deaf ears. I did not see him making any
notes there.
In the next private bill we had, the hon.
member for Sudbury made a motion and
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
747
almost all the members of the committee
from all sides supported his motion.
Mr. Sopha: That is reasonable.
Mr. Cowling: Yes, it is very reasonable. So
for him to suggest that the votes are always
divided on party lines in the private bills
committee is just ridiculous. I think if he
would think that over tonight, during the late
session, he would probably come to the same
conclusion.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, this point has had
very serious consideration by the private bills
committee. No doubt we will be hearing
from the hon. member who introduced the
bill, but I would like to see it passed in its
present form.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak against the passage of
this bill on second reading, for the reasons
mainly given by the hon. member for Sud-
bury. We intend to vote against it for the
simple reason that in clause 2 of section 4 of
the proposed bill there is no test of financial
stability of the corporation in which an in-
vestment is to be made; and yet the bill does
contain, in clauses 3 and 4, very realistic
tests of financial stability.
If, as the hon. member for Sudbury has
said, the matter had been allowed to continue
in discussion in the committee I am quite
certain that a test of financial stability would
have been introduced and agreed to in clause
2 of section 4. But the debate was cut off and
for that reason, and because the bill is in-
adequate as it stands, we intend to oppose
second reading of the bill.
Mr. A. F. Lawrence (St. George): Mr.
Speaker, as the sponsor of the bill I first of
all would like the House to understand my
position. I am sure it is the same position
many hon. members of the House have
found themselves in, in the past, as the
sponsor of a bill relating to an institution in
one's own riding.
I may say I seem to have found myself
in hot water in respect of the activities of the
private bills committee over the last few
years, so this year I determined by hook or
by crook— I do not think I actually had to
bribe our party Whip— but in any event I was
successful in getting my name off the list of
members of the private bills committee, just
so that I would not get into any controversial
item regarding any private bill this year.
When this organization approached me I
first of all said: Well, is there anything con-
troversial in it? On being assured that there
was not, I indicated I would be pleased to
sponsor it; and now I find myself again in hot
water.
But may I very briefly just say this: First
of all, for some of the hon. members of the
House who were not in the private bills
committee this particular private bill came
before that committee on two successive
occasions, and the arguments that we have
heard here today were very fully developed
in that committee on those two meetings.
As a matter of fact the wide terms of invest-
ment powers that were asked for by the To-
ronto aged men's and women's homes were
in actual fact restricted by an amendment to
the bill in the committee, which finally
passed the committee.
On the first occasion that it came before
the committee the committee felt that it did
not have expert information before it so it
held the matter over until the next meeting
of the committee when we had before the
committee the counsel for the public trustee.
He pointed out— and, I think, quite rightly
pointed out— that the terms of the bill, which
we later amended in the committee, the
terms of the bill were first of all approved by
the departmental officials of the hon. Minister
of Municipal Affairs; secondly, they had been
very fully considered and approved by the
counsel and the legal people in the public
trustee's office; third, there is a restriction
right in the Act, and that restriction is that
all of those terms of reference are subject
to The Charitable Gifts Act. So that when
my learned friend, the hon. member for Sud-
bury, comes before the House and says that
the people who have investment powers in
regard to these charitable institutions can
vary trusts, or if he leaves that impression,
it really is a false impression. Because if a
devise or a bequest has been left to this
charity for a specific purpose or subject to a
trust, they, of course, under the terms of this
Act cannot vary the terms of that trust or
vary the terms of that bequest and it has to
be used for the purposes in the trust, Mr.
Speaker.
Fourth, there is another restriction here,
that is not in the bill but it is in the laws of
the province of Ontario nevertheless, and that
is that this is a charitable institution subject
to the regulations under The Charitable
Institutions Act. The counsel for the public
trustee who was before the committee came
along and pointed out that under the terms
of that Act there is a paternalistic outlook
from this government, and they do audit
the accounts of all the charitable institutions
under that Act quite frequently. I am not
too sure whether it is twice a year, but it is
748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at least annually; so that there is that restric-
tion on the investments that are made by this
group.
Finally, may I say that I was rather worried
myself with the wording in the bill, first of
all where it says "bonds, debentures or other
evidences of indebtedness." And, like the
hon. member for Sudbury, those words "or
other evidences of indebtedness" scared me.
I think there were members of the com-
mittee who were quite aware of those
dangers until it was pointed out to us that
that is the phraseology and term that appears
in all of the statutes respecting bonds or
debentures. It seems to be a legal term
that is added on wherever those words appear
in regard to the investment powers of any
institution.
Mr. Sopha: Ejusdem generis?
Mr. A. F. Lawrence: I am not too sure,
but in any event it is there. They would
have those general powers even under The
Trustee Act in regard to bonds and deben-
tures. Quite frankly, I think the words are
meaningless, but nevertheless they are there;
they were copied from the Act, from the
investment powers which this Legislature has
seen fit to give to a great many other similar
charitable institutions. The same is true with
the words whether they "are secured or in-
secured." I believe that that again is a
meaningless term. Perhaps one day we
should look at these terms in all of our
statutes to clean them up. They really are
meaningless terms, because a bond or deben-
ture, as far as I understand it in any event,
would have to be a secured indebtedness.
But the solicitor for this institution who was
before the committee had very valid reasons
for including those words. As I say, they
have been given to similar and other charit-
able institutions within the past few years
by this Legislature. I believe it would
penalize this very worthy organization to
cut down in a discriminatory way their
powers of investment from those of other
similar institutions.
Mr. Speaker: As many as are in favour of
the motion will please say "aye."
As many as are opposed will please say
tt n
nay.
In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.
Call in the members.
As many as are in favour of Bill No. Pr5,
being now read the second time, will please
rise.
As many as are opposed will please rise.
AYES
NAYS
Allan
Ben
Apps
Braithwaite
Auld
Davison
Bales
Farquhar
Beckett
Freeman
Boyer
Gaunt
Brown
Gibson
Carruthers
Gisbom
Cecile
Gordon
Connell
Lewis
Cowling
(Scarborough West)
Davis
MacDonald
Demers
Newman
Downer
Nixon
Dunlop
Oliver
Dymond
Paterson
Eagleson
Racine
Edwards
Reaume
Evans
Renwick
Ewen
Singer
Grossman
Smith
Guindon
Sopha
Harris
Spence
Haskett
Taylor
Henderson
Thompson
Hodgson
Whicher
(Scarborough East)
Worton
Hodgson
Young-27
(Victoria)
Kerr
Knox
Lawrence
(Russell)
Lawrence
(St. George)
Letherby
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Noden
Olde
Peck
Pittock
Price
Pritchard
Reilly
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Rowe
Rowntree
Sandercock
Simonett
Spooner
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Walker
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
749
AYES
Wardrope
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko-63
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 63, the "nays" 27.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
STRATHROY-MIDDLESEX GENERAL
HOSPITAL
Mr. N. L. Olde (Middlesex South) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr8, An Act
respecting Strathroy-Middlesex general hos-
pital.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr9, An Act
respecting the city of Port Arthur.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
HUNTINGTON UNIVERSITY
Mr. Sopha moves second reading of Bill
No. Prl2, An Act respecting Huntington
University.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
GUELPH DISTRICT BOARD
OF EDUCATION
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South) moves
second reading of Bill No. Prl4, An Act to
establish the Guelph district board of edu-
cation.
Motion agreed to;
bill.
second reading of the
L'INSTITUT CANADIEN FRANCAIS
DE LA CITE D'OTTAWA
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence moves second read-
ing of Bill No. Prl6, An Act respecting
l'lnstitut Canadien Francais de la cite
d'Ottawa.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF THOROLD
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr23, An Act
respecting the town of Thorold.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
GANANOQUE HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston) moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr24, An Act respecting
the Gananoque high school district.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The first order. Re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a sense of pride and privi-
lege that I rise to take part in the Throne
speech debate of this, the fourth session of
the 27th Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it would not be fitting if I
proceeded without first paying tribute to
the magnificent way in which you have
handled the affairs of this House since your
election to that office. I feel that I can
speak for all hon. members when I say that
your conduct of operations here is beyond
reproach. We are proud of you and I am
sure the good people of Ottawa West are
pleased with their hon. member.
I was interested to learn that when the
third session of the eighth provincial Parlia-
ment was opened on February 10, 1897, a
great engineer and gentleman bearing a
Polish name read the Speech from the Throne
on that occasion. Colonel Sir Casimir Stan-
islaus Gzowski had been appointed adminis-
trator of the government of the province of
Ontario because of the absence and illness of
the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor,
the Hon. George Airey Kirkpatrick. In
that capacity he was called upon to deliver
the Speech from the Throne in 1897. Colonel
Gzowski had been exiled to the United States
for the part he had played in the Polish up-
rising of 1830. Twelve years later he came
to Canada where he donated freely of his
talents and energies for almost three genera-
tions. He, like the Poles all through history,
750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cherished freedom above all. To my knowl-
edge, from the time that Colonel Gzowski
read the Speech from the Throne in 1897,
until the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-
ville (Mr. Newman) made his maiden speech
in 1959 or 1960, no voice of Polish-Canadian
extraction was heard in this Legislature. Now
I am adding my voice to the proceedings
here and I think it is pleasant proof of the
great strides we have made in this great
democracy of ours.
There is in this land and in this province,
an opportunity to compete for a place in any
field of one's choosing, regardless of race,
religion or colour; whether it be in the
political, business, educational or any other
field. We have reached a point of accomplish-
ment in that regard which other nations with
a much longer history than ours are having
great difficulty in achieving. In passing, I
would like to add that this government over
the past 20 or more years through its human
rights code and the many other actions it has
taken along these lines, has played a consid-
erable part in bringing this about.
Mr. Speaker, back in the days of C. D
Howe and the great pipeline debate in
Ottawa, in June, 1956, the government there
was run by a few on the front benches. The
private Liberal members were referred to as
a "bunch of trained seals." They usually
accepted a passive role. The Ottawa Journal-
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): What do you
think we call you?
Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, would you
ask the hon. gentleman if he wishes to be
cut down now or later?
Mr. Whicher: Now, by all means.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yakabuski: The Ottawa Journal
printed an editorial about this very thing
entitled:
No Parliament for Trained Seals
on January 4 last. I would like to quote from
that editorial.
The Liberal backbenchers will help
neither country nor party if they accept
the passive role. In their constituencies,
in caucus and in the House, they should
analyze and discuss policies so that the
best can be produced. If they think all
wisdom is found in the Cabinet room, they
invite disillusionment and defeat in the
next election.
Strangely enough, a short time after the
federal Parliament opened in Ottawa in
January of this year, George Bain, writing
in the Globe and Mail said: "Parliament's
backbenchers are not backward in coming
forward."
It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the
backbenchers in Ottawa have got the mes-
sage. In this Legislature, our private mem-
bers in the government have not been
backward about speaking their mind. This
is the way it should be. Our hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) only just recently assured
this House and all the members of all
parties in it, that anyone and everyone would
have every opportunity to speak freely on
all matters that come before this House.
This is a right and privilege that I intend
to exercise freely.
There will be times, perhaps, when I can
make a contribution to the debate in progress.
There may be other times when some, or
all of the hon. members, will feel that I
am contributing nothing. When we feel that
the government is following the proper course,
we will vote and voice our approval. When
our conscience tells us it is not, then we
have no alternative but to voice our disap-
proval in caucus, or on the floor of this
House. I say "the floor of this House,"
because the Legislature is the greatest forum
in all of this province and it is here that is-
sues large and small, should be settled.
I do not agree with those who subscribe
to the thinking that more can be accom-
plished in the back rooms, or by smiling
and bowing to the Minister in the corridor or
in his office. It is their right and their duty
to speak loudly and clearly in this Legisla-
ture on behalf of their constituents and in
the interests of the province in general. It
is with this in mind that I ask the private
members and the Cabinet members from
eastern Ontario to rise and speak with one
clear voice regarding the needs and the solu-
tions of those needs in that part of our
province.
On January 25 last, when His Excellency
the Lieutenant-Governor opened this session
and read the Speech from the Throne, one
of the first sentences that he spoke was: "To
your constituents you have obligations—"
His Excellency, who spent almost a life-
time in the public service, both here and in
Ottawa, knows full well what is required
when one endeavours to serve a constitu-
ency well. He must have full co-operation
from all the Ministers of the Crown, their
Deputy Ministers and the senior civil servants
or, for that matter, the entire civil service.
So I say to the hon. Ministers who sit on
our front benches, I say to their Deputy
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
751
Ministers and all those who take part in the
operation of this government: We have obli-
gations to our constituencies; do not, for
one minute, forget it. I have boasted that
we have here in Ontario, one of the finest
civil services to be found anywhere in any
jurisdiction but, as within us all, perfection
does not reign supreme. They have some
shortcomings; they have some failings; and
so have we. I say these things because
there are times when we private members
have occasion to call or meet with depart-
ment officials in one branch of the govern-
ment or another, in the interests of our
people. There have been times— and I am
happy to say that they have been few— that
we do not get the type of hearing that we
are entitled to. Rarely do we request things
that are unreasonable and if we feel that
they are, we do not press our point. We only
request that which is reasonable and fair
for the people who have sent us here.
The hon. member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer) has introduced a bill calling for the
establishment of an ombudsman. I am going
to support his motion, because I feel there is
a need for such an appointment in this and
the other provinces. In Sweden, where such
a position has been in existence for over 100
years, Joe, as he is commonly known there,
has wide powers. He has the power, not only
to call public attention to malfeasant officials,
but to bring charges against them in the
courts. In Sweden, even mere rudeness con-
stitutes malfeasance.
Because of the foregoing remarks, I would
not want to leave the impression that I was
speaking generally. This is not the case. But
I do say to the very few to whom those
remarks are directed: If the cap fits you, wear
it, at least until we get an ombudsman.
The purpose of my comments is to make
a certain level of this government that is
known far and wide for being the best in its
field, even better. Let us remember, good
government deserves our support and that is
the kind of government that this is.
A newspaper writer recently said that a
member should concentrate on one topic
while making a speech in the Commons or
the Legislature. I think he was referring to a
speech made recently in the House of
Commons in Ottawa by the Hon. Davie
Fulton. I can assure that writer that it is
most difficult for a member to concentrate on
one subject. We, in eastern Ontario, have
many matters that require attention. It is my
intention to touch on certain of them today,
and to enlarge on them when the estimates
of those departments are introduced.
The Department of Economics and Devel-
opment is making progress in the war on
poverty in our region. But we are impatient
and feel that the efforts of that department
must be stepped up. The Pearson government
in Ottawa has bypassed us. It has forgotten
us and the province will have to increase
its efforts, because of the total lack of effort
by Ottawa. When Pearson was dishing out
his goodies last fall, he left little or nothing
in eastern Ontario. When he was giving a
rink to Vancouver, when he was giving
yachting harbours to the rich, a causeway to
Prince Edward Island, aid to the Canadian
national exhibition, aid to the tourist industry
in the Georgian Bay area, and a promise of
aid to construct a civic centre in Ottawa, he
gave precious little to the poor and depressed
people of eastern Ontario.
Our department is aware that the solution
to our industrial problem in eastern Ontario
can only come about by this and the central
governments providing us with and allowing
us to use incentives. If Ottawa continues to
renege in its duty, then we must go it alone.
Mr. H. Worton (Welling South): They will
look after you.
Mr. Yakabuski: Do you want to be cut
down, too?
Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I am not
worried.
Mr. Yakabuski: In the education field,
things are on the move. A tender has been
let for a new composite high school to serve
the Madawaska valley. This will be built in
Barry's Bay, which was the site chosen by the
Madawaska district high school board. I am
hopeful that soon another composite school
will be built to serve the Eganville-Cobden
area. There is a further addition being added
to the Renfrew collegiate institute.
On the elementary school level, much re-
organization and building has taken place. We
also hope and pray that the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) will have his eye on
our valley when his community college pro-
gramme begins to take shape.
Although our farmers have suffered great
losses due to winter kill and a severe drought
during the early part of last season, they are
looking forward to a bountiful year. The as-
sistance provided by this government in the
way of feed subsidies to the farmers of
eastern Ontario is greatly appreciated. There
are now such things as crop insurance and
other legislation affecting farmers under con-
sideration. I am hopeful that this new legis-
lation will be drawn up, passed and
752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
implemented at the earliest time. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture and The Department of
Lands and Forests are working with our
people on a variety of ARDA projects, which
I know will be of great benefit to our area.
Work on the Mountain Chute hydro project
at Black Donald on the Madawaska River is
progressing well. This will be followed by
additions to the Barrett Chute and Stewart-
ville generating stations. These projects are
filling a twofold need; they are providing
employment for some 500 men in that area,
and are also helping to fill the continuing
demands for power in this province.
The Department of Lands and Forests, as
I mentioned earlier, is co-operating in the
development of eastern Ontario in many ways.
The ARDA projects underway and being con-
templated are a good example, as is the new
bill introduced recently to make private plan-
tations more productive and profitable.
As most of the hon. members are aware,
a great part of our area is dependent to a
large extent on the products of the forest.
With the advent of the Ski-Doo and other
snow machines, a whole new winter wonder-
land has been opened up. But our lakes and
streams will be fished as they never have
been fished before, and I think the depart-
ment should undertake an accelerated fish
restocking programme to meet the new
demands that will be placed upon our waters.
I am happy that the hon. Minister (Mr.
Roberts) of that department has taken a
personal interest in our wolf control problem.
I had long ago decided that the wolf must
go, that in this era there is no longer room
enough for both the wolf and the deer hunter.
I was a little disturbed when I read in one of
our valley papers last week that the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) had stolen
some editorial space from me with regard to
the wolf control programme. I must assure
that editor that the only reason the hon.
member for Sudbury brought before this
House the wolf problem before I did is be-
cause we allowed him to speak first.
I am sure that many parts of our area
could again become sheep-raising country if
the wolf was destroyed or pushed back to
the wilds where he belongs. I have been
assured that steps are being taken to meet
and solve the wolf problem. I feel that part
of the solution lies in increased bounties.
Other means will also be necessary if we
are to be truly successful.
Although we are making progress with
regard to main highways, secondary high-
ways, county and municipal roads in our
area, I feel that the overall effort is totally
inadequate. In the western part of the
Ottawa division, and in the Bancroft division,
the planners seem to have forgotten us.
When we consider how all-important a good
roads network is to our development, I say
that the people responsible for this oversight
must be made aware of our needs. That I
intend to do, when the estimates of that
department come before this House a little
later on. I have been preparing our case and
I plan to go into the problem in detail at
that time.
The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion is being of wonderful assistance to our
people. I look forward to that department
playing an increasing role in our develop-
ment.
The Department of Mines may not be
aware of it, but we feel that that depart-
ment, too, can play a part in our growth and
progress. I will go into that matter at a
later time; I am, more or less, serving notice
that the call will go out in due course.
I now make an appeal to the hon. Minis-
ter of Health (Mr. Dymond) to reconsider
an application made by the city of Ottawa
for a children's hospital. We are not badly
off as far as general hospital needs go in
eastern Ontario. True, we have our bed
shortages, a problem which is common to all
parts of the country. But eastern Ontario is
dotted with many fine little general hospitals.
There are two in Pembroke, one each in
Barry's Bay, Renfrew, Arnprior, four in
Ottawa, several in Kingston and numerous
others serving the general needs of the area
well. I would like to call to the attention of
the hon. Minister and this House that the
people of those communities made great
sacrifices in providing the hospitals and their
additions. They did not renege on their
local responsibilities in providing care for
the sick. They had drives and collected funds
and with some assistance from the federal
government they built them and put them
into operation. I had the privilege and the
experience of serving on the Barry's Bay St.
Francis memorial hospital board during the
planning, construction and operating stages.
I know what took place in my community.
The generosity of the people was over-
whelming; the sacrifices they made were un-
believable. Now we have a hospital that has
been in operation a little more than five
years, on which the debt is negligible. The
same applies to all the other communities I
have mentioned in eastern Ontario. You
cannot say that for Metro Toronto. If this
government had not provided special loans,
the hospital shortage here in Metro would
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
753
never have been solved. The children's hos-
pital for which the city of Ottawa is asking
is not really a hospital for Ottawa; it is a
hospital to serve one million people in
eastern Ontario. This hospital would serve
an area from Whitney and Mattawa in the
north and west, to Belleville in the south
and Alexandria in the east, with the heart
and centre in the city of Ottawa. The
children's hospital here in Metro is a great
institution; it is famous throughout the world.
We are not asking for a hospital on the same
scale as Sick Children's in Toronto, but we
do need a children's hospital to provide
special and adequate care for infants and
children, present and future, of eastern
Ontario. Someone in The Department of
Health or the Ontario hospital services com-
mission suggested that we send those
children in need of special care to Sick
Children's hospital here in Toronto. That
suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Surely the
hon. members would not have our ailing
children and their parents or guardians travel
anywhere from 200 to 400 miles to receive
special care. With a children's hospital in
Ottawa none of our people would have to
travel more than 100 miles with their child
to receive this special care. Our request is
logical and reasonable and should receive
favourable consideration from the powers
that be.
Do hon. members realize the extra finan-
cial burden we would be imposing on the
low income bracket families of eastern
Ontario? Are they aware of the extra cost
to parents, such as travel, hotel, meals and
all the other expenses involved, without
mentioning the inconvenience of travelling
the same long distances to visit their children
perhaps weekly and over long periods of
time?
The people of western Ontario are not
required to do this. They have a children's
hospital in London to serve that section. We
need the proposed valley children's hospital
in Ottawa to serve all of eastern Ontario.
We need the valley children's hospital be-
cause the population of Ottawa itself is over
half a million and is expected to double in
a few short years. We are hopeful, too, that
the population of the whole area will in-
crease substantially over the same period.
We need a children's hospital because
Ottawa can provide teaching and research
facilities for medical students, student
nurses and ancillary medical personnel of
eastern Ontario. We need the proposed
hospital because present facilities are over-
crowded and most of the space devoted to
children is badly in need of modernization.
We need the children's hospital because the
care of sick children requires a concentration
of specialized pediatric facilities.
Someone in The Department of Health
or the Ontario hospital services commission
suggested that children's wings or sections
be added to existing hospitals in Ottawa.
This is not the answer because we want to
attract to Ottawa personnel especially trained
in the care of sick children. Unless we have
a full-fledged children's hospital we will not
be able to attract the people and conse-
quently our children will not receive the care
and treatment that is their birthright. Surely
the children of eastern Ontario deserve as
good if not better treatment than the chil-
dren of the central and western parts of
this province.
A children's hospital will provide for our
young, new and expanded services for the
treatment of children: Outpatient clinics,
emergency facilities, a research programme
so that patient care is continually improved
and updated; an adolescent unit, psychiatric
unit for the evaluation and treatment of
children with emotional problems; adequate
play space and trained play therapists; a
visiting teacher, equipment especially built
for children and infants and geared to their
needs; liberal visiting privileges for parents,
encouragement for specialists in child care
to settle in Ottawa; high humidity rooms,
microchemistry laboratory methods, integra-
tion of services needed to care for the crip-
pled child, the cardiac child and other such
long-term illnesses; a tonsil suite and an in-
tensive care unit; physiotherapy and rehabili-
tation services, follow-up and social service
department and a dental clinic. Our people
and children require these facilities and are
entitled to them. .
The central government in Ottawa will
soon be providing funds for increased hospital
facilities in this and the other provinces. This
is part of a huge health needs assistance pro-
gramme announced last summer. I am sure
that the federal government, as bad as it is,
would want a part of those moneys spent on
a children's hospital in the capital city to
serve all eastern Ontario. We have the mon-
eys to offer the city of Ottawa to assist
them in building a civic centre; true recrea-
tional facilities play a part in our overall
health programme, but a children's hospital
I feel is much more important than a civic
centre. The council of the city of Ottawa
passed a resolution regarding this request
and I am sure every council in eastern On-
tario, whether it be city, town, village or
754
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rural municipal, along with every citizen in
eastern Ontario, would endorse it.
I say to the hon. Minister of Health he
cannot disregard the needs and wishes of
so many people. I understand that a delega-
tion, headed by the mayor of Ottawa, Mr.
Donald Reid, will journey to Queen's Park in
March to present the request regarding a
children's hospital for eastern Ontario to the
hon. Minister and the Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission. My only hope is that in-
cluded in that delegation will be the former
mayor of Ottawa, Miss Charlotte Whitton. I
am sure that if she is part of that delegation
she will lend much weight to it and will
have the request planted firmly and fairly
before the hon. Minister and the Ontario
hospital services commission. Miss Whitton
has accomplished much for the capital city
of this nation and I am sure that her support
in this need for a children's hospital in
eastern Ontario is of such importance to the
area that she will support it and battle for
it wholeheartedly.
The need for a children's hospital in Ottawa
has been before us for some time. It has
been kicked about by the department and the
Ontario hospital services commission for too
long.
I must apologize for the mayor of Ottawa
because it is only recently that he himself
has seen the need for such an institution.
It is not difficult to understand that the
mayor of Ottawa has difficulty in absorbing
presentations regarding many of the needs
of the capital city. You see he owes his
position to the former controller and MP,
Lloyd Francis. Lloyd Francis allowed him
to become mayor if he would turn his coat
in the 1963 federal election. He did so and
consequently Lloyd Francis became the mem-
ber in the riding of Carleton. As a matter
of fact, the first Liberal ever elected in that
riding thought because of this the mayor of
Ottawa owes his very existence and a great
debt to the former member, Lloyd Francis.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): He did
not turn his coat though.
Mr. Yakabuski: He might just as well have.
Mr. Racine: But he did not.
Mr. Yakabuski: We do not want him any
more.
Lloyd Francis was so busy trying to retain
the riding of Carleton and stave off the
successful attacks of Dick Bell that he had
no time to make the balls for the mayor of
Ottawa to pitch. Consequently, little has
been done about this problem until recently,
until Lloyd Francis was ousted by a very
good friend, Dick Bell, and now has time to
make the balls for the Ottawa mayor to pitch.
I only say these things to bring hon. mem-
bers up to date in the situation, to explain
why there has been no great effort previously
by the mayor in the city of Ottawa to obtain
the hospital that we are requesting. But
Ottawa and eastern Ontario need the chil-
dren's hospital that we have requested, and
because they may have a dense mayor is no
reason why the city and all eastern Ontario
should suffer.
Therefore I say to the hon. Minister: Sit
down with this delegation from Ottawa, dis-
cuss the problem and grant them the request
that they and all eastern Ontario are asking.
In summarizing my remarks I would state
we have made, or are making, some progress
in eastern Ontario. That progress is not rapid
enough. If the federal government in Ottawa
reneges in its duties to that part of the prov-
ince surely this government will not; and that
is why I call for a co-ordinated effort by
every department of this government to bring
eastern Ontario up to a standard par with the
other sections of our province.
I am not going to talk about the Metro
monster today, but I will some time later in
the proceedings of this House. We know
what the needs of eastern Ontario are. We
have known them for some time and this is
the third session that I have brought some of
these matters to the attention of this House
and the province. I am getting a little tired
of people in the federal department talking
about our needs in eastern Ontario, the needs
of the family farm in eastern Ontario and
eastern Canada. We all know what the needs
are. Many of us had suggestions regarding
their solution. I think it is high time that
these departments and their Ministers stopped
talking about what the needs are, and started
formulating plans to overcome the deficiences
that exist in that part of our province and
country.
I want at this time to congratulate the Hon.
J. J. Green, who last December was appointed
to the position of federal Minister of Agri-
culture. I said the right thing that time, did
I not? Joe Green happens to represent, at
least for the time being, the same riding as I
do. I want to wish him every success. I
know he will work hard to improve the lot of
the farmer in eastern Ontario and eastern
Canada. I extend to him my offer of whole-
hearted co-operation in every effort that he
may make to lift up the standards of the
people whom he and I represent.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
755
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, may
I add my congratulations to the many other
tributes you have received concerning your
office and the manner in which you carry out
your duties of controlling the debates of this
House.
I would like at this time to express again
my thanks to the people of the district of
Nipissing in electing me to represent them in
this Legislature, and to thank the hon. mem-
bers from both sides of the House for the
most courteous reception they have given to
me as well as the help they have offered me
as a new member.
Because you have heard on many occasions
and at some length from my predecessor
about the beauty and the potential of the dis-
trict of Nipissing, I will dispense with the
custom of describing my riding. I would,
however, like to read in part from an edi-
torial which appeared in the North Bay
Nugget at the time of Mr. Troy's death.
Suddenly this morning the entire North
Bay district and all of northern Ontario for
that matter was plunged into the deepest
kind of grief by the death of a man among
men. Educationist, soldier, athlete and
coach, legislator, a man of great courage
and stamina, a fighter at all times for his
principles, a devoted churchman and in all
things a gentleman to the core.
The editorial continues a little further on:
As a young man he was a star football
player and boxer and though of slight
stature he never backed away from oppo-
nents of much greater size. And he never
backed away from anybody during the rest
of his life.
Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes I
would like to bring to the attention of the
Legislature some of the problems I believe to
be of importance primarily to the people of
my area which are applicable to other areas
in the whole province.
Tourism is the major industry in the dis-
trict of Nipissing as it is in many other areas
of Ontario. It accounts for a gross figure of
just less than $12 million in our district. Over
$4.5 million in American funds were cleared
through the local chartered banks in 1964.
The industry has depended upon the forests
and the lakes of the area as well as the fish
and the wildlife available.
Tourism industry growth, however, has not
been keeping pace with the rest of Ontario
and Canada. According to the economic
council, the province as a whole is enjoying
a smaller percentage of the American tourist
dollar each year. This standstill in the growth
of the industry in our area, I submit, Mr.
Speaker, is the result of three main factors.
First, the lack of tourist promotion by the
provincial government and the lack of co-
ordination of the different groups in the
departments of government responsible for
this promotion. Ontario, Canada's richest
province, ranks seventh of our ten provinces
in expended tourist promotion dollars as a
percentage of total expenditures, and ranks
eighth in expended travel promotion dollars
per capita.
Regional tourist promotion should be
initiated by the government in conjunction
with local regional associations. Each region
should be supported financially to produce
its own promotional programme.
The second reason for the lack of growth
is the scarcity of capital available to tourist
operators, at a reasonable rate, to improve
their present facilities or to build additional
and more modern units. Interest charged to
the operators has been in excess of 20 per
cent in some cases and rates of 10 or 12 per
cent are commonplace. It is to be hoped
that the Ontario development association,
which according to the Throne speech will
be established during this session, will assist
by including the tourist business within the
category of small business to receive gov-
ernmental financing at a reasonable rate.
The third reason, Mr. Speaker, is the lack
of development of historical sites and other
attractions to hold the interest of the tourists
in the area for a few extra days or to attract
them in the first place. Local groups in the
Nipissing area are now making moves to
establish a replica of Fort Laronde in its
historical site and there is a move to estab-
lish the old Dionne home at Callander as a
local museum. This type of project should
receive provincial help in its setup and in its
financial projects. Local museum grants for
the conservation and reconstruction of his-
toric structures should be increased as recom-
mended by the economic council.
According to the valuation of the eco-
nomic council each increase of $2,100 in
direct tourist expenditure per annum appears
to create one new year-round job in the
province. The direct tourist expenditure in
the Nipissing tourist region is just over $12
million. Therefore it should create 5,700
year-round jobs in Nipissing. Obviously,
since the Nipissing area is underdeveloped
industrially and has a high rate of imported
goods, most of these jobs are not created in
our area but rather in the more industrially
developed parts of the province. This is an
economic condition which exists throughout
756
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the north and among many other parts of
the province that are dependent upon the
tourist industry for their economic stability.
In our province the first legislation em-
bodying the right to education for all was
The School Improvement Act of 1871. Now,
some 95 years later, we have not yet
achieved in practice, what has been recog-
nized as the right of each citizen for nearly
a century. Equal opportunity does not yet
exist across our province. In the rural and
remote areas, such as many in northeastern
Ontario, because of distances and lack of
finances, facilities are not as readily available
as they are in the urban and metropolitan
areas. Formal learning and education have
become an economic necessity in all parts of
the province. The educational achievements
of the people in northeastern Ontario do not
compare with the provincial average because
the right to education has been denied them
by these reasons of finance and distance.
The provincial average of population with
less than five years elementary school edu-
cation is 6.1 per cent, whereas eastern On-
tario has 10.8 per cent of its people in this
category. The provincial average of people
with four or five years secondary school edu-
cation is 17.5 per cent; 14.4 is the percent-
age in northeastern Ontario. Across the
province, 6.2 per cent of the people have
some university training or a degree; in
northeastern Ontario only 3.9 per cent are
in this group, just over one half the provin-
cial average. If present conditions are to
improve, it is imperative that this govern-
ment assume a greater proportion of the
educational costs at the three levels, or de-
vise a better method of support to local
boards which would more realistically take
into consideration the conditions which exist
in different areas and under different
systems.
In northeastern Ontario, examples of cost
which provide unequal opportunities are
quickly apparent: lower per capita property
assessment coupled with higher costs such
as teachers' salary schedules, which are in
some cases $1,000 higher than the Toronto
area schedules. Recently some northern
boards were forced to pay large displacement
allowances to attract teachers. Not enough
cognizance of these facts is taken when the
department sets its grant schedules and as a
result taxpayers pay higher municipal rates
in these areas.
Student transportation in our area is an-
other concern which causes inequality of
opportunity. One community in Nipissing
supports an elementary school with over 80
pupils but no transportation is provided for
graduates to attend secondary schools located
30 miles away. After grade 8 the drop-out
is more common than the child who con-
tinues to secondary school. In another size-
able community which supports two
elementary schools, those students who
attend secondary school are forced to spend
three hours per day in buses. These children
do not have an equal opportunity. Only
the exceptional student is able to obtain
passing marks and these few quickly become
discouraged.
The department last year made it per-
missive for boards to provide up to $3 per
day for room and board of students attending
secondary schools in lieu of bus transporta-
tion. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this
be made available on the request of parents
and that full payment be made by the depart-
ment either to the board or the parent at the
time the expenditure is made. Many boards
could not use the present opportunity because
they are unable to finance the cost while
awaiting the departmental grants.
At the post-secondary school level north-
eastern Ontario was void of opportunity up
until a few years ago when Laurentian Uni-
versity was established. At that time the
Nipissing area was denied a university charter
even though it could have served a wider
area from the standpoint of location. At the
present time a submission is being prepared
for the board of regents recently established
to select locations for the new so-called
community colleges. This type of education is
sorely needed in northeastern Ontario if
equality of opportunity is to be available
and if our area is to have a pool of trained
people to attract much needed secondary
industry.
In the field of agriculture the Speech from
the Throne has outlined some help for
northern Ontario but it is more general than
specific. The farmers of both east and west
Nipissing have suffered two non-crop years
in a row. The drought and rain subsidy made
available this year has been a small help to
a large problem.
The fact that no aid was given to cash crop
farmers has created great hardships for many
people. The attitude of this government in
this matter has been one of entrenchment
regardless of the need or the problem. The
discontinuance of government-guaranteed
bank loans this year has partially defeated the
purpose of the drought and rain subsidies.
The establishment of a marketing board for
the sale of bush lot pulp products would be
of assistance to the small farmer who depends
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
757
on his bush lot to carry him over the winter
months. Supply and demand have not set
pulp prices, but rather the buyer unilaterally
sets the price and the vendor is forced to
accept.
The health services provided in Ontario
at the present time do not meet the needs
of all the people. For many the debate we
have witnessed in this House over the past
two weeks on Medicare, Bill No. 6, is mean-
ingless. Regardless of its coverage, doctors
and related practitioners are not available to
provide the services now required. Just as
some areas of the province are presently
benefiting from an economic boom and in-
dustrial expansion, other areas are stagnant.
Medical services are available in the booming
areas and unavailable in many of the stagnant
areas.
One community, sir, in the district of
Nipissing, serving a population of over 5,000
people, is provided with no dental service and
only two medical practitioners, both of whom
are unable to practise full time because of
health reasons. A good, well-run hospital is
available but operates far below capacity be-
cause there are no doctors to admit patients.
The hon. member for London South (Mr.
White) has attempted to place the blame for
the shortage of medical practitioners at the
feet of the profession, but surely this gov-
ernment must accept some of the responsi-
bility when in spite of the many warnings
they did not push ahead with medical educa-
tional facilities.
I believe that a provincial medical and
dental unit should be established to provide
emergency services to areas suffering acute
urgent needs. The Department of Health, in
co-operation with the OMA and the provin-
cial dental association, could establish such a
unit to be available at the request of the
area concerned provided conditions of need
were established. The costs of administration
to the province would be small and a parallel
method of payment to that in general use
could be set up if medical insurance carriers
were billed directly by the doctor who would
practise in the area for only a limited time.
This could never replace the permanent
settlement of practitioners, but it could pro-
vide emergency service to people who have
a right to such service especially if they are
to pay a premium to the government.
"We have never had it so good," has be-
come a common expression. Yet in the past
few years more and more people are becom-
ing aware that our expanding economy has
not brought improvements to living standards
to all in equal measure. A growing section
of the population in certain areas of this
province are getting a less proportionate
share of the wealth. The people of north-
eastern Ontario on the whole are a part
of that segment which is falling behind at a
rapid rate.
The industrial expansion of the Golden
Horseshoe and other parts of southern Ontario
is clamouring for people to accept employ-
ment. The North Bay area, however, in the
past two years has suffered a drop in popu-
lation of nearly 800 people. Opportunity for
employment has not been made available and
our skilled tradesmen have moved to the
more fertile labour markets of the south
where wages are sometimes double and in-
dustry is waiting with open arms.
The economic and industrial expansion of
the province is contained mainly in one area
at the expense of the rest of the province.
This condition exists, Mr. Speaker, because
of the lack of initiative on the part of this
government to face the problem.
A regional economic development plan is
non-existent in the province. There are nine
associations such as the northeastern develop-
ment association but these are proving in-
effective, serving mainly for the purposes of
public relations of this government.
The hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment (Mr. Randall) has said: "We must
admit that it is not unanimously agreed that
the regional development associations have
been entirely effective."
Only 41 of the 131 municipalities in north-
eastern Ontario belong to the association and
these 41 municipalities account for only 40
per cent of the population. The association
covers an area of 104,650 square miles with
a population of over 500,000 people. The
provincial government's aid amounts to a
palfry $15,000. The paid directors spend
a good part of their time persuading munici-
palities to remain members and arranging
regional meetings at which Ministers of
this government are guest speakers. Some
contributing municipalities are now assessing
the value and are giving consideration to
withdrawal from the assocation. It is neces-
sary that this government take bold steps
quickly. Areas of economic development must
be redefined across the province and each
department of government must set up its
regional departments to coincide with the
development areas.
The departments of government which
directly or indirectly affect economic develop-
ment should pool their efforts rather than
each going off in its own direction, sometimes
even in opposite directions.
I would remind the hon. Prime Minister
758
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(Mr. Robarts) of a statement he made on two
occasions in our area:
—that a regional economic development
programme for northeastern Ontario and
other areas of the province would be pre-
sented to the Legislature during this
session.
I hope that the hon. Prime Minister's recent
announcement in Sudbury of planned tours in
northern Ontario for Canadian and American
industrialists and financiers is not the eco-
nomic development he was referring to. The
development of the north has been talked
right into the ground; the people are tired of
promises. Even strong supporters of this gov-
ernment are becoming vocal in their objec-
tions. The North Bay Nugget had this to say
in a recent editorial:
Perhaps there has been too much lip
service paid to the north and not enough
practical application of programmes for its
benefit.
The proposed programme of the hon.
Prime Minister should first take into consid-
eration the need for a complete economic
analysis of the resources and potential of the
area. Large amounts of federal assistance
would be available through ARDA if the
potential of that programme was taken ad-
vantage of by this government just as Quebec
has done.
The economy of northern Ontario has been
dependent upon the natural resources of min-
erals, forests and those attributes of nature
which attract the tourist These resources
have poured millions of dollars into the pro-
vincial coffers. The mining tax and stumpage
are special taxes of this government, over and
above those that affect everyone. The large
portion of the income from these taxes is
from northern Ontario. But the moneys have
not been returned to the north. The north
has been an exploited colony for raw
materials long enough. It is time that this
government, as well as the federal authorities
gave some aid to the establishment of sec-
ondary industry in the area.
Beside the economic studies I mentioned
previously, a method of freight rate subsidies
should be established for manufacturers in
the north to reach the southern markets at a
competitive price. This concept is not new.
Freight rate subsidies have been used for
years in the Maritime regions to help to de-
velop their secondary industry. Could it not
be applied on a smaller scale to regions in
Ontario, with provincial government assist-
ance?
In the past 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker, I
have tried to point out some of the problems
that affect my district and the north. Many
of these same problems exist in other regions
of the province not adjacent to the large
metropolitan areas of the Golden Horseshoe.
I should hope that the other hon. members
of this House from northern Ontario share
my view and that they will help to bring this
government to realize its obligations. Espe-
cially do I wish those hon. members of the
Cabinet from my area to give consideration
to the problems existing in their own back-
yards.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker, in
the 30 seconds that are left before the hour
of five o'clock, may I congratulate the new
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Smith) upon
his maiden speech and then move the ad-
journment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
7, by Mr. Worton,
Resolved,
That discussions be initiated with the
federal government to institute changes in
the laws of divorce for the province of On-
tario to alleviate the hardships at present
caused by such matters as the deserted
wife, the difficulties caused on certain
occasions by the law of domicile, long-term
imprisonment, confinement to mental insti-
tutions, and related matters.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr.
Nixon), resolution No. 7 standing in my name
which has just been read.
Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in support
of this resolution, I am hopeful that this day
will be a historic one for the province of
Ontario. I am hopeful that this House will
be permitted to engage in full debate, a free
vote on the issue of divorce reform and that
machinery will be set in motion to correct an
unjust and inhumane law.
My position and the position of my party
on this important matter was placed before
you in June last year, so I do not wish to
take the time of this House in reviewing the
historical evolution of divorce legislation in
the United Kingdom and in Canada. How-
ever, I do wish to re-emphasize the distinc-
tion we make between a religious marriage
and a legal marriage. When we speak in this
House of dissolving a marriage, we refer only
to legal marriage and to the civil rights aris-
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
759
ing out of this kind of marriage. We have
no right, nor has any court the right to inter-
fere with the marriage in the religious sense.
In fact, religious leaders themselves have
urged the adoption of divorce reform and I
point to a statement by Richard, Cardinal
Cushing of Boston, in which he says:
Catholics do not need the support of
civil law to be faithful to their own re-
ligious convictions and they do not seek
to impose by law their moral values on
other members of society.
It was suggested last year by the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) that divorce is a
federal responsibility, that reform must be
originated in Ottawa. I wish to stress again,
sir, that this is simply not so. The Divorce
Act, Ontario, which was passed by the federal
Parliament in 1930, will be amended only
after consultation with the province of On-
tario and I suggest that the weight of the
voice of this Legislature is sufficient to cause
that reform.
Tradition and practice have made the mat-
ter of divorce a provincial concern which in
view of the variations of divorce legislation
from province to province across Canada,
must be changed only by the recommenda-
tion of the province affected.
We cannot permit by inaction in this
House, federal legislators to take upon them-
selves the responsibility for initiating changes
to a law which will affect only this province.
So it is the members of this House who
must determine the proper reform for
effective legislation in this field. The present
law recognizes only two grounds for divorce,
adultery on the part of the husband, sodomy
or bestiality, and it has resulted in subter-
fuge and perjury; it has bred contrived
adultery making mockery of our laws and it
has caused incalculable human misery and
suffering. Thousands of young women are
living alone with young children, unable to
find a productive and useful role for them-
selves because they are unwilling to, or
could not afford to, deliberately flout the
law in order to dissolve a marriage which
exists in name only.
Thousands of young men refusing to take
this step have jeopardized their entire busi-
ness career. Hundreds of thousands of men
and women in Canada are living together as
man and wife in violation of their own
religious conscience because they face a
legal bar to marriage. Thus, a law which
was designed to strengthen and preserve the
legal institution of marriage is, in fact,
destroying the institution of marriage.
Since I and my party raised the issue in
the Legislature last year, there has been
much public and private discussion in
support of our stand. I am certain that hon.
members of this House are well acquainted
with the editorial comments in newspapers
throughout this province and the statements
of public and religious leaders in favour of
divorce reform. I do not wish to take the
time of this House in repeating them here
today. However, I would like to read into
the record, the comments of people who
have written to me to offer me their support.
I have received, literally, hundreds of letters
from men and women all across Canada, and
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is
from a minister of a church in my own
riding. He says:
Dear Mr. Worton:
There is a great need to free those who
are bound to an impossible situation. I
have felt, sir, that absolute desertion,
chronic alcoholism and perpetual cruelty
and neglect, should be grounds for
divorce.
Now this appears, perhaps, too liberal
from a minister. However, I have had so
many years of experience in and out of
courts I am convinced that legislation to
help these people would be a wonderful
thing.
Under the present law, a woman who is
deserted by her husband cannot receive
her allowance if she admits to knowing
his whereabouts. If she does, she is
immediately thrown back on direct relief
and this setup is archaic and cruel.
A Scarborough woman who has written to
me says:
From personal experience, I can tell you
there are self-styled detectives who collect
money for services from people desiring
divorce when they, the detectives, never
attempt to be on the job, and who is to
know. It is a disaster that this can happen
in such a rich and civilized province such
as ours.
Today I feel that my son who is now
13, would have been that much better
prepared for life had I the stamina and
legal assistance to obtain a divorce when
he was an infant. Because of propriety
I tried to face a bad situation for eight
years.
This letter, Mr. Speaker, is from Toronto:
I believe this is a matter that the church
must face and look at more realistically
along with our Legislatures whose respon-
sibility it is to change the laws of our
760
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
land to awaken the conscience of the
church, facts and figures will be required.
If you can provide me with this pertinent
information, I would be pleased to do
what I can with my own congregation
and denomination to obtain support for
your efforts in Parliament.
It is signed by a minister of the church in
Toronto.
I might add that a high percentage of the
correspondence deplored the fact that this
same resolution failed to come to a vote in
this assembly last year. The government of
Manitoba has permitted full debate and a
free vote on divorce reform resolutions for
several years. I regret that the lion. Prime
Minister did not see fit to have this Legis-
lature add its voice to the call for a change
in our archaic laws. I am certain the respon-
sibility for a year of misery and suffering
among tens of thousands of Ontario residents
does not rest lightly on his shoulders, and I
plead with him to permit it without further
delay.
In Ontario, we have not yet advanced to
the point of reform reached in the United
Kingdom half a century ago, when the
Gorrell commission recommended grounds
for divorce to be extended to include wilful
desertion for three years and upwards,
cruelty and incurable insanity after five years,
habitual drunkenness after three years, and
imprisonment under a commuted death sen-
tence. To delay a vote on this resolution
another year would leave this Legislature
guilty not only of prolonging human misery,
but of forcing thousands upon thousands of
men and women, hopelessly trapped by bad
law, to continue to lean on the state for
their livelihood. Today, Mr. Speaker, we
can provide at least some hope for these men
and women and, what is more important, for
their children, whose lives are put in serious
jeopardy by the severe emotional upheaval
caused by the separation of their parents.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton): Mr. Speaker, this
is the second consecutive year that a resolu-
tion dealing with divorce has been placed on
the order paper by the hon. member for
Wellington South. Most of the speakers last
year supported the principle of the resolution
and I wish to do the same now.
It is safe to say that every member of the
legal profession in Ontario would support
this resolution. Therefore, it should naturally
follow that every lawyer in this House should
feel the same way. At a meeting of the On-
tario Bar association held this month, the
association suggested at least three new
grounds for divorce in this province. I think
it is also safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that the
overwhelming majority of people in this prov-
ince favour changes in our divorce laws.
Having said this, why the delay? I hope
we are not going to talk this resolution out
again this year. Anyone whose profession or
work involves marital and domestic prob-
lems is aware of the hardship and mental
anguish created by archaic divorce laws.
The present law is responsible for many
social ills, such as unnecessary common law
unions, with the stigma of illegitimacy for
the children involved. Desertion and mental
illness are other examples in this realm.
Further, men and women are forced to
remain in a marital captivity where love
and hope no longer exist and neither one
is keeping the vows of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the
premise that the introduction of a resolution
by a private member of the Opposition is
necessarily bad. Certainly no amendment
to this resolution is required. This resolution
is broad enough and, indeed, innocuous
enough for everyone in this House to support.
Everything that could be said on this subject
has been said. By supporting this resolution
we are not undermining the moral fibre of
our society; Ontario will not become another
Nevada or Mexico in divorce litigation. The
resolution does not recommend broad or
unacceptable grounds for divorce.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the word in-
compatibility is not mentioned anywhere at
all. It would be interesting to interview
some of the social and welfare workers in
this province, and to hear their stories of
families affected by desertion, long-term im-
prisonment or mental illness, particularly
where there are young children. In many
of these cases, reform of our divorce laws
would help. Many of the groups and associ-
ations which we consider reflect our consci-
ence, such as women's institutes, service
clubs, labour unions, clergy, and judiciary
have advocated the need for divorce reform.
I envisage representatives from these groups
taking an important— indeed, the main— role
in recommending changes. We cannot de-
pend on the federal government to initiate
discussions to make changes in the law for
Ontario. Federal governments, past and pres-
ent, have successfully avoided all attempts
up to now to deal properly with this matter.
All the hon. members will remember the
three-ring circus which used to take place
each year in the Commons when dealing with
divorces from Quebec and Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, by supporting this resolution
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
761
we are taking a step in eliminating dishonesty
and hypocrisy, degrading setups involving
co-respondents in order to obtain evidence
that does not and should not have to exist.
Above all, we are probably helping to stop
the signing of false affidavits and declarations,
sometimes completed by honest but desper-
ate people. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this
resolution will be approved by the hon. mem-
bers of this House before adjournment.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to add my voice and the
support of this party in the Legislature to
the arguments that have been made by hon.
members of other parties. We concur in
what has been said today, and, of course,
concur in almost all of what was said on
this precise subject last year. We cannot
but agree with the arguments. I therefore,
have five short observations to offer on this
topic, and then, as the others, take my seat
in the hope that this debate can be drawn
to a vote.
First we have made, Mr. Speaker, all the
valid distinctions there are to be made be-
tween the religious sacrament and the civil
ceremony. We pointed out that adultery, as
the primary grounds for divorce in this prov-
ince, leads to acts of moral and self-destruc-
tive desperation. We have agreed that com-
promised and untenable common law rela-
tionships are forged as a result of the present
law, and we respect the fact that it is a
law for the rich— a class law, in nature—
which discriminates against large numbers
of underprivileged people.
Second, Mr. Speaker, we assert that this
is a legitimate subject for discussion in a
provincial Legislature, and so strongly sup-
port the resolution. Partly, of course, because
there are varying components to the divorce
laws in legislatures across this land, differing
in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI from
Ontario. Partly because of the power of
Dominion-provincial conferences to decide
precisely if this kind of issue is accepted
public policy. And finally, because we simply
have to give power to the Attorney General,
through this Legislature, to exercise his voice
when this issue is discussed at such a con-
ference of co-operative federalism.
Third, Mr. Speaker, what is really baffling
to this group in the House, is what exactly
we are waiting for, and in that I have to
echo the words of the hon. member for
Halton.
After all, the refusal of this Legislature
to act consigns, I suggest, thousands of
people to endless frustration and despair
for no discernible reason. Or perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, there is one. I suspect that the
reason is inherent in the subject-matter
itself, for this resolution comes within that
field of social and religious controversy which
always tends to paralyze governmental action.
It is an appreciation that action of any kind,
however necessary or justifiable, is bound
to offend some groups and this tends to pro-
duce in government— this Legislature— a high
moment, I would almost say a poetic moment,
of inertia.
Where religious minorities are concerned,
Mr. Speaker, or where the subject has sexual
associations, as some resolutions on the order
paper have, this timidity, this inertia, is in-
tensified. And that is what has happened to
this government, and that is what has hap-
pened to this debate. I suggest that without
being unnecessarily provocative we are col-
laborating in despair at the legislative
level. The hon. member for Wellington South
has put it all too effectively.
The fourth point, Mr. Speaker, is that we
have to emphasize, once again, the social
consequences. We discussed last year the
legal niceties, the historical framework and
the statistics of people involved. We esti-
mated the dollar and cent factor.
But I suggest to you that the social conse-
quences of this archaic law are potentially
inflammable. All the interrelated disciplines
interested in this field, all the leading child-
care people, all those who have involved
themselves in world health organization
analysis of comparative legislation, agree that
our kind of rigid and restrictive divorce laws
results in the battered-baby syndrome, in
increased admission to mental-health clinics
and hospitals, in excessive degrees of disturb-
ance and under-achievement in schools; and
in higher levels of' delinquency. Whatever
studies have been made show a direct corre-
lation between the effects of this law and that
kind of deleterious social pattern.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I make the last
point, and support the speakers who have
come before. We object, and in a personal
sense bitterly object, to the refusal on the
part of the government to allow a vote to be
taken.
I suggest to you, sir, that it is an act of
political reprehensibility of the first order,
because there is, in fact, a consensus in this
Legislature. When there is such a consensus
it should be measured and recorded in the
Hansard of this House.
Let it be said that we are not even voting
on these resolutions as to precise wording.
Let us take the argument made by the hon.
762
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Prime Minister when we had the hate litera-
ture resolution before us. He indicated that
the precise words were not what we were
voting for; we were voting for the sense of
the resolution, and that is why we supported
it unanimously in this House. If we are, in
fact, voting for the sense of the resolution,
then surely it is possible to effect a vote in
this House and to see the members stand in
the confidence that on this social issue there
is a strong powerful majority consensus.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we have sentiments
expressed which are poetic in their nobility;
the legislators all emerge as honourable men;
there is a sort of public catharsis to make up
for pinpointing this issue and another year
lapses and the situation is allowed to con-
tinue.
There is no reason, Mr. Speaker. There is
no justification. There is no logic. There is
no excuse. I suggest that the majority of all
parties would like to see a vote called at the
end of this debate. Since most of us support
this resolution, such a vote should be called
and the initiative given to this province so
that we can show the lead rather than merely
follow in such an area of important social
policy.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, some years ago, perhaps 30-odd, in
the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there
was a gentleman named A. P. Herbert who
sat at that time as a member for one of the
university seats— I believe it was the Univer-
sity of Oxford. In the Parliament of the
United Kingdom at that time they had a
system somewhat unique which is now aban-
doned, wherein graduates from their universi-
ties had an extra vote and could elect their
own members to the House of Commons.
Among those members sent to the House of
Commons in England was Sir Alan P.
Herbert.
He sat under no party banner, he sat as
an independent member of the House of Com-
mons in the United Kingdom. One of the
tasks that he early set himself to was the
task of divorce reform and he produced a
series of books, amongst them the book "Holy
Deadlock." There were several others, deal-
ing in a humorous way, an educated way and
a most convincing manner, with the whole
problem of the divorce laws in England.
Single-handedly this independent member of
the House of Commons was able to bring
about the divorce reform that the previous
speakers who have spoken this afternoon—
the hon. member for Wellington South, the
hon. member for Halton, and the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West— have been talking
about.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no university
seats in the Ontario Legislature, nor, it is
obvious, do we need an independent member
to put forward ideas that are going to meet
with the acceptance of all of the mem-
bers of the House. We have had the views
expressed from members of the three parties
represented here. These views are unique
in that they are unanimous. The debate took
place last year in the same tone and in the
same manner. I say to you, sir, what more
is needed? How much more urging must
there be to bring about this reform that is
at least 50 years out of date now in the
province of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Wel-
lington South mentioned what happened in
the province of Manitoba. I have a little more
detail on that and I think it is of some salu-
tary assistance just to read some of the in-
formation I have received from a gentleman
named Thomas P. Hillhouse, who is the hon.
member for Selkirk in the Manitoba Legisla-
ture. He advises me that on April 9, 1965,
a resolution was put before the Manitoba
Legislature. He advises me that this is the
form of the resolution:
Resolved that this legislative assembly
recommend to the government of Canada
that the dissolution of marriage may be
claimed by either husband or wife on the
grounds that the respondent (1) since the
celebration of the marriage committed
adultery; or (2) has deserted the petitioner
without cause for a period of at least three
years; or (3) has, since the celebration of
the marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty; or (4) is incurably of unsound
mind and has been continuously under
care and treatment for a period of at
least five years; or (5) has, where the wife
is the petitioner, been guilty, since the
celebration of the marriage, of rape,
sodomy or bestiality; or (6) has been
legally separated from the petitioner for
at least three years by virtue of a judg-
ment of the court of superior jurisdiction
on the grounds of which an order of
separation can be made under The Matri-
monial Cause Act, 1857, Imperial, and
amendments thereto; and (7) any married
person who alleges that reasonable
grounds exist for supposing that his or her
spouse is dead may present a petition to
the court to have it presumed that the said
spouse is dead, and to have the marriage
dissolved, and that for a period of such
proceedings, the fact that for a period of
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
763
seven years or upwards the other party to
the marriage has been continuously absent
from the petitioner and the petitioner has
no reason to believe that the other party
has been living within that time, shall be
admissible in evidence as prima facie
proof that the other party is dead.
The interesting fact, sir, is that this vote was
a free vote of the Manitoba Legislature. All
the party whips were removed and each
member was allowed by his own leader to
vote as his conscience was his guide. The
vote was carried by 43 to 9 and there were
almost all the members of the House present
on that occasion. Included among those
members of the Manitoba Legislature who
voted for this resolution was Mr. Roblin, the
premier of that province.
Surely, sir, the same sort of pattern or
precedence could and should be followed by
this Legislature. Our divorce laws are gov-
erned by a federal statute Divorce Act, On-
tario, of 1930. That statute is there with the
knowledge, consent, acquiescence, and
approval of this Legislature and it can be
taken away with the knowledge, consent,
acquiescence and direction of this Legisla-
ture. I am certain, sir, that no federal gov-
ernment would resist the earnest request, the
unanimous resolution or near unanimous
resolution of this Legislature to change that
statute in a more suitable way.
There is no point, sir, in outlining or
detailing the hardships that go with our
present laws, the tragedy of the law of
domicile where a wife must pursue her
husband through many, many jurisdictions
on occasion to get some satisfaction out of
our laws. The hon. member for Scarborough
West said the fact is that we have a law
for the rich and a law for the poor in this—
the great tragedies that are visited on families
by reason of common law unions, and all the
chaos, unhappiness, difficulty that exist in
homes where this type of union is the only
answer.
The difficulties in even getting before our
courts, sir, something as elementary as this,
is another barrier. In British Columbia they
passed a statute transferring the respon-
sibility for dealing with divorces from
supreme court judges to county court judges.
Such a step had not even occurred to this
government until this moment.
It would seem to me, sir, that we would be
taking a very advanced step in the social
legislation of this province if there were to
be a vote on this very important matter, and
if the government not only allowed it but
asked for it and encouraged it. I say, sir,
in common with the other members who
have spoken before me, that this is one of
the most serious subjects that this Legislature
has ever dealt with. It is my urgent plea
that this matter be allowed to go to a vote
this afternoon. I have no doubt about what
the result of the vote will be.
Mr. R. A. Eagleson (Lakeshore): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to make my comments on
this resolution. I would point out that there
has been a great deal of comment recently
concerning divorce reform in our province.
As recently as last Saturday we had a com-
ment from a spokesman for the United
Church of Canada indicating that that body
was in favour of divorce reform and a
change in our present legislation. On
October 26, 1965, the Toronto association of
Baptist churches passed the following resolu-
tion and I quote:
Whereas we recognize that by law
divorce in Ontario is granted only on
grounds of adultery and that this has con-
tributed to the increasing number of so-
called common law marriages in the case
of some and the use of perjury in the case
of others;
And whereas we recognize that the
church has no right to impose its views
on divorce upon members of a free
society,
Therefore be it resolved that the
Toronto association of Baptist churches, in
affirming its stand on religious liberty and
the dignity and value of man, encourage
our premier and legislators to initiate dis-
cussions with the federal government and
to study a broader basis for divorce laws.
These two groups are obvious examples of
the concern and the consideration that has
been given to this topic by the general
public.
It would appear that there is no con-
sensus insofar as the Liberal Party across
Canada is concerned. We have had a lot
of criticism as to why our government did
not bring this matter to a vote last year, and
yet I see nothing in the records of the federal
Hansard indicating that the Liberal Party
federally has taken a stand on this topic.
I had the opportunity to speak for a few
moments last year on this subject, and I say
once again that the time is ripe and oppor-
tune for steps to be taken in this House.
I say that divorce should be resorted to
only in those situations where the marriage
relationship has completely broken down. I
764
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
do not say, by any stretch of the imagina-
tion, that because we make our divorce laws
in Canada any less stringent this will result
in an increasingly serious number of divorces.
On working from this premise that divorce
should only be granted in extreme cases, we
see that grounds such as cruelty and
desertion, which per se destroy the marriage
relationship itself, have been ignored in our
country. Yet one act of adultery which
may or may not break down the marriage
completely has been leaned upon in our
legislation as the only basis for divorce pro-
ceedings. Perhaps we should take a second
look at that particular aspect and decide
whether one isolated act of adultery should
constitute sufficient grounds.
In the English Matrimonial Causes Act of
1937 the following was the preamble, and I
quote:
Whereas it is expedient for the true
support of marriage, the protection of
children, the removal of hardship, the re-
duction of illicit unions and unseemly
litigation, the relief of conscience among
the clergy and the restoration of due
respect for the law, that the Acts relating
to law and divorce be amended.
These comments, dated in 1937 in the
English House, certainly apply here in
Canada and in Ontario today.
Canadian divorce laws are among the
narrowest and most restrictive in the world.
As a lawyer, I hate to say this, but they have
brought the law into disrespect in our prov-
ince. Many people come into my office, and
I am sure lawyers throughout Ontario will
echo these sentiments, who indicate that
they would like to get a divorce; is it
possible for me or someone I know to
arrange a third party, to be co-respondent?
Our law is in sad shape when the people of
this province have to resort to that and come
to a lawyer for that advice. We have seen
this; that is not one remote example. Some
five or six years ago we had obvious examples
of this which resulted in a considerable
amount of litigation, I might add, and a re-
flection on our own law society which, I
feel, took the proper steps in the circum-
stances.
One of the most thought-provoking areas
of divorce reform is that involving illegiti-
mate children. I wonder how many people
are aware that there are apparently 500,000
people living in Canada today in some illicit
union. It is a striking number when you
consider our small population. A major
reason for this is the high cost of divorce
and the difficulty in taking divorce proceed-
ings. The federal government, and we as
provincial legislators by not acting, are
responsible to the same illegitimate children.
We are depriving them of the rights to
which they are entitled as members of our
community. When a common law marriage,
to use the term that the newspapers seem to
love, results in illegitimate children being
born, we have examples of children who
have no rights per se under the law. There
are certain obligations; the father must bring
these children up and he has obligations.
The children's aid society will chase him for
a while, but if the father of these children
dies, leaving an estate, these children have
no claims to it if the father dies intestate.
This is a subject that we have got to con-
sider.
As was pointed out by the hon. member
for Scarborough West, the present legislation
makes divorce much more easy to obtain for
those who are in the wealthier groups. If a
woman is deserted by her husband in the
province of Ontario and the husband goes to
another jurisdiction, the woman is confronted
with a difficult problem. I think it is fair
to say that the minimum in Ontario for a
divorce, for legal fees and disbursements, is
approximately $500. If you have any cir-
cumstances beyond the ordinary in a divorce
proceeding— if you have the husband outside
the jurisdiction, in Mexico or anywhere other
than in the province of Ontario— the cost
becomes substantially higher. Then the
woman is put in a difficult position and I
suggest that we are putting her there. She
has this thrown in her lap by the lawyer; he
says: "Get me $500, $1,000 or $2,500 and
we will go along and process this action,
and we will proceed in California or
wherever it might be that the husband has
taken as his domicile."
Mr. Singer: It is all illegal, anyway.
Mr. Eagleson: Not necessarily. If the hus-
band has acquired a proper domicile— and I
am surprised that such a lawyer would ask
such a question— it is legal so long as he stays
there.
In any event, we find ourselves in the posi-
tion of directing this woman to the funds she
must pay. Then she must say to herself: "Am
I going to expend this amount of money, or
have I a greater duty to my children or my-
self for my future to keep those funds for
what might happen next?" The next thing, as
an obvious example, is that she falls in love
with some other chap and so we have more
illegitimate children. It is a sorry state of
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
765
affairs. In case there is any doubt in anyone's
mind as to whether the number of common
law marriages, as they are called, is as pre-
dominant as they say, and the fact that our
divorce laws have a bearing upon them, in a
recent study by the school of social work at
the University of Toronto, of 40 people
studied determining the reasons for their
common law relationship, 38 had a legal bar
to another marriage, basically, I say, as a
result of our legislation.
If I may digress and comment upon other
jurisdictions and their approach to this prob-
lem of divorce, the states of Australia and the
government of New Zealand permit divorce
for cruelty, attempt to murder or grievous
assault on a spouse, drunkenness, imprison-
ment, desertion and frequent convictions of
crime. European laws are much more liberal
than those in Canada. France, Holland, Den-
mark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland all
permit divorce for conviction of criminal
offences under varying circumstances, and
basically allow divorces for adultery, cruelty
and desertion. Attempt on a spouse's life is
ground for divorce in 11 European countries.
Mental cruelty and bodily injury are grounds
for divorce by statute in five European coun-
tries. And I am sure there is some wonder-
ment, as I said before, as to whether this
would result in an increasing amount of
divorces. I would mention Irvin Deroghi in
his book of 1955 entitled "Grounds for
divorce in European countries." He states at
page 46: "To assume that the liberalization of
the laws relating to divorce in Europe has led
to a weakening or shattering of marriage or
family life would be a fundamental confusion
of cause and effect. Marriages have already
been broken when spouses apply for divorce."
By the end of World War II the majority
of the United States had permitted divorce
for adultery, extreme cruelty, impotency, in-
capacity, desertion or abandonment. Insanity
is the cause in approximately half of those
states.
I notice in this afternoon's Toronto Daily
Star that the one exception in the United
States, the state of New York, presently has
before the Legislature a bill discussing the
matters of divorce reform. It goes through
the whole series of things that have happened
in New York. Their legislation, I think, dates
from 1787, yet the only ground in New York
is adultery. This, I suggest, from the com-
ments I have read and the people from New
York with whom I have spoken, indicates to
me that there is going to be a change in
New York. There was quite a furor last
December, I think it was, when the Roman
Catholic clergy indicated to all members of
the state Legislature that they should not
consider this bill, that they ought to give it
a great deal of thought and maybe move it
along for a while. Yet the Senator who was
proposing this bill in New York state took
the bull by the horns and said: "We are
running this state, and we as legislators are
responsible to the people of this state, and
we will leave the Roman Catholic church and
other clergymen to look after the problems
they have in conjunction with ours, but we
are not going to be dictated to on this point."
As a result, 10, 15 or 20 days ago there was
a degree of retreat by this same Roman
Catholic group. In fact, a lay clergy group
from the same church indicated its support
of the bill. In New York, as I say, they
grant divorce only for adultery; a judge once
commented that in states such as New York,
where they have adultery as a ground, they
in fact have two grounds— adultery and per-
jury. For those who do not want to commit
adultery, or who do not want to commit
perjury, there is no relief. This is the un-
fortunate situation that is apparent in our
country today.
In uncontested divorce cases in New York,
they have the same third-party problem, no
different than we have here, and yet New
York is supposed to be the most restricted
state. They have a very small number of
divorces, the reason for which is obvious.
The legislation is so restrictive that they all
go to other states and get divorces. Because
of the full faith and credit doctrine, they are
allowed to come back and live in New York.
It is a faulty approach, and I hope they are
going to remedy it in New York.
Many Central American and Southern
American countries have had liberal divorce
laws for years. Since 1888, Costa Rica has
permitted divorce for several causes, includ-
ing physical cruelty. In Costa Rica since that
date, they have had a judicial separation
which, after a period of two years, can be
taken before a judge who determines whether
divorce should be allowed on that ground
alone.
As we look at those other countries— Ecua-
dor, Peru, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela
—all have liberal divorce laws. With this
background, then, we come back to Ontario.
It is with a little bit of shame that we all
admit and recognize that the only legislation
we have dealing with divorce dates from
1930. In that year, the federal Parliament
passed The Divorce Act (Ontario), 1930
which brought into Ontario law the law in
force in England as of July 15, 1870. The
766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only reason I can determine for this particu-
lar date was the fact that the western prov-
inces' legislation bore the same terminology;
I suppose for that reason we were lumped
together. As it stands today, the western
provinces and Ontario are in the same boat,
with the same grounds for divorce.
Nova Scotia has the additional ground of
cruelty and consanguinity— too close a marri-
age, for those of you who are not aware of
it; that is for the benefit of the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). There is an addi-
tional problem we have in Ontario, that of
the domicile and court jurisdiction. The
Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1930 provided
that if a couple was domiciled in Ontario,
and the husband deserted, and if the wife
continued her domicile in Ontario for two
years, she could then apply for a divorce
in Ontario. But there are additional grounds
granted in England that we did not get in
1930 and should get. They are as follows: If
the wife was domiciled in Ontario before the
marriage and she never lived in the husband's
domicile, then the woman should be allowed
a cause of action in Ontario. Similarly, if the
wife is ordinarily a resident in Ontario for
a period of three years the Ontario courts
should have jurisdiction.
There is a further problem in the city of
Toronto with regard to divorce. We have a
backlog of 800 to 900 cases at the city hall
now, and each day there are more. As the
hon. member for Downsview pointed out,
the British Columbia Legislature has taken
the position that a county court judge, in
his capacity as a local judge under The
Judicature Act, can, in that capacity, carry
on the processes of a judge for divorce.
In that way they have managed to clean up
many problems they had. A supreme court
of Canada case recently indicated that this
was completely constitutional, so this is an-
other way we can help ourselves in Ontario.
In spite of that, whether we go that far
or not— and I would suggest we do— the least
we should do is always have some judge-
not necessarily the same judge— sitting on
divorces in Toronto. With a crash pro-
gramme, one could clean up that backlog
in four months, but unless you have some-
one sitting in the meantime you are going
to have the same 800 or 900 cases waiting.
If we put a judge in there permanently, the
assistant registrar, Mr. Shaughnessy, will not
be so upset when the lawyers give him
trouble and want to know why there is no
judge sitting. Sometimes the poor chap, and
I suggest he has one of the toughest jobs
in the city of Toronto, has to explain that he
does not know whether a judge is going to
sit that day, that week or that month, but
he can only hope. You do your best to get
your case on the list. Even after the trial
in Ontario there is a further delay, and it
is the sole responsibility of the province.
Rule 799 of regulation 396 of the Revised
Regulations of Ontario, being the rules of
practice and procedure in the supreme court
of Ontario, under The Judicature Act and
The Matrimonial Causes Act of Ontario, pro-
vides that every judgment for the dissolution
of marriage shall be a judgment nisi, not to
be made absolute until after three months.
I suggest there is no real reason for this three
months delay. The Queen's Proctor has the
opportunity to intervene if he so wishes, but
on very few cases does he do so. In addition,
some people say we should have this waiting
period so that if anything has happened, if
there is a possibility of reconciliation, then
that time should be allotted to the parties.
I say fine; that a three months period is
agreeable, but let the judge have the power
to reduce it in certain circumstances. Many
lawyers, I am sure, are aware that we have
cases that would avoid ultimate adoption
proceedings because a child is going to be
born or has been born any minute, and we
might as well legitimatize the child right at
that time. The judge can see from the facts
that there is no hope of reconciliation in some
cases; why not make the thing absolute right
then and there? It is an uncontested action,
the parties are agreed to it, and I say we
should do that.
I agree that many persons hold different
views, that their religious beliefs and other-
wise do not allow them to seek divorce. Yet
a majority of them, I suggest, are in favour
of reform along these lines. I would suggest
that we should have provision made for those
who no longer wish to live together, but can-
not avail themselves of a divorce because of
those beliefs. Judicial separation is permitted
in England and successive Royal commissions
have not changed that law, so presumably it
is filling quite a gap. This remedy was not
brought into Ontario in the 1930 Act; it is
now time to do so.
I had a letter from a constituent stating his
reasons for judicial separation as a layman.
He spelled it out more clearly than most of
us could. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to read therefrom:
Dear Mr. Eagleson:
There was quite a write-up recently in
the Star concerning divorce regulations in
New York state. Many people in these
modern days are mixed up in the social
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
767
problem of divorce— if not actual divorce,
then separation. As you are well aware,
separation is really a non-legal situation.
I guess I have got to state my own con-
dition, which is simply this. On wishing to
separate from my wife, she would not
enter into an agreement and would not
have her lawyer meet with mine to discuss
separation. Since it was my very considered
opinion, as well as the opinion of others
who were aware of the situation, that for
the sake of my two children and for the
good health of the two principals we should
be separated, I walked out of my home,
leaving no financial arrangements behind. I
was drawn into court for non-support and
the family court brought down a ruling
as to support. I would like to say that the
hearing was cruel and rough and even
dirty.
Aside from all the other causes for
divorce, one I did not hear mentioned, and
yet one which I feel is justified, would be
that a divorce should be allowed without
major evidence to any couple who have
been separated under the normal meaning
of the word "separation," or separated on
the basis that has been my case, for a period
of five years. There is very little likelihood
that the two married people are likely to
re-enjoin themselves in a happy home if
they have been separated for that period of
time. I would like to think that they should
be able to enjoy the privileges which come
from divorce.
Mr. Eagleson, I feel very strongly on
this point. If I have not made it clear, I
would appreciate your calling me and I
certainly think, for the sake of many people
involved, that this point as well as all other
good points should be pressed very hard.
Here is the tragedy of the whole letter and
why it is most important that we in this
House take a stand.
In fact, I have no hope whatsoever that
our divorce laws will be made more sen-
sible in my lifetime, but I do hope that
some progress will be made along more
reasonable lines. I feel that divorces are
very hard on many people and are some-
thing to be avoided, but there are cases
when the health of all parties involved,
particularly children, warrants the granting
of a divorce. I can assure you that my family
and my two children suffered for many
years under the situation which existed in
my home. Separation had a most gratifying
effect on their health and education. I
certainly feel blessed that my children have
grown up into responsible adulthood, in
spite of an unsatisfactory home situation.
The Canadian Bar association, Ontario
branch, recently passed a resolution, suggest-
ing that the grounds for divorce be expanded
in Ontario to include the following: (a)
adultery; (b) desertion without cause for at
least three years; (c) cruelty as understood by
Ontario law; (d) sodomy or bestiality; (e)
wilful refusal to consummate the marriage.
In addition, it was resolved that the
supreme court of Ontario should be allowed
jurisdiction for judicial separation.
Now, as one looks at the whole situation of
divorce reform, it is necessary to look with
greater detail into the prevention of divorce
and preservation of marriage. Because of our
addiction to the romances of life, it is unlikely
that we, as legislators, will propose the ulti-
mate solution to fewer divorces— that is, to
make marriage tougher. Even a month's wait,
in most circumstances, would probably cut
the divorce rate considerably, but education
in what to expect of marriage seems a more
likely solution.
Many experts are working to get courses in
marriage into the schools. Most engaged
Catholic couples now get premarital coun-
selling at pre-CANA conferences. Protestant
churches are increasingly offering some form
of premarital advice. Both offer talks by doc-
tors, clergymen and counsellors. In addition,
the new art of family therapy has made im-
pressive gains in analyzing the complex psy-
chological equation that creates marriages.
When frustration jars the equation, the par-
ties to the marriage become so upset and so
hostile, that they forget about the things that
have brought them together and worry more
about the things that have broken . them
apart.
Today, a skilled therapist can save many
marriages, or at least keep an inevitable
divorce from becoming too bitter. While in-
sisting, then, that divorce be a more rational
process, as suggested in the present resolu-
tion, I submit that many divorces that now
take place, can in fact be prevented.
One of the most effective, yet not too wide-
spread examples, is the conciliation court. In
18 states of the United States of America,
they have 36 courts, and psychologists, social
workers and marriage counsellors do their
best to keep people together by resolving
their problems with them. They try to get the
couple to communicate with each other again.
In Toronto, we have the example of the family
court system, and although these people are
doing their best under the conditions they
have, I feel the family court system is woe-
fully inadequate. We had a great deal of
discussion in the past year and a half before
768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Metro council about cutting down the funds
for the family court. I say this, that they can
do a good job, but in the present situation
and the way they are set up at the present
time, I feel that they cannot do an adequate
job.
It has come to the point now that some
Toronto lawyers will advise clients to forget
about the family court proceedings because it
is going to be too long, and many a day has
been spent with a lawyer and his client
standing in the lobbies of that building of
family and juvenile courts on Jarvis street.
Hours and hours and hours on end— there
seems to be no rhyme or reason to the time
lag, and yet I know that these people are
understaffed and overworked. But I do feel
that more direction should be given to the
matter of the family courts and that more
psychologists and counsellors be available at
specific times. At the present time, I often
have the feeling that the family court takes
the attitude that there is a war waging be-
tween the husband and the wife and the
local judge sitting on the case has to act as
arbitrator among the brickbats and stoning.
The time has come for a compassionate law
that would prevent divorce where it honour-
ably could be prevented; and when it could
not, leave an unhappy couple with a maxi-
mum of dignity and a minimum of bitterness.
Mr. Speaker, in all conscience I must ask
that this House vote on this resolution.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I am grateful
to my hon. friend from Lakeshore for leaving
me a couple of minutes. He speaks articu-
lately and with such emphasis and sincerity,
that I merely express the wish that we could
hear him more frequently on the questions
that exercise this House.
I am not going to add very much, save to
say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been
engaged in a good many divorce actions. I
never kept track of the numbers, but they
certainly reach a considerable quantity. I
have never learned how to prosecute a
divorce action from my principal of early
years, when I was articled as a law student
to Leo Landreville, that wise and kindly and
intelligent man.
I read in one of the slick magazines re-
cently that Mr. Landreville had one of the
largest divorce and criminal practices, that
magazine which looks upon itself as an
opinion-former said, in northern Ontario.
Well, the magazine was not very accurate
when it said that, because not only did Mr.
Justice Landreville, when he was at the Bar,
not have a large divorce practice; he never
took a divorce case in his life, nor did any of
the other members of the firm who practised
law with him and were of the same religious
persuasion. So it goes to show you, so to
speak, that you cannot always believe every-
thing you read in the papers.
In the practice of divorce there are many
ludicrous and degrading things. I never tackle
one without feeling a deep sense of personal
shame of being involved in the part of the
law that evinces so little respect from those
involved in it. I have time only to cite one
aspect which will underline precisely what I
am trying to say, and that is the doctrine of
condonation. At the end of the case, you ask
the spouse who is the petitioner, or you ask
the wife whether that spouse has forgiven
the other spouse for his or her adultery. They
do not always know what you mean by "for-
given," so you can put it another way that
suits the law and the courts. You can say,
"Have you told your spouse it is all right
to commit adultery with the co-defendant?"
And they say, "No, I have not." If they said
"yes," their application or petition would
meet a fatal end, in that it would be dis-
missed, but they always say "no." That doc-
trine of condonation is neither the Christian
doctrine of forgiveness— in the words of St.
Luke, "her sins which are many are for-
given," when Christ forgave the prostitute—
nor is it the lay doctrine of forgiveness, sum-
med up in the words, "To err is human, to
forgive divine." It is just that, that mechani-
cal question, "Have you told your spouse it
is all right to commit adultery?" In the
sense of, "everybody is doing it." It means
just about that, I said, and I am not attribut-
ing it to any person.
Another Englishman, Mr. Justice McCardy,
at the same time as Sir Alan Herbert— a judge
whom the academics granted as having been
a very erudite and a very competent judge
in the high court of justice, a bachelor, sir-
railed so much against the divorce laws that
his biographer says it drove him to such dis-
traction that he could no longer perform his
duties on the bench. He said about them one
time, "Our divorce laws are unworthy of the
civilization we claim to possess." And in-
deed they are. All the opinion of this coun-
try is congealed. My friend cites the United
Church— my church— and how it expresses
its principles. The opinion is congealed in
this country. He would say only that if this
government approached the federal govern-
ment at Ottawa in a reasonable fashion and
ask that government to draft a new Act for
Ontario, the federal government would be
only too glad to do so.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
769
In view of the opinion that has been ex-
pressed in this House, Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the rules of this House, and specifically
rule No. 45, I move that the question be now
put.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that this motion is not
debatable but I think I should get up and
say that while I find myself in sympathy with
some of the ideas that have been expressed
in this debate, and that I am very happy to
hear the opinion expressed by various private
members, when I read the resolution I read
it to mean that a direction is being put to
this government that we initiate discussions
with the federal government to institute
changes in the laws of divorce of the province
of Ontario and so on. I would simply say
that the government at this stage of the game
is not prepared to accept this direction as
covered in this resolution. As I say, I am
pleased to have the expressions of opinion
expressed here by private members but I
would have to vote against the resolution be-
cause of its direction for a course of action
to this government which the government has
not considered and which the government
could not accept at this time.
Mr. Speaker: There is a motion from Mr.
Sopha that the question be now put. All
those in favour of the motion, please say
"aye." All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour that the question be
now put will please rise.
As many as are opposed will please rise.
AYES
NAYS
Ben
Apps
Braithwaite
Auld
Bryden
Bales
Davison
Boyer
Farquhar
Carruthers
Freeman
Cecile
Gisborn
Connell
Lewis
Cowling
(Scarborough West)
Davis
MacDonald
Downer
Newman
Dunlop
Nixon
Dymond
Oliver
Eagleson
Paterson
Edwards
Racine
Evans
AYES
NAYS
Reaume
Ewen
Renwick
Gomme
Singer
Guindon
Smith
Harris
Sopha
Haskett
Spence
Henderson
Taylor
Hodgson
Thompson
(Victoria)
Whicher
Kerr
Worton
Knox
Young-25.
Lawrence
(Russell)
Letherby
Mackenzie
MacNaughton
Morningstar
McKeough
McNeil
Noden
Price
Pritchard
Randall
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Rowe
Sandercock
Spooner
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Walker
WeUs
White
Whitney
Wishart
Yaremko— 50.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the
"ayes" are 25, the "nays" 50.
Mr. Speaker: The "nays" have it.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): At
eight o'clock we will deal with the estimates
of The Department of the Prime Minister
and then Reform Institutions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the House.
It being 6 o'clock p.m. the House took
recess.
No. 27
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
Estimates, Department of the Prime Minister, Mr. Robarts 778
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 800
773
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before calling the order of business,
I would like to make a comment about pro-
cedure. Early in the session, the hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) said that
he was going to raise a point of order when
we first moved into House in committee of
supply, which is order No. 24 on the order
paper.
Subsequently, the hon. leader of the Op-
position (Mr. Thompson) mentioned this in
his contribution to the debate on the Speech
from the Throne and his comments inter-
ested me very much. He said:
I am thinking of the alert eye of the hon.
member for Sudbury who noticed the new
approach being taken by this government,
and its erosion of your prestige.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, he is speaking
about your prestige.
He also said:
Let me say that with the erosion of your
prestige comes the erosion of all the rights
of the people of this province. We notice
that in the past— and I want to re-
emphasize this—
these are his words:
—a previous premier would move that the
Speaker do now leave the chair and the
House resolve itself into committee of
supply.
Then he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker:
Then on that dark day of December 7,
1961, very near an anniversary of another
occasion when freedom was threatened,
we saw a sly move in which you were
dismissed by the intonations of the Clerk
of this House, and I read for December 7,
1961: "Orders of the day. House moved
into committee of supply, Mr. K. Brown
in the chair."
Then he says:
Now, why do we place such stress on
your importance and the recognition that
you must be assured of your rights over
procedure?
—and makes a great song and dance.
Tuesday, February 22, 1966
I can only say that this procedure, Mr.
Speaker, was recommended by a select com-
mittee on procedure which reported on
November 23, 1960, item No. 7 in that
report, recommendation No. 6 is that:
When the order of the day for House
and committee of supply is read, Mr.
Speaker do leave the chair without motion
or question and the House immediately
resolve itself into committee of supply.
This is the procedure we are following, and
that report is signed by the hon. leader of
the Opposition— a unanimous report. Now
he stands up in this House and tries to say
that we are eroding the rights of the people
and eroding the rights of the Speaker. Here
is the procedure— this is the procedure we
follow, recommended by a select committee
which reported unanimously. On the bottom
of the page is Mr. A. E. Thompson's signa-
ture.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, we protest that it is
improper for you to leave the chair in the
fashion that has now been indicated that
you should leave it. We have indicated, in
no uncertain terms, that we would raise this
point of order and protest to you, sir, that
we have the right to amend, from time to
time, any motion that ought to be properly
put, to have you leave the chair and the
House resolve itself into committee of
supply. It has been said many times during
the course of these discussions that in the
Parliament at Ottawa there are by agree-
ment six supply motions per session in which
the Opposition has the right to offer an
amendment. Indeed, at Westminster, with
which you, yourself, sir, have communicated
sometimes in the past— and according to the
rules of our House it says that when there
is a gap in the procedure of this House the
rules of the Parliament at Westminster shall
apply at least for advice and guidance. At
Westminster, sir, by agreement there are
three supply motions. The Ontario legislative
774
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
assembly is unique in that apparently there
is none. We would have your ruling, sir,
that according to the ancient custom and
usage of Parliament the only proper way for
you to leave the chair is by motion properly
put.
As recently as December 7, 1961, the
Prime Minister at that time, who is the
person who occupies the same office today,
moved "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair and the House resolve itself into com-
mittee of supply." Strangely, sir, for a
reason that we do not know, the hon. Prime
Minister refers to a report of 1960. If that
report was made in 1960 the custom and
usage continued for a full year after that,
and apparently no attention was paid to that
report. Suddenly, for a reason that we are
unable to comprehend, the practice was
discontinued.
I know a little bit more about the reason
for this continuance than I am saying, and I
do not like to say any more unless someone
wants to afford the proper stimulus to say
how this came about; but there is something
more to it than meets the eye.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour
has the opportunity now to revert to the pre-
vious custom and usage of this House and to
require, as we insist, that a motion be prop-
erly put. I can say on behalf of this group
here, that we would be perfectly agreeable
to a limited number of supply motions, what-
ever the number that might mutually be
agreed upon— three, four or six a session. The
important thing is, sir, as I have said to Your
Honour before, that the Opposition has no
opportunity to grieve on current and con-
temporary matters, those matters as fresh as
the ink in this morning's newspaper. We just
have no opportunity to raise them. We can
do it through the device of moving the ad-
journment of the House to discuss a matter
of urgent public importance but ofttimes that
does not meet with Your Honour's pleasure
and you do not allow the motion to be put.
The executive council over there have the
opportunity to wander in here— and I do not
think that is a bad word to use— and some do.
The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Con-
nell) wandered in here the other day and
made a statement. The hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
wandered in here and made a statement
about a Cabinet Minister in another jurisdic-
tion. The hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) does it.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): The hon.
Prime Minister did it at 6 o'clock.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Prime Minister did it,
and we tolerated that, at 6 o'clock. We have
no similar opportunity to do that. Some of
our more determined colleagues attempt to
do it in other ways but we should like to do
it completely within the framework of the
rules of the House. That is all we ask. We
are ready to be perfectly reasonable about
this.
Mr. Singer: Always, always, we always are.
Mr. Sopha: Sometimes people protest too
much. But we merely ask you, sir, to give us
a ruling that recognizes the ancient custom
and usage of Parliament, the custom and
usage which is practised at Ottawa, the
custom and usage which is practised at West-
minster; what is good enough for both those
other Parliaments— indeed one of them is the
mother of Parliaments— is ofttimes according
to our own peculiar characteristics of being
North Americans, good enough for us.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as
I gather we are talking really about the pur-
pose of Parliament, of Parliament which is
the-
Mr. Speaker: The point of order is on
whether the House should continue going into
committee of supply upon reading of the
order, or whether we should have a specific
motion for the Speaker to leave the chair
when we go into committee of supply.
Mr. Thompson: May I say, sir, that this is
fundamental to Parliament. You represent the
rights of the people by guarding both the
Opposition and the government. We have
listened too long to a Prime Minister who
says that government must always have pri-
ority—and I can quote that back at him sev-
eral times. He was so insensitive to the rights
of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, that he did not
recognize that the Opposition must have a
right to initiate.
May I say that this very thing is an oppor-
tunity for the Opposition to make a motion
of supply and to bring a vote of censure. If
we cannot give a vote of censure we are
similar to the IODE or to other groups, how-
ever worthy they are. They may feel offended
about the government but the essence of Par-
liament—and I think some of the hon. mem-
bers should listen to this and grasp it— the
essence and the greatness of this House is
the fact that we permit an Opposition party
to challenge a government and to raise the
question of whether they should not be
thrown out and that we take over. If we
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
775
are deprived of that, sir, then we make
sterile the rights of this House and the rights
of the people.
May I say at the outset that as we look at
Ottawa, we see that there has been an
accommodation as my hon. friend from Sud-
bury said. We realize that we do not want
to be making a motion of censure all the
time. There has been an agreement whether
it would be for six, and I understand in
Westminster I think it is three. I would say
that both have a relativity to this Parlia-
ment. Recognizing that the Opposition has
a responsibility to have the opportunity to
move a vote of censure, you, sir, in your
position would protect not only the rights of
the government for debate, but also the
rights of the Opposition to carry through
their constitutional role.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
further to the point of order that has been
raised by the hon. Prime Minister, I think
there has been a steady erosion of certain
rules or custom in this House over the years.
This group here attempted a few years ago
—I cannot now give you a precise reference
—to move an amendment on what presum-
ably was a motion to go into committee of
supply. We were declared out of order at
that time. This was a ruling of the Speaker
that could hardly have been based on tradi-
tional procedure, nor on the written rules
of this House, as I recall them without hav-
ing looked them up recently. Strictly speak-
ing, every time the House goes into
committee of supply there is a specific
motion for the purpose; it used to be con-
sidered in order to move an amendment
relative to the business which the committee
of supply was to take up. It used to be
procedure that it would be announced what
business the committee was to take up on
that particular day. As I say, we tried to
exercise that right and we were peremptorily
ruled out of order, without any particular
reason given.
It can be admitted that if an amendment
is permitted every time the House goes into
committee of supply, there could be a great
deal of waste of the time of the House. As
my hon. friends here have pointed out, this
problem has been settled in other juris-
dictions by agreement on all sides that there
would be a specific number of occasions on
which such amendments would be permitted.
In this House, however, there are no occa-
sions on which such amendments are per-
mitted. Indeed, it is now claimed that the
House resolves itself into committee of
supply without any motion at all. As soon
as the hon. Prime Minister calls the order,
we automatically go into committee of
supply.
I have no doubt that the large number of
gentlemen sitting across from me and to my
left do not mind jumping through the hoops
whenever they are told, as we saw earlier
today. But over here, we do not necessarily
agree as to the hoop we should jump
through, nor as to the time we should jump
through it. I think that we should, from
time to time, have an opportunity to indicate
our disinclination to jump through the hoop
that the hon. Prime Minister has decreed for
the particular time. However, our previous
effort to assert ourselves in that way was, as
I say, peremptorily dismissed. I do not
really know what one could say the custom
of this House now is.
All I would like to say in conclusion, Mr.
Speaker, is that I think it is high time that
all of these matters were considered in a
systematic way. The hon. Prime Minister
read from a report from a committee that
was presented to this House a few years ago.
I would remind you, sir, and the hon. Prime
Minister, that that committee never did sub-
mit a final report. I think the rug was pulled
out from under it by the calling of an elec-
tion, and after two interim reports it did not
complete its business. So it embarked on
the project of considering the rules of the
House, but never completed the work. I
think it is quite unreasonable to rely upon
a report, which was intended only as an
interim report, dealing with only one phase
of the rules. Either we should complete the
job and consider the rules in their totality
and arrive at some sort of agreement, or I
think we should revert to the original rules,
which permitted amendment on every occa-
sion when the House went into committee
of supply. On every such occasion there is
really an implied motion. How can we
move into committee of supply without some
sort of motion, unless there is a rule, a
written rule, saying that we will do so?
There is no written rule; there is an interim
report of a committee that recommended
this. The report was adopted only in the
sense that it was placed on the table of
the House. It was not adopted, surely, as a
determination as to an amendment of the
rules of this House.
As for the present moment, Mr. Speaker,
you once again are placed in a difficult
position by virtue of the fact that our rules
now exist in a state cf limbo. The last time
they were written was about 30 years ago
776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and all sorts of those written rules have now
been superseded, we are told, by custom.
Well, if they have been superseded, I say it is
time that we rewrote them, to take into
account the current procedure, so that
members will know where they stand. Before
they are rewritten, I would suggest that a
committee of this House should sit down
and consider the whole matter with a view
to determining the rules that in this day
would, on the one hand, facilitate govern-
ment business and, on the other hand, give a
reasonable opportunity to the Opposition to
put forward its point of view.
I do not think it is good enough for the
hon. Prime Minister to come in with an
interim report, adopted only for the purpose
of putting it on the table; I think it is time
that we faced the whole problem and tried
to settle it in a way that would be satis-
factory to all reasonable men. This is not
the situation at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: May I just have one
word on this point of order? I would like to
make it very clear that this was not an interim
report. I have a copy of it, it is available
to the hon. member or anyone. I would just
read one paragraph which says:
A study was made of the procedure in
the Houses of Commons of the United
Kingdom and Canada on going into com-
mittee of supply. As a result the committee
concluded that the present practice in the
Ontario Legislature of a motion being
moved for the Speaker to leave the chair
each time the committee goes into supply,
is incorrect and recommendation No. 6 was
agreed to.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It was agreed by the
hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Roberts), who was chairman, by the hon.
member for Essex North (Mr. Reaume) and
by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr.
Davison). Now, the point I make, Mr.
Speaker, is very simply this. This procedure
did not, I repeat, did not, grow up through
any desire of this government to remove any
of the rights of the Opposition, it grew up
as the result of a recommendation of an
all-party committee of this House.
Mr. Singer: Oh, nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Of course it is not non-
sense. There is the report.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest to you that if you go through the
report you will find that this is not the only
procedural matter set forth in this report
which is now the procedure in this House.
I want to make one other point very clear-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, surely it is non-
sense to say that every interim report that is
received becomes part of the rules of the
House. It is utter nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am saying simply this:
I will not accept the allegation that this
government is trying to destroy the rights of
the Opposition. That is the only reason I
brought this in. I will not accept that position.
This procedure has been current in this
House since 1961. I could not care less if we
change it back the way it was before. I am
quite prepared to meet with the hon. leader
of the Opposition and make an arrangement,
but before I do that I must make my point
clear; it was not this government; it was an
all-party report that recommended this pro-
cedure, so he cannot sit over there and try
to say that we are stifling the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, to line this up, there are
other questions of procedure which we will
have to straighten out, and which are pres-
ently being negotiated. I can assure the hon.
member that I would be very happy to
reach some arrangement whereby we can
take two, three, four, or more, because I
am not too concerned at this stage about the
motion to censure. If he wishes to move that
is all right. But we will have to do it in an
orderly fashion.
I am prepared to discuss this, I will not
however, sit here and permit the allegation
to be made that we are trying to close him
off, when all we are doing is following
something he agreed to do.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Prime Minister spoke twice and he has made
remarks-
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister offered
the original remarks. I think perhaps we
can wind this matter up—
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
information, if I might say: The hon. Prime
Minister is completely inaccurate in saying
it was started in 1961; it was started by the
Hon. George Drew. If he would look at this,
he would find that started many years ago.
I wish that he would take the interest which
his predecessor did in the history of this
Legislature. The Hon. George Drew started
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
777
that process of ways and means and supply
to move it through.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Thompson: And we want to see it-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, I would like
to say a few words. The report that the hon.
Prime Minister has just read is not at odds
with what we, on this side of the House,
suggest could now be done to reconcile the
differences of opinion between the Opposition
and the government. All my hon. friend read
from that report was that the committee mem-
bers agreed that not every time need the
House go into this motion for committee to
go into supply. It does not say that it should
not do it at all; it says "every time."
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am afraid not. Mr.
Speaker, just as a matter of information, I
will read the recommendation. It is recom-
mendation No. 6, that when the order of the
day for House in committee of supply is read,
Mr. Speaker do leave the chair without
motion or question and the House immedi-
ately resolve itself into committee of supply.
That is the sixth recommendation.
Mr. Oliver: Prior to that, my hon. friend
said as he read to us just a few minutes ago,
and prior to—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Would the hon. mem-
ber like me to send it over?
Mr. Oliver: Well, the hon. Prime Minister
can send it over. But my hearing is still
good, and he said that the committee agreed
that, not on every occasion, need this be
done. He did not say—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is the sixth recom-
mendation, right?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, that is right, sure it is
right. But not on every occasion. That is all
we are asking tonight.
I can remember in this House, Mr. Speaker,
when it was customary, and when it was the
right of the Opposition, to move a motion of
censure going into supply and it was done
many times. Now we have got to the place
in the procedure in this House when we can-
not move a motion at any time going into
supply. Somewhere in between those two,
surely, we can find a common ground that
will help us to get out of this distasteful situ-
ation because my hon. friend will remember,
Mr. Speaker, that in the old days the sessions
used to last about 30 days. I remember one
when we had ah awful time to get it to last
30 days. But now it lasts six months, and in
the six months as we are presently observing
the rules we have only two official times that
we can censure this government— on the
Speech from the Throne and on the Budget.
If it was important in the days when the
House lasted only 30 days that the Opposi-
tion should have a chance to move, going into
the committee of supply, a motion of censure
against the government, surely it is much
more important that they should have that
opportunity now?
I agree with what the committee reported,
that not every time did we have it. But for
heaven's sake, do not let us have these
squabbles every time we go into supply or
into some other part of governmental activity.
Let us sit down together and agree that four,
five or six times during the session the Oppo-
sition will have the right to move, going into
supply, a motion of censure against the gov-
ernment. The way it is now, you are com-
pletely tying our hands and it jusf cannot be
done.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact-
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): I would say
this, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Is the member going to speak
to the point of order? Otherwise he is out of
order.
Mr. Sargent: In regard to this, I do not
think I owe the House an apology, but I
want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have
the greatest respect for you personally and
your office, and for every hon. member of
this House individually. I think that I owe it
to my party and to the people I represent to
say that I do have respect for the laws of
this House. In the heat of debate, when I said
I would not sit down, I should not have said
that. I respect you and your office, Mr.
Speaker. I am not apologizing for my stand,
because no one should doubt my feelings
about equal rights here. I wanted to say I
am sorry I was out of order; I do respect
your office. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: On that happy note, I think
perhaps we can resolve the situation at the
present time. Although, as some members
have pointed out, I am a great believer in
the ancient customs and practices of West-
minster as well as our own House, in view of
the fact that it has been the custom and the
practice for the past four or five years to go
into committee of supply without a specific
778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
motion, I think that perhaps we shall go into
supply on this occasion without a formal spe-
cific motion. If an agreement is reached upon
some other procedure, it shall then be used
when the occasion arises.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Chairman: Estimates of The Depart-
ment of the Prime Minister, page 95.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
would it be in order for me to suggest that
an appropriate branch of the office be opened
with moderate funds, the purpose of which
would be to keep the hon. member for Lake-
shore (Mr. Eagleson) and the hon. member
for Halton (Mr. Kerr) informed of what the
hon. Prime Minister is doing?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): If we had a
few more that did not speak—
Mr. Sopha: Oh, he is back.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1401.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Chairman, on this vote— I think
this is probably the only opportunity I have—
one of the responsibilities which the hon.
Prime Minister has is in his relations with
Ottawa, and I am thinking particularly of
the federal-provincial conferences. I would
like, sir, on this occasion, to make some
remarks which we in the Opposition feel
about the Dominion-provincial conference
and the role of the hon. Prime Minister. I am
talking about the general principle of the
role of the Prime Minister, and we are
voting, I think, on his salary, so I hope that
you would agree that I am in order on this,
sir.
The first thing is that we believe that
many of the Dominion-provincial confer-
ences have far greater influence in many
ways than this Legislature and its delibera-
tion, and it is for this reason that we have a
concern on two scores: one, on the secrecy
which takes place, and the other, on the in-
sufficient consultation which takes place.
We believe that there should be reform
in these two areas. In the first place, on the
secrecy, I would suggest, sir, that there
should be open conferences. One of the
great things about our country is we have
faith in the people of the country, faith in
the fair-mindedness and the reasonability of
the people of this province if they are only
trusted, if the issues are brought to them.
And surely today more and more, the issues
on a Dominion-provincial basis are of crucial
interest to the people of the province and
we cannot see why these discussions should
be held in private. The people have a right
to know the whole of the deliberations.
I notice where the hon. Minister of Health
(Mr. Dymond) has stated that, regarding the
Medicare bill and the deliberations that took
place, when we asked him about the stands
he made or the difficulties with the issues
with the federal people, he said— and I am
paraphrasing— "You do not tell secrets when
you are talking with your friends. You do
not talk outside about what you talked about
inside." This is on a far bigger scale than
that, Mr. Speaker. This is something that is
affecting the people of this province and we
want to know what the deliberations are
which take place in Ottawa between the
province and Ottawa.
I believe that the participation of the
Opposition party should be considered and
I do not want to be unreasonable in this. I
think that the Opposition party should be
invited to go as observers to a number of
these conferences. They would get far better
debates, far more enlightened debate in this
Legislature. The government would prob-
ably get far more sympathy and again we
would be getting public dialogue on these
issues, by bringing them before the people.
I, sir, am the leader of the Ontario Liberal
Party and, speaking for the people of On-
tario, I think that one of the difficulties about
the Fulton-Favreau formula was that there
was not participation by Opposition parties
in this.
May I come to my next point? I think
there should be more consultation. I be-
lieve that there should be a central office, a
Dominion-provincial secretariat— and I know
we brought this up during the last estimates
of the Prime Minister. I quote, sir, from
Hansard of last year and the remarks of the
hon. Prime Minister to a question of a
secretariat of Dominion-provincial affairs in
the province here. He answered: "To meet
the needs of whatever the situation is we
put together various groups from the depart-
ments concerned. Some of the co-ordination
is done out of my office, but there is a great
deal of co-ordination and consultation be-
tween the two governments at the depart-
mental or ministerial level which I would not
necessarily know about."
Sir, I think that in all the relations be-
tween the federal government and the prov-
ince there should be an essential philosophy
which emanates from the Prime Minister.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
779
I am not sure this is being done. The
hon. Prime Minister does not know some of
the consultations taking place, probably, at
a civil service level or at a higher level, the
Deputy Ministers' level. I think one of the
problems today is that with the many inter-
provincial and Dominion-provincial confer-
ences taking place, they may be going off at
odd ends, one going one way and the other
the other, and yet they are all tied together
with a common interest. There should be a
common purpose, which means there should
be leadership by the hon. Prime Minister in
this area.
When I ask for a Minister— I call him a
Minister of Dominion-Provincial Affairs in
this House, sir— I really feel that the hon.
Prime Minister himself— and I commend him
on what he has been doing in this area-
would probably want to be that Minister, to
take that portfolio, in the sense that he is
acting that part anyway, taking the full
responsibility for the deliberations between
Ottawa and this province. But I feel a
Cabinet post should be created, sir, and a
department that is responsible for the de-
liberations. I say this because there should
be a period in the House when questions
could be asked by the Opposition to the
Minister— if it is the Prime Minister— about
relations with Ottawa and the province.
It would be a good debate; it would be a
very interesting debate, and the people of
Ontario would be very excited about knowing
some of the deliberations which have taken
place. For that reason I say that first,
let us do away with the secrecy that takes
place with Dominion-provincial conferences,
and, secondly, let us set up a secretariat so
that there can be consultations taking place
with Ottawa.
I come to my last point, sir, and that is this
debate on Confederation. As I understand it,
an advisory committee is being set up by the
hon. Prime Minister to advise him on the
questions of Confederation. I may say that I
had advocated such a committee to be made
up of the most knowledgeable people
throughout the province on Confederation and
the Constitution. I, frankly, was delighted
when the hon. Prime Minister arranged that
he would have such a committee and it was
in the Speech from the Throne of last year,
but I had hoped that this would be a com-
mittee which would be reporting to an all-
party committee of the House. I had hoped
that the hon. Prime Minister would be using
the experts to again encourage public dialogue
throughout this province, rather than it
should be a committee which is cloistered
within the confines of the hon. Prime Min-
ister's office, reporting only to him. I know
this committee has been making reports to
the hon. Prime Minister. I would like to see
them making their reports to the Legislature.
We all have a stake, we all have a stake in
what the deliberations of the government will
be towards the framing of our Confederation
and we all want to share in it. I would hope
that the hon. Prime Minister might today
reconsider this group that he has. It is not
of one particular political hue. They are being
asked to join his committee because of their
outstanding scholastic ability and I know
that they represent many political hues, and
I would hope that we could learn from the
deliberations which they have been having.
May I say that in the Quebec Legislature
they have tabled, with their similar committee,
reports to an all-party group in the House,
over 5,000 pages of technical data on Quebec.
I have been talking, sir, about what I think
is one of the most important aspects of this
Legislature, and that is our relations today,
our Dominion-provincial relations, and I have
been asking that the whole of the Legislature
play a part in these deliberations. I have
been asking that we should— the hon. Prime
Minister when he goes to Ottawa— I suggest
that there could be open conferences. I have
been asking that the hon. Prime Minister
might indicate that the Opposition parties
could go up to these conferences as observers
and I believe that in some cases they might
be considered to go as participants with
representatives of the government. I ask
finally that there should be more consultation.
There should be a department set up here
which will co-ordinate the many Dominion-
provincial committees that are activated now
and that are working. There should be some
co-ordination and central direction through a
Minister who, I would presume, would be the
hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, traditionally the estimates of this
department, I think, have been dealt with in
a relatively routine manner by the Opposition
parties. In fact, the approach might best
be described by that word which has become
part of the folklore of this session, "nit-
picking." The queries were usually with
relation to what braintrusters had been added
to The Department of the Prime Minister or
what had been the expense account of his
PR officer in the last year or so. I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that items of this nature do
not get down to the important policy and
administrative problems that relate to the
very centre of government, namely, the Prime
780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister's office and the Cabinet, winch is
the estimate that is before us here.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has
dealt with some phases beyond that in his
introductory remarks— federal-provincial con-
ferences and the committee on Confederation.
I want to take a look-in-depth rather than the
routine look, Mr. Chairman, that has charac-
terized the past. In fact, if I can go back to
that idyllic picture that was given to ns by
the seconder of the motion in reply to the
Speech from the Throne (Mr. Carton), that
picture of the good ship Robarts sailing bene-
ficently across the Ontario landscape, what
we are dealing with today is the most im-
portant part of the ship, namely, the bridge
where the captain operates. Frankly, Mr.
Chairman, what I want to suggest and I hope
I can prove it to some degree even to the
doubting Thomases on the government side
of the House, is that there is something seri-
ously wrong on the bridge of the ship.
Mr. Chairman, in my Throne speech I re-
called in some detail two crises which have
rocked this government in the past two years
—the police-state legislation in 1964 and the
pension crisis in 1965, from which, in fact, we
have not yet escaped. The hon. Prime Min-
ister frankly admitted to a delegation of civic
employees that came to see him a couple of
weeks ago that he was in a bind on this
issue, and exactly how he is going to get out
of that bind we have yet to learn.
But the important point here, Mr. Chair-
man, is that these two crises provided a dra-
matic public revelation of contradictions in
policy and of confusion in administration
which are widespread throughout the whole
of this government. And the root of the
trouble, I submit— and I shall go forward to
give you some evidence now— is to be found
right in the Prime Minister's department.
If I may pursue the analogy of the good
ship Robarts, too often there is chaos on the
bridge. The hon. Prime Minister makes a
policy statement, for example, on pensions,
and two months later he publicly reveals that
he has either forgotten what that statement
was or he did not understand it in the first
place. The hon. Prime Minister makes a
statement, for example, on per capita costs
on Medicare in January, and when a contro-
versy breaks out with regard to those figures
the hon. Minister of Health reveals that the
figures the hon. Prime Minister used had been
discarded by a federal-provincial conference
four months earlier, in September.
Now, let us face it, Mr. Chairman: The
communication system has broken down on
the good ship Robarts. The skipper and his
senior officers in the Cabinet are often at
cross-purposes. The trouble lies, partly, in an
almost incredible incapacity to clarify policies
even among themselves on some occasions,
let alone the general public; and partly be-
cause the responsibilities of so many of the
senior officers on the good ship are so ill-
defined, so overlapping in many instances, so
competitive when they should be co-ordi-
nated, that service to the people of Ontario
gets lost in the warring between the depart-
mental empires.
Mr. Chairman, only the hon. Prime Minis-
ter can resolve this. I raised this last year
when I was speaking in introduction to the
estimates of the Minister of Economics and
Development. Only the hon. Prime Min-
ister can resolve this, but he has not done so.
Somehow— and before I sit down, Mr. Chair-
man, I am prepared to make some sugges-
tions tonight— the machinery at the centre of
government, in the Cabinet and more par-
ticularly in the Prime Minister's office,
must be developed in order to resolve these
conflicts and make it possible for us to get
on and get the job done.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that
when we are talking about the centre of gov-
ernment, the Prime Minister's office, there
are other factors which converge on this
office and contribute to its problems, but they
are not of immediate concern to us tonight.
Some people have said, for example, that
the trouble lies in the fact that the hon.
Prime Minister has too much deadwood in
his Cabinet. Editorial friends have referred
to it as "tired and old," and they have been
publicly asking when the hon. Prime Minister
is going to do something about it. Other
commentators, Mr. Chairman, have argued
that Ontario just has a dull, grey government,
with no inspired leadership. They have
pointed out that the only time there is any
excitement associated with the government, is
when the hon. Prime Minister, and I am quot-
ing here: "has dumped in his lap a crisis
created by some blundering Ministers such
as Mr. Cass or Mr. Spooner."
But today, Mr. Chairman, our concern is
with the Prime Minister's office and my
basic contention is that our trouble stems
directly from the failure of the hon. Prime
Minister to give vigorous leadership in resolv-
ing the policy conflicts and the departmental
confusion, and in creating the necessary
machinery in his office for getting the job
done.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, Professor Krueger
from Waterloo University documented these
conflicts and confusion in certain key areas
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
781
of the government in his address to the
regional development conference which is
sponsored by The Department of Economics
and Development. The hon. Prime Minister
considered this conference important enough
that he took the unprecedented step of
adjourning the Legislature for a day or so, in
order that members could attend.
What Professor Krueger had to say was
based on studies done by himself and two
of his colleagues in the department of geog-
raphy at the University of Waterloo, at the
request of the Ontario economic council. In
view of the vital importance of this whole
problem, Mr. Chairman, we in the Opposition
requested that the Krueger report should be
tabled. Clearly we, as well as the government,
were entitled to have the benefit of that
study.
But the government refused to table it.
It has not been tabled yet. Characteristically,
it regarded this information as something that
should be kept secret for the use of the
government alone. And since the government,
and more particularly the hon. Prime Min-
ister, is doing nothing about it, all the more
reason that this study and its recommenda-
tions, embarrassing though they may be,
should become public knowledge.
On the principle that what the government
will not reveal on public business is the Oppo-
sition's responsibility to dig out, I have taken
the trouble to see whether I could not come
across a copy of the Krueger report. I am
glad to say my efforts were crowned with
success. I have a copy of that report here.
I have read it very, very carefully from
cover to cover. It has a great deal of reveal-
ing information in it; some most interesting
recommendations, some of which relate di-
rectly to the centre of government and the
Prime Minister's department. So I am
speaking here tonight not exclusively in terms
of my own ideas, but from the careful docu-
mentation of a study initiated by this gov-
ernment itself, through one of its departments
and the Ontario economic council.
I should say, just by way of sorting out
what is relevant here tonight, that that
Krueger report was rather limited in its
initial objective.
That was to conduct "an objective analysis
of agencies and programmes concerned with
the various phases of regional economic de-
velopment in Ontario."
Furthermore, the authors specified quite
frankly that they did not have the time or
the resources to cover the whole range of
government. Therefore, they concentrated in
two or three of the relevant departments,
namely, economics and development, muni-
cipal affairs, and tourism and information,
along with the role of the Cabinet and the
Prime Minister.
What emerges is an indescribable maze of
confusion and contradiction in policies and
administration, overlapping responsibilities,
duplicated effort, departments competing in
the same field and a well developed pro-
pensity for studying problems with no
effective machinery for implementing the
recommendations of those studies. As I said
last year, speaking only on the basis of the
speech made by Professor Krueger at the
regional development conference, the account
he gives is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan.
It is highly amusing, if it were not so serious.
What he does, after detailing— and I will
not go into it here, because it is not relevant
in this department— so many cases in the
other departments, municipal affairs, eco-
nomics and development, and tourism and in-
formation—what he does is to detail the con-
fusion and then draw two or three sober
conclusions. These are what we should take
a look at, when we come back to the im-
portance of the Prime Minister's office
and what might be done about it. On page
8 of the report, I am quoting:
The net result is an apparent maze of
administrative regions and districts that
often cut across basic statistical data gather-
ing units such as counties and townships,
thus making it impossible to analyze trends
in resource use and economic development
and difficult to formulate and implement
planning and economic policy.
Now that is not very dramatic, Mr. Chair-
man. But read it, and what it adds up to is
that you simply have not got the machinery
to do the job. Your administrative machinery
is totally inadequate. Page 9, quote:
After reviewing the provincial regional
administrative organizations, one is led to
the conclusion that when confronted with
an outmoded municipal structure, the gov-
ernment of Ontario, in place of the needed
basic reorganization of that structure, super-
imposed upon it a new and complicated
set of administrative regions. This expedient
has in turn created a fundamental impedi-
ment to rational planning or resource use
and economic development.
Again not very dramatic, in terms of words.
But in terms of frustration and a basic lack
of machinery to be able to tackle the job,
almost total in its devastating condemnation.
Not only is there competition and lack of
co-ordination between various departments of
the government, which have responsibility in
782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
one particular field— such as tourism in The
Department of Economics and Development
and in The Department of Tourism and
Information— but on occasion branches of the
same department are not aware of what an-
other branch in the same department is doing.
For example, and I quote:
In the process of our investigations-
says Professor Krueger:
—we received a report concerning two
sections of one branch—
and I am looking directly at the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Randall):
—that were carrying out the same type of
field survey in the same region, with neither
survey group knowing of the existence
of the other until they met in the field.
That is to be found on page 11 of the report.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, this kind of over-
lapping of responsibilities can be resolved
only at the top by the hon. Prime Minister.
But there is no indication— you had this
report a year ago; you have been sitting on
this report now for at least 12 or 15 months.
Something of its content was indicated to
the public at the regional development con-
ference.
I dealt with it at great length in the intro-
duction to the estimates last year of The
Department of Economics and Development,
and the hon. Prime Minister has done noth-
ing that is publicly visible for the purpose
of resolving this chaos.
The Krueger report makes another basic
point crystal clear. Both the regional de-
velopment division of The Department of
Economics and Development and the com-
munity development branch of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs have been given,
on paper at least, the responsibility of co-
ordinating government action from all de-
partments in certain areas. But this is an
impossibility, Mr. Chairman. On page 20 the
Krueger report makes this statement:
One branch of one department cannot
co-ordinate government policies. Co-
ordination must take place at the Cabinet
level.
So we are right back with the hon. Prime
Minister, the Cabinet and the Prime
Minister's office. Once again, nothing has
happened. Again the leadership must come
from the hon. Prime Minister, and there is
no evidence that he has done anything in
this connection. So the co-ordination is in-
effective, while the departments pursue their
jurisdictional warfare. The report cites an-
(other basic point on page 23 and I quote:
We also recognize that it is virtually
impossible to co-ordinate economic de-
velopment policies and programmes when
there is no overall official statement of
economic goals. If the government be-
lieves in co-ordination of programmes
affecting regional economic development,
one of the most urgent and fundamental
tasks is to formulate a master development
plan which becomes the blueprint for
policies of all departments.
But there is no master development plan.
Once again, the leadership has not come
from the hon. Prime Minister or the Cabinet
—more accurately— in this instance. The re-
sult is that every department is working in
the dark, with no guidelines for any con-
tributions which they might be able to make.
However, the report is realistic. It points
out that even if you had a master plan, even
if some elimination of wasteful duplication
of effort by competing departments oper-
ating in the same field took place, it is in-
evitable in our complex, modern society,
that the resources of a number of depart-
ments will be needed in coping with prob-
lems such as the development and
conservation of our natural resources, land
use throughout Ontario, or regional economic
development. This is true of a growing
range of topics, whether it be the war on
poverty, or helping our Indian population to
rescue themselves from a shameful second-
class citizenship.
Where a number of departments are in-
volved, the traditional approach has been for
the Prime Minister to set up an inter-
departmental committee— this is a favourite
resort, but experience suggests that they
have not proven to be an effective instru-
ment and the Krueger report details a classic
example.
In 1961, the year our present hon. Prime
Minister took over the reins of government,
a Cabinet committee on conservation and
land use was formed. To be quite frank, I
do not know whether it was formed before
he became leader or after— conceivably it
was before he became leader because I be-
lieve the leadership convention was late in
the fall— but it was during his first year in
office. That committee brought together ten
government departments and two agencies,
namely, Ontario Hydro and the OWRC. To
assist the committee an advisory sub-
committee of senior civil servants was or-
ganized. Dr. E. G. Pleva, a geographer
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
783
from the University of Western Ontario, was
retained as a consultant. The responsibilities
of that Cabinet committee were spelled out:
1. To propose a basis for a comprehensive
programme of development related to pro-
vincial policies and natural resources.
2. To study and make recommendations
on departmental procedures and problems in
the general conservation plan of the prov-
ince.
3. To recommend the best methods of co-
ordinating the activities of the different agen-
cies in the field of conservation.
4. To provide a clearing house for depart-
mental plans and programmes and an infor-
mation exchange for the benefit of
departments and agencies related to con-
servation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to lay the ground-
work for future activities the committee
asked each department and commission to
prepare a brief outlining its organization
and responsibilities as they related to re-
sources conservation and land use. From
this information a magnificent chart was
prepared which showed the way that the ten
different departments and commissions had
either a direct or indirect effect on resources
use.
I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that
was a pretty impressive tackling of this
whole problem— admittedly an important pro-
gramme. Ten departments of the govern-
ment, two agencies, an advisory committee
made up of all the senior civil servants in-
volved in the departments of the Deputy
Ministers, and the consultant, Dr. Pleva.
And what happened after all that big start?
I quote from the Krueger report, Mr. Chair-
The Cabinet committee on conservation
and land use as well as the advisory com-
mittee of civil servants seems to have
ceased to exist.
As so often happens with this government, a
committee is set up and it just drifts off into
limbo.
The Krueger report concludes:
There is little evidence that the commit-
tee was very effective at the ministerial
level or that it resulted in any co-ordinating
of major policies or programmes.
The reasons were not difficult to find. The
Ministers were so involved in the press-
ing affairs of their own departmental activi-
ties that they could not find time to really
give the committee a fair chance to succeed.
Also, although a Minister was selected
as chairman and the chairmanship was
rotated, no one Minister felt that he had
the responsibility for seeing that integrated
policies were carried out.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the responsi-
bility for this kind of wasted time and effort
comes right back once again to the hon.
Prime Minister. When he sets up a Cabinet
committee there must be effective machinery
for arriving at co-ordinated policies, and even
more important, for carrying them out.
In fact, the Kreuger report has a specific
recommendation that is obviously plain com-
mon sense. I quote:
In order for a Cabinet committee to suc-
ceed, it seems essential that the Prime Min-
ister take the responsibility for ensuring
that the committee policies are imple-
mented, even though they may require
major modifications of individual depart-
mental programmes.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this can be
done only if the Cabinet committee is bol-
stered with a key person whose status is that
of a Deputy Minister, answerable directly to
the Prime Minister, and whose duties
must be to bring about the co-ordination and
co-operation of all departments and agencies
relating to the particular field that comes
under the jurisdiction of this committee.
The significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is that
this is not a new proposal. As the Krueger
report points out, it was recommended by the
1950 select committee on conservation. But
10 years later, when this government got
around to setting up that Cabinet committee
—there we have it in the "fullness of time,"
the speed with which the Tories operate, 10
years after the recommendation is made they
set up the Cabinet committee— they did not
heed the suggestion for the appointment of a
chief of conservation, with the status of a
Deputy Minister answerable directly to the
Prime Minister, so no co-ordination of
major policies emerged and no programme
was implemented. The whole effort was little
more than an idle gesture for which respon-
sibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the
hon. Prime Minister.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
the technique of a co-ordinating committee
responsible directly to the head of govern-
ment is now being used effectively by the
President of the United States on broad pro-
grammes and problems such as the war on
poverty. As it is a presidential committee,
there is the necessary prestige and power to
establish co-ordination through the various
government agencies.
784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In Ontario today there are a growing num-
ber of problems for which policies and ad-
ministration involves a number of government
departments. There is this important question
of the development and conservation of our
natural resources, with which this govern-
ment has been toying for years. There is the
question of land use. There is the obviously
important area of regional economic develop-
ment. There is the question of implementing
the new policy with regard to Indians, which
has been in the making for some time. There
is the problem of salvaging some of our
human resources through the formulating of
a policy and a programme involving four or
five departments for emotionally disturbed
children. Obviously, these are among some of
the most important issues in public life today.
I suggest to the hon. Prime Minister that
the time has come to recognize the ineffec-
tiveness of the loosely knit Cabinet commit-
tees we have used in the past and replace
them with Prime Minister's committees that
will have the power to work out a co-ordi-
nated policy and have that policy imple-
mented through all the departments that need
to be involved. To do this a person must be
assigned specifically to the task; a top-flight
person with a Deputy Minister status and
answerable directly to the Prime Minister.
Otherwise, we shall for the most part just go
through the motions once again in the future,
as we have in the past.
Those represent one aspect of my remarks
that I would like to summarize before
I move on to the next — this whole ques-
tion of the Prime Minister's committees
as an effective substitute for the interdepart-
mental committees and the need for public
discussion and action on questions raised by
Professor Krueger in his report.
Now, sir, let me turn to a second area of
concern with regard to the inadequacies of
the Prime Minister's office. I have been
reading through the speeches which the hon.
Prime Minister has made over the past year
or so. As a matter of fact, I have about a
whole fistful of them here.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Almost enough to write a good book.
Mr. MacDonald: It shows the attention we
give to the words of the first citizen.
Mr. Sopha: He usually speaks well.
Mr. MacDonald: There is one central
theme in these speeches: His reflections on
relations with Quebec and the problems in-
volved in reshaping Confederation to meet
the needs of our day. Obviously, the hon.
Prime Minister has a battery of braintrusters
researching and preparing speeches on this
theme. No doubt he has access to the gov-
ernment's advisory committee on Confedera-
tion, chaired by the province's chief
economist, Ian Macdonald. Once again, for
some reason or other all of the effort of this
advisory committee, as the hon. leader of
the Opposition has pointed out, remains
secret, available only to the government but
denied to the Opposition, denied to the
public.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it is not accur-
ate to say that it is completely denied to the
public because the hon. Prime Minister has
given us some revealing glimpses in his
public speeches. His posture is usually that
—and I am using his own words here— of "a
Canadian from Ontario," taking the broad
view of the problems of Confederation at
this critical period in our history, rather
than a narrow, parochial, Ontario view.
It is all the more important, therefore, Mr.
Chairman, that we take a good look at what
the hon. Prime Minister has been saying on
this, his favourite theme, because in the
absence of any opportunity provided by the
government for solid and continuous debates
on this issue in this Legislature, one of the
most important facing this nation today, we
have to go chiefly to the hon. Prime Minis-
ter's speeches given outside the House.
On the one hand, I would be the first to
say— and I have said it before in this House
—that the hon. Prime Minister has shown a
commendable understanding of, and sym-
pathy for, the aspirations of Quebec. He has
been warmly applauded in French Canada
for his public statements on the need for de-
veloping the bilingual nature of this country.
In his general approach, the hon. Prime
Minister's efforts have been all the more
commendable because they are in striking
contrast to the basic lack of understanding
and sympathy displayed by his federal leader
on the fundamental problems of Canadian
nationhood.
But having started with a fundamentally
sound and constructive attitude towards
Quebec, it is all the more regrettable, in my
view, that the hon. Prime Minister has not
shown an equal understanding of the historic
role of Ontario in Confederation and in re-
shaping it so that it can survive for the
second century.
This, I suggest, is of vital concern to us as
Canadians, and, more particularly, to us as
members of this Legislature.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
785
For years the impatient cry throughout
English-speaking Canada has been: What
does Quebec want? Surely, Mr. Chairman,
it is increasingly clear what Quebec wants.
And what is more important, while the rest
of the nation tends to drift in various
directions, Quebec is moving forward to-
ward achieving its goals.
Quebec's educational system, for example,
was hopelessly inadequate for the 20th cen-
tury, but she has broken the bonds of the
past and forged ahead with breathtaking
speed. The objectives and the guidelines for
action in the whole field of education are
clearly set forward in the Parent report.
Quebec's economy was among the most
underdeveloped in Canada. Once again, her
economic development has matched that of
any part of Canada in recent years. More-
over, she is evolving a programme of
regional economic development in the Gaspe
project, which is now going to be more
broadly applied across the whole province
and, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, makes our
efforts in this connection look little more
than feeble fumbling up to this point.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Did the hon. member
read Mr. Gerard Filion in the Toronto Globe
and Mail this morning?
Mr. MacDonald: I did.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There is the answer.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not the answer.
That is only one small aspect of the question.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is very important.
Mr. MacDonald: It is an important part,
but if you had gone down to the regional
development conference, and if you had
taken the Cabinet down so you might have
built up some support for your issue, you
would have found that there are limitations
on the possibility of decentralizing industry
out into every community.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are decentralizing
every day of the week.
Mr. MacDonald: But lots of people at the
conference talked about the need for a study
in developing new growth centres, and you
are not even doing the studying to consider
what might be the growth centres.
Hon. Mr. Randall: The hon. member does
not know whether we have or not.
Mr. MacDonald: What sort of a secret
society are you running over on that side of
the House? This is part of my whole com-
plaint.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to have to ask
the member for York South to continue. We
do not want to have discussion across the
floor, please.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. If you get your Irish up, I am sure
even the hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment will subside into silence.
If I might cite another example that I trust
does not arouse the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare (Mr. Cecile) as much as I aroused
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment—
Hon. Mr. Randall: The hon. member has
not aroused me, I am sure.
Mr. MacDonald: —Quebec was burdened
with a 19th-century approach to categorical
assistance in the health and welfare field.
Now she is moving towards a more efficient
and humane approach which raises problems
in federal-provincial relations, but which bids
fair to leaving us far behind in a more effec-
tive meeting of the needs of the people. In
short, Mr. Chairman, politics in French Can-
ada today are exciting, with a sense of direc-
tion and purpose. The important question is
not what Quebec wants, but what do we
want? What does English-speaking Canada
want? When are we going to develop, either
in our own province or collectively in English
Canada, the same sense of direction and pur-
pose to create our "quiet revolution" so that
our needs can be met as fully and as effec-
tively as they are in the province of Quebec?
When can we escape the dull grey of our
politics and capture some of the same excite-
ment which characterizes political life in
French Canada today?
The crisis today is not so much in French
Canada, Mr. Chairman, as it is in English
Canada, and the dangers are the greater be-
cause we do not even recognize that we have
a problem. We do not seem to know that we
have a problem. It is in this area that I sub-
mit to the hon. Prime Minister, in spite of
repeated public pronouncements in this field,
that he has not recognized the true nature of
the crisis; nor, more important, has he recog-
nized the historic role of Ontario in giving
voice to the aspirations of English Canada
within Confederation.
This point, Mr. Chairman, is so basic and
so important that I want to take a moment
to give the House what I think is the most
786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
brilliantly succinct analysis of the crisis in
Canadian Confederation. It is a brief quota-
tion from an article by Professor Gad Horo-
witz of McGill University in an article in the
magazine Canadian Dimension, entitled "The
future of English Canada." I want to quote
from that article.
The greatest threat to the existence of
Canada is not the autonomist drive of
Quebec. It is the weakness of the will to
nationhood in English Canada.
The immediate danger is that the inevit-
able transfer of power to Quebec will be
carried out as part of a general transfer of
power from the federal to the provincial
governments.
There is no way of avoiding an autono-
mous Quebec. Quebec demands and de-
serves autonomy. She will have autonomy
within Confederation, or there will be no
more Confederation. But there is no reason
to strengthen the other provincial govern-
ments. On the contrary, there may be good
economic and political reasons, and good
English-Canadian nationalist reasons, for
strengthening the federal government in its
relationship with the English-speaking
provinces. The obvious solution to Can-
ada's difficulties would appear to be a fed-
eral government which is weak in relation
to Quebec but strong in relation to the
other provinces— in other words, a "special
status" for Quebec within Confederation.
Of course, this solution can now be stated
only in general terms; working out the de-
tails will be a long, hard grind. But no
one has really begun to work them out.
Events are not moving in the direction of
a special status for Quebec. They are mov-
ing in the direction of greater autonomy for
all the provinces.
Why should this be so? Quebec is cer-
tainly not at fault. The French Canadians
do not care how English Canada manages
its own affairs, so long as Quebec is left
alone. Why, then, this complacency in the
face of the impending break-up of English
Canada?
What most students of Canada's prob-
lems do not realize is that Canada is now
going through not one crisis, but two. The
first is the crisis of Quebec, which gets all
the headlines and all the hard thought.
The second is the crisis of identity in
English Canada, which is losing the only
unifying sets of attitudes and symbols it
ever had, the sense of being British North
America, and is replacing it with nothing.
The Britishness of Canada was its ideologi-
cal and emotional spine. It has been
broken. This is Canada's quiet crisis. No
one worries about it. No one says anything
about it.
Then, having analyzed the picture there, Mr.
Chairman, in this fashion, Professor Horowitz
points to a few ways out. I quote:
The survival of Canada depends on the
resurrection of English-Canadian will to
nationhood.
And later:
The French Canadians often say to us
"We French Canadians know that we are
a nation. Whether you English Canadians
are a nation is for you to decide." It is time
for us to take up the challenge.
says Professor Horowitz. He adds:
If we are willing to make use of it
for our own purposes, French-Canadian
nationalism can help to create a true
English-Canadian nationalism. Group iden-
tities develop in conflict. We may not have
been an English-Canadian nation in the
past. We may have considered ourselves
Britons in North America (the old Tory
view), or "unhyphenated Canadians" (the
Dafoe-Diefenbaker prairie view), but it is
no longer realistic to think of ourselves
in those terms. The French Canadians will
not permit unhyphenated Canadianism, and
to think of ourselves as British North
Americans is not only unjust to the new
Canadians, but unsatisfactory even to the
scions of Loyalists. The fact that the French
Canadians tend to think of us as an
English-Canadian nation in a bi-national
state and address their demands to us as
if we were such a nation, may encourage
us to think in their terms and to respond to
their demands in their terms. French-
Canadian nationalism can help to beget
English-Canadian nationalism.
Professor Horowitz emphasizes:
This is not an appeal to English Can-
adians to respond to the reply of "Quebec
d'abord" with the tit-for-tat "English Can-
ada first." It is an appeal to give at least
as much thought to the future of English
Canada as we are giving to the future of
Confederation. There is reason to believe
that the two nations will be able to live
together in the bosom of this single state
only when both are fully developed nations,
each controlling its own destiny.
Mr. Chairman, so much for Horowitz's views.
In light of them, I want to get back to what
I think are the inadequacies of the hon. Prime
Minister's conception of the role of Ontario
as revealed in his speeches over the past year
or so.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
787
If we concede that Quebec has a special
status in Confederation, as indeed she has
always had, and as she is likely to have in
an even greater extent in the opting-out
formula in the future, then should we claim
the same privilege to opt out ourselves in
Ontario, perhaps with no strings attached,
as the hon. Prime Minister threatened in the
Medicare debate? Should we seek the same
decentralization of powers for Ontario and all
other provinces as Quebec is demanding to
establish her special status? Or do we recog-
nize that Ontario and the rest of the provinces
have a special need for a strong central gov-
ernment to meet the needs of our people, to
achieve an identity for English Canada, to
help create a will to nationhood among
English Canadians?
The hon. Prime Minister has repeatedly
said that he is in favour of a strong central
government. This is another theme that runs
through his speeches. But, Mr. Chairman, if
you add up all the demands which this gov-
ernment has made on behalf of Ontario, while
they may be put less stridently than those
demands that come from Quebec, they repre-
sent just as great a weakening of the federal
authority.
John Dafoe put his finger on the dilemma
in an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail
on the Saturday following the Budget this
year, and I quote: "The twin foundations
of the Ontario government's fiscal policy are
in danger of destroying themselves," he said.
On the one hand, he pointed out, Ontario has
contended that the federal government must
retain control of the fiscal levers that regulate
the national economy. On the other hand,
Ontario demands the financial capacity to
fulfill the constitutional responsibilities of the
province. But if those demands are made
greater and greater, as the hon. Prime Min-
ister is, in fact, making them, it will be
impossible for the federal government to
retain adequate fiscal power to regulate the
economy.
In short, Mr. Chairman, there is some re-
markable inconsistency emerging in the
stance of the hon. Prime Minister as "a
Canadian from Ontario." I cited some of
them in the Medicare debate, as listed by
Anthony Westall, with reference to Ontario's
unco-operative role in working out a national
programme for medical insurance.
Instead of giving leadership to English
Canada, and thereby countering a tendency
for its nine provinces to go off each in its
own direction, instead of forcing the federal
government to a firm Medicare commitment,
which is now possible— a commitment which
will meet not only the needs of the people
of Ontario, but all Canada— the hon. Prime
Minister is engaged in a poker game with
Ottawa. He did the same thing on pensions,
so that until the very end nobody knew
where Ontario stood. Because of this basic-
ally unco-operative approach, Ontario threw
away its opportunity, as the largest Canadian
province, to play a key role in shaping the
pension plan. Instead, we tended to be
critical of Quebec because it was not afraid
to sit down and do some hard bargaining to
achieve what it wanted.
Mr. Chairman, during the Medicare debate,
the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree)
made a heated interjection which was most
illuminating. The hon. Prime Minister had to
draw him back into his seat and try to pacify
him before he got too far out, because it was
the clearest statement we have had from any
senior Cabinet Minister of the attitude of
this government. Hansard records the words
of the hon. Minister of Labour as follows:
"The whole thing has been predetermined
and there is no opportunity to do any bar-
gaining with Ottawa." Mr. Chairman, if this
is the approach of the government, I think
it is about time the hon. Prime Minister con-
firmed or denied it, because I suggest that
that is a counsel of defeatism, if I ever heard
one. It is idle for us to be critical of Quebec
in making so-called back-door deals with
Ottawa through hard bargaining if Ontario,
as the historic spokesman for Canada within
Confederation, insists on sulking at a dis-
tance, bargaining at arm's length, and finally
having no alternative but to accept con-
clusions which we have had very little role
in shaping. This is the antithesis of leader-
ship; it is a tragic abrogation of leadership.
Yet this is the role this government has
taken on issue after issue.
Mr. Chairman, the future of this nation is
going to be shaped by a more effective
working relationship between the federal
government and the provinces, particularly
between the federal government and Ontario
as the largest province of English Canada.
This, in essence, is co-operative federalism.
The needs of the people of Canada, and
particularly of English Canada, can be ade-
quately met in the coming century only if
the two senior levels of government co-
operate fully, instead of engaging in petty
rivalries and politicking.
Pensions and Medicare— and to this can
be added such things as manpower training
and ARDA— are not just issues in themselves,
but instruments through which we can re-
shape the structure of Confederation.
Just as the railways were the means by
788
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which Confederation was knit more strongly
in the 19th century, so these issues are the
instruments by which we can establish a
greater unity in all of Canada through
common standards of service and oppor-
tunity.
There is the added important factor of the
crisis in English-speaking Canada. If On-
tario were to give leadership among the prov-
inces of English Canada in co-operative
effort with the federal government, particu-
larly in areas that constitutionally lie wholly
or significantly in the provincial field, and if
we were to give that leadership instead of
tagging along at the end of the pack, in
company with PEI or with Manitoba, after
the decision has been shaped by other prov-
inces, then there would be some hope of
creating the identity which English Canada
lacks in contrast to French Canada.
Ontario's leadership could inspire the will
to nationhood which English Canada has
lost. We could create a sense of purpose and
direction in English Canada which would
produce our own quiet revolution. Without
it, we shall not be able to meet adequately
the needs of the 20th century.
Mr. Chairman, I have opened up this
issue and for the moment I leave the matter
there. I have a resolution on the order paper
calling for the establishment of an all-party
committee in the wake of the demise of the
Fulton-Favreau formula, which would pro-
vide an opportunity for all parties in this
province to play a role in clarifying what
Ontario wants from Confederation; what our
relationship with Quebec should be; what we
feel are the limits of a special status for
Quebec within Confederation, and— most im-
portant of all— what our future relationship
with the federal government should be in
order that jointly, with Ottawa, we can meet
the needs of our people in Ontario and with
our leadership, throughout the rest of Canada,
too.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, 100 years
ago the fathers of Confederation faced an
infinitely more difficult task in welding a
nation out of the British North American
colonies, but they did it. They served future
generations well. It would be tragic if the
fathers of re-Confederation were to fail this
nation today and its future generations. The
hon. Prime Minister of this province is cast
by history as potentially the leader among
the fathers of re-Confederation. It is my
firm belief, expressed more in sorrow than
in anger, that he is not meeting the chal-
lenge. I suggest that now is the time, in the
estimates of The Department of the Prime
Minister, to consider this situation and
to discuss frankly what his role should be,
what it has been and what it should be, and
what more is needed by way of machinery
in the department of his office and the
Cabinet so that we can get the job done
adequately.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, a very interest-
ing and very provocative subject has been
opened by the hon. member for York South.
Unlike him, Mr. Chairman, I do not have
a set piece prepared— not that I in any way
detract from the research and the thought
that went into the preparation of his remarks.
However, I cannot let the opportunity pass
without making some minor contribution to a
discussion of this very important matter.
Let me say that I take issue with my friend,
the hon. member for York South, when he
faults the Prime Minister of the province.
I, like him, am one of the members of the
House, and I fear that we are very few
who read each and every utterance of
the hon. Prime Minister that comes in the
mail to my desk, whether it be here or to my
office in Sudbury.
Some day it may happen, but I have never
yet heard a backbencher on the government
side of this House ever make remarks of any
nature from which one could infer that
that member has either read some of the
utterances of the hon. Prime Minister speak-
ing on behalf of the people of this province,
or that he is interested in what the first citi-
zen has said. Never have I heard a conversa-
tion initiated which recognizes that the hon.
Prime Minister can go down into the province
of Quebec, as he did, and make a speech in
which he said that the teaching of French in
Ontario is not all that it should be and in-
voked a lead editorial the next day in each
of the French-language newspapers praising
him for his statesmanship, his sense of nation-
ality and his broadmindedness.
I do not fault him. I do not criticize the
things he says, like his predecessor— and I
try to be a fairminded man. I see that the
leader of the government has a sense of the
nationhood of Canada. I have never seen in
anything he ever said that he put forward as
being his pre-eminent duty, the protection of
the narrow interests of Ontario ahead of the
rest of Canada. On the contrary! To use the
vernacular, one gets the impression that he
speaks with such a wide sense of nationality
—as the other day when he took the oppor-
tunity to get up to say how much he liked
Saskatchewan— that a good deal of the time
he is preaching for a call to some other place.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
789
No, sir, I do not fault him! The people I
fault are those he has selected to sit around
him on the Treasury benches where sits the
executive council.
Apart from the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) I have never heard one of those
hon. Ministers of the Crown ever make a
single utterance about the meaning of this
nation; not one— neither in the written or
spoken speeches. To hear them from one
year's end to the next, you would never know
that they knew that Canada existed; that
Canada was fraught with problems and
anxieties to the state that the Prime Minister
of the country accuses all of his fellow citi-
zens of being schizophrenic, which is a nice
psychiatric word— whatever it means— but it
has a real meaning. It is not a complimentary
word. But what do we hear?
Let me deal first with the hon. Minister of
Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld). We
hear from him that an important agency
under his department— the St. Lawrence
parks commission, the large properties that
they own— are going to spend public money
to have a barn-raising bee to celebrate our
centennial year. A barn-raising bee, and they
are going to do it in stages, instead of using
the opportunity in that historic park of On-
tario—and there is no part of the country
that is more historic than the lands that
border Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River to the sea— to invite some eminent his-
torians to come down during the summer to
their park and give a series of lectures.
I suggested some topics to the public rela-
tions man of that commission who, I do not
think, was very hep in history. I suggested
he might have one of them tell the story of
why the Prince of Wales in 1860 refused to
get off the boat in Kingston— because the
Orangemen were so militant and angry that
they might have lynched him. That would
be a subject for a good lecture, but they are
going to have a barn-raising bee instead.
What do we hear from the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development? I am sorry
he has left the House because I wanted to
speak to him personally. He comes in here
full of ire and great irascibility one day and
tells a fellow Cabinet Minister from another
province that if he wants to make speeches,
to make them down in his own province, not
to make them under dateline Ontario.
My friend, the hon. member for York
South talked about a Duncan MacPherson
cartoon— the great cartoonist could have
drawn one about that. It would have had
Uncle Sam in the background and the hon.
Minister of Economics and Development per-
haps nudging Mr. Kierans in the ribs and
saying: "You silly fool, do not say anything
to offend him."
No recognition of the problems of Mr.
Kierans— the dilemma that he faces— a prob-
lem of such magnitude that the hon. Minister
does not have to face here. There are no
pressures on our Minister from a nation-
alist origin. Mr. Kierans has the problem on
the one hand of raising the standard of living
of the people of the province of Quebec, rais-
ing them up to the level of Ontario of which
they are properly jealous and envious. That
is one part of his problem.
The other part is to so control the influx of
foreign capital and the economic domination
that it brings, that it will not detract from
the French-Canadian identity. Underhill has
well pointed out that of two centuries of the
French residence on this continent, one was
spent in fear of the British conqueror. And
the British conqueror very nearly obliterated
them, or tried to by the Act of Union in 1841,
whereby—
Mr. Chairman: I am wondering how this
fits into the Prime Minister's department?
Mr. Sopha: I notice this, sir, I am not going
to be very long, but the theme of it is the
way the hon. Prime Minister represents us
when he speaks outside the House.
To continue what I was saying— the second
century of the French residence has seen, of
course, an attempt by them to preserve their
identity— precisely what they are doing now,
not losing sight of the fact that what is hap-
pening in Quebec is of an economic origin.
When they want French Canadians to be
vice-presidents and to be on the board of
directors of corporations, those things are
economic stimuli that motivate them to
action.
Mr. Kierans might well have said to this
hon. Minister of the Crown here— he should
have said it the next day, had he thought of
it— "Come down to Quebec. Make any
speech you want in Quebec. We will give
you a hall, we will fill it with people to listen
to you. Talk about what you want, as long
as you do not swear, because we are God-
fearing people in Quebec. Because there is
free speech in Quebec." Free speech. A
man does not need to fear that a person of
the prestige of the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development will get up in the
most important place in Ontario and tell a
fellow Canadian, let alone a Cabinet Minis-
ter, not to talk that way in this province or
in this city.
790
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I say, my God! The hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development does not even
understand the problems. He does not even
understand the problems we face in this
year. To repeat that graphically, I tell you
with Underhill— the little book I sent for
when my hon. friend was speaking— Underhill
says that if we properly recognized the place
in our history of the American ogre, then to
be consistent, one of our chief centennial
projects in 1967 would be to erect a big
statue in Ottawa to the American ogre.
Not only did the American ogre start us
on the road to nationhood in 1867, because
we feared those large armies that had com-
pleted the civil war, but ever since then
there has been in the background the gnaw-
ing fear among us that economic domination
is going to lead to loss of our political
sovereignty. That is what Mr. Kierans was
talking about. That is what he made the
speech about. That is what Walter Gordon
was working against. That is what his Budget
of 1963 was about. That is why the Parlia-
ment of Canada passed legislation to prevent
the control of our banks falling into the
hands of Americans. Those are the things
that bother us and concern us.
The hon. Minister of Economics and De-
velopment apparently does not comprehend
that, nor the rest of them; a sorry state of
their concern about the role of Ontario in
the future of this nation, as a viable nation.
When, if ever, are any of them going to
make an utterance to show that concern?
One final thing. In that contentious and
provocative statement made by my hon.
friend from York South, he speaks of Ontario
being the historic spokesman of this nation.
That is what the hon. Prime Minister tries
to be.
He actually works at it, and all credit
to him. He works at it responsibly, and the
things he says usually are responsible utter-
ances. As a fairminded man I must admit
that, because I study those things very care-
fully. Sometimes I disagree with him in de-
tail, but I recognize that he has a highly
developed historical sense of this nation.
I used to think that Ontario was the ful-
crum, the point at which this nation balanced,
and that Ontario perhaps had a very idealistic
aura about it concerning the preservation
of this nation. Ontario, after all, miniatures
within its boundaries everything that is
Canadian, with the possible exception of the
fishing industry. But anything else that is
Canadian, and typically Canadian, is found
within Ontario. We are a miniature of the
whole.
But I have had some second thoughts
about the idealism, and the sense of charity
that we exhibit towards the rest of the
country. I think, on the contrary, on mature
reflection, that Ontario today is what it has
been historically— a place populated by very
good businessmen. It was in the interests
of Ontario, well recognized by George
Brown, Macdonald, Gait, McGee. McGee,
after all, was the first one that initiated the
proposal of union. They well recognized it
was in the interests of Ontario to found the
Confederation. They worked for it.
Mr. Chairman: I hate to interrupt the
member, but I would remind him—
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I am coming to the end.
This is the way the hon. Prime Minister
speaks. These are the things he speaks of,
and I ask for equal time. But it is not only
idealism or a desire— what is it my hon.
friend says; a will to nationhood. Is that
the phrase? A will to nationhood? It is in
the interests of Ontario to keep this nation
viable, strong and united. The heavy indus-
trial complexes here, and manifold, multiple
natural resources, are within this province;
their development is by the industry of our
people, by the accumulation of capital we
have in this province. It is good business for
us in Ontario to keep the country viable and
strong, because we can sell our goods and
services to the rest of the country.
So it is not so much idealism as it is good
practical, hard-headed business sense. That
does not in any way mitigate our role of
responsibility. There is little else that I can
quarrel about. I do not regret this utterance
I have made, but I am waiting for the day
that one of these people that occupy these
seats will come up to me in the hallway, and
say to me: "Did you read what the Prime
Minister said last week in Quebec city?"
and we get into a discussion about it.
Seldom two days go by that a historically
minded person— my hon. friend from Brant
(Mr. Nixon)— does not raise it with me. He
keeps an eye open. He, of Loyalist stock, has
roots well founded in the history of this coun-
try. His father, who sat in this Legislature
40 years before him, was concerned about it.
Where is the concern that I see in these
other benches? The back benches do not
really count; we saw that this afternoon.
They can be sacrificed, there is enough with-
out them. We sacrificed two of them this
afternoon.
I have never seem him quite as cruel as
he was this afternoon. That is all right. I
am worried about those 22 others over there,
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
791
apart, perhaps, from the hon. Attorney
General, who, after all, represented us at
the constitutional, Fulton-Favreau, confer-
ence.
Mr. Chairman: I know the member wants
to get back to the vote-
Mr. Sopha: I am worried about the rest
of them. And I finally say this. The hon.
Prime Minister— that is who we are talking
about— assumed the mantle of office in No-
vember of 1961. As I look at the faces of
the occupants over there— and I do not like
to point like the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Grossman)— the personnel
that I see are inherited, with one or two or
three exceptions, from the Hon. Leslie Frost.
They are his team. I ask how many years does
he have to sit there until he cleans house,
that he gets his own team around him? Who
is it that came with him? The hon. Attorney
General, the hon. Minister of Tourism and
Information, the hon. Minister of Energy and
Resources Management (Mr. Simonett). Who
else are his? That is why there is no co-cordi-
nation, perhaps why there is no elan.
Hon. Prime Minister of this province,
let it be known that your seats are not
secure, you are not going to sit around that
lovely table in the Cabinet room interminably.
You have got to work for your jobs, you have
got to show some elan, some energy, some
force majeure. He had a little sense of
competition and he looked around. As one
picks out the very few backbenchers there
are here, there are very few who could
adequately displace those that have grown
old and fat and lethargic over there. So better
perhaps than getting into philosophic discus-
sions and talk about better co-ordination be-
tween Cabinet committees and all that,
perhaps if we had a new look at the faces in
the Treasury benches the affairs of the people
of this province might receive a thrust up-
ward.
Vote 1401 agreed to.
On vote 1402:
Mr. Thompson: I think that my friend and
colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury
has pointed out certain characteristics of
the Cabinet, but I would like to point out
another characteristic about this government,
and that is that there is an extraordinary num-
ber of Cabinet Ministers. May I point to
Ottawa? In Ottawa, in comparison with the
members of the party in power, the proportion
that makes up the Cabinet has been 6.8 per
cent. In the United Kingdom it has been 3.6
per cent of the members of the party who
make up the Cabinet. But in this Cabinet
you get something like 70 per cent of the
members of your party making up the
Cabinet. It is quite obvious that the ma-
chinery to make the Cabinet work effectively
has a complete lack of co-ordination. I look
towards the hon. Minister of Health. I felt
sorry for him as I read in the paper two
years ago, I think it was, when the hon.
Prime Minister was down in Quebec. I
read where the hon. Minister of Health had
gone down to a Dominion-provincial confer-
ence and he was asked what he was doing
there. As I understand it, he said, "Well,
we are going to be discussing health," and
further down I read where the hon. Prime
Minister had said also in this thing, "Well,
that is the first that I have heard of it." And
of course that accentuates either that you are
left out in the cold constantly or else that
there is a lack of co-ordination amongst the
group of you.
We have argued for an economic council
with the hon. Prime Minister acting as the
leader of it, to get co-ordination. Krueger—
and before that there have been others to
show the overlapping that takes place within
the Cabinet.
Now, I want to turn to another point
which is the lack of control by the Cabinet,
of delegated authority, and this hits again at
the actions of this Parliament. One of the
things that we should be doing in the Parlia-
ment of Ontario is to be examining bills and
regulations. After all, that is part of our main
duty, sir. One of the dangers in the history
of Ontario has been that there were people
who thought that the Legislature was un-
necessary—I think that even the much revered
Sir John A. Macdonald referred to this Legis-
lature at one time and said that it should
really just be a municipality. To show that
I am not being biased and narrow and par-
tisan when I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald,
I should say that George Brown felt that the
provincial Legislature should report to the
Lieutenant-Governor and not have an as-
sembly but there should be departments
reporting directly to the Lieutenant-Governor.
The first Lieutenant-Governor of this prov-
ince felt that he did not need a legislature,
as you know. Out in the west in Manitoba
for five years they had a struggle with the
Lieutenant-Governor who felt there was no
need for an assembly. Now, why am I
pointing this out, sir, in connection with
Cabinet? Because historically this fight still
continues. The Cabinet is the executive,
the representatives of the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor, and in my opinion we are still fighting
792
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the power of a lieutenant-governor who
wants to push aside the Legislature and the
Cabinet in its obligation to bring bills and
regulations and orders-in-council before this
Legislature to have the scrutiny of the whole
of the Legislature. They are disavowing that
obligation and taking us away back when
there was a lieutenant-governor arrogant of
the people's representatives.
I say this to you, sir, because I would like
to know how many regulations, how many
orders-in-council do not even come before the
Lieutenant-Governor in council. Do you rea-
lize, Mr. Chairman, that these Cabinet Min-
isters sitting over here, can pass on their own
regulations or orders-in-council if they are
not of a legislative nature? Now, I am not
a lawyer, but I would suspect that if I were
to ask every one of the Cabinet Ministers to
define what is of a legislative nature I would
get such a variety of opinions that it would
fill a book; the simple point is that that has
never been qualified. Consequently this is
what happens. Because Cabinet Ministers de-
cide that something is not of a legislative
nature, they go ahead with orders-in-council
and with regulations that are put into effect
without coming to the register of regulations
and this goes through without even a law
officer in many cases having a look at them.
You know this. You know the abuse that has
taken place between Cabinet Ministers mak-
ing regulations and orders-in-council. I will
give you one example.
The Minister of Agriculture about four
years ago tried to pass an order-in-council
by which he would give loans to anyone that
he wanted to, and of any size that he wanted
to. We were very fortunate that there was
a legal officer who told him he was stepping
over the mark in doing that, that it was be-
yond the discretion that he had and that he
had better bring that in as a bill. That is
one example, and there may be many more
that the people have never seen. Why have
they not seen it? They have not seen it for
these reasons: First of all, there is this dis-
qualifying clause about "of a legislative
nature." The other thing is that the register
never tables regulations so that they can be
before the scrutiny of this House.
The Cabinet are a power in themselves.
The Cabinet can go ahead, by-pass the regis-
ter, by-pass the Lieutenant-Governor in
council for examination and pass regulations
—and you can laugh over there at this, you
can laugh at us— but there are regulations and
orders-in-council which are hurting the people
around this province and they are getting
fed up with you in the way that you are
taxing them. And I want to suggest to you
again, as I have before, that bringing your
boards and commissions which you have dele-
gated power to, you in the Cabinet have dele-
gated powers to boards and commissions
which should rest right in this Legislature
and should be examined in the Legislature.
To bring it back again, to bring back the
regulations that they are making, give some
system to it, I am going to make several
points to you. In the first place you should
have a legal officer of the assembly. You
should have a registrar who tables in the
Legislature a report on regulations so that
they can be examined by all of the Legis-
lature.
Onee again I urge on the hon. Prime Min-
ister that he set up a scrutiny committee to
examine orders-in-council, to have a defini-
tion concerning what order-in-council should
be brought before the Legislature, and then
that the members of the Legislature them-
selves should have the power, by moving a
prayer about any regulation, be able to annul
it.
The way it is now, these are printed in the
Gazette and they are a fait accompli. We
have heard too much about a fait accompli.
I was thinking of the discussion and a very
worthwhile discussion by the hon. leader of
the new party (Mr. MacDonald), and I was
thinking of the Fulton-Favreau report again
and how the hon. Attorney General came back
and used the words "it was a fait accompli.'
Then I think you were defining it in some
other way but to me it was still an accom-
plished fact.
Too many orders-in-council and regula-
tions are being made because you are not
moving into the 20th century. You had this
kind of approach for many years and you
have not looked at other jurisdictions, you
have not looked at Westminster. Mr. Speaker
talks of Westminster. You have not looked
at Ottawa, you have not looked at any of
the parliamentary systems of the world. And
you sit there and I suppose the hon. Minister
of Health symbolizes all the arrogance then'
is; he symbolizes it all when he goes like
this about the need to have regulations and
orders-in-council and boards and commis-
sions and all the power which you are given
by the people, the need to have that
examined and scrutinized on the floor of this
Legislature.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
Prime Minister not going to deign to refer to
anything that has been said on this side of
the House?
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
793
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a
debate on federal-provincial affairs tonight.
I enjoyed the comments of the hon. member.
I will read them and study them and we will
have other opportunities. I did not come
here tonight on these estimates prepared to
debate federal-provincial relations; the hon.
member obviously did. And I enjoyed his
remarks very much.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the Cabinet
committee?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, of course I know
Professor Krueger's report and he obviously
does not think much of this government.
This is open night on Cabinet Ministers. I
just do not agree with Professor Krueger,
that is the point, I just simply do not agree
with what he said, and all the hon. member
is doing is reading his report, which is highly
critical of one or two Cabinet committees
that he happened to see. I just do not agree
with him. We have Cabinet committees
which in my opinion function very well, and
if they did not I would not have them. I
would change the arrangements if I felt
they were not satisfactory.
The hon. member makes our government
appear very inefficient. He paints a sad
picture of our province, but all I can say is
that our unemployment rate in this province
is less than 2.5 per cent at the moment. We
have the highest per capita income in
Canada. We met all conditions and guide-
lines set down by the economic council of
Canada in 1965. We had the highest export
figures from this province, and that is one
of our major contributions to Canada in
1965.
Our quiet revolution— the hon. member
refers to Quebec— as I have said on many
occasions, our quiet revolution in this prov-
ince started when the Conservative govern-
ment came to power in 1943. And it has
been one long story of progress ever since.
And with the hon. member's complete and
absolute fetish for planning, we just do not
agree with him philosophically either. He
might get up and say we should do a great
deal more planning than we do— but we like
the results we are getting in this province
with this government. And we are getting
results.
There are many, many comments I could
make, and perhaps I should mention one or
two things that the hon. leader of the Op-
position raised, particularly if we go way
back to the beginning, and it seems like
about two hours ago. But he mentioned the
question of secrecy in federal-provincial con-
ferences. All I can say is that I am in full
agreement with him, but I do not set the
ground rules for the federal-provincial con-
ferences.
I have announced at the conferences that
I had no intention of abiding by the secrecy
rules that are honoured more in the breach
than in the observance anyway. I think the
way the conferences are run is pretty silly.
It is neither fair to those who are participat-
ing in the conference, nor to the representa-
tives of news media who are attempting to
cover the conference, to tell the people of
the country what is going on.
My own habit at these conferences has
been to hold a press conference of my own
as soon as the day's work is over, and I say
to the press, "Now, what do you want to
know?" and answer the questions.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask the hon. Prime
Minister, does that mean that he would en-
courage the Opposition representation to go
as observers to these conferences?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was dealing with the
secrecy in the conferences themselves. We
do not really make any particular secret of
the stand that we take in these conferences.
On the other hand, I must admit to you that
it would be difficult to have as a standing
rule that everything that went on at a con-
ference was made public. There has to be
some area where we have some private dis-
cussions, but I think we could establish
much better rules than we have at these
conferences, and I am not alone in thinking
this.
I would say this about the federal-provin-
cial conferences— and I have said this on
many occasions before, too. It is an evolving
instrument in our society and it is very far
from perfect and it is in the process of being
developed. As I look ahead, it seems to me
that probably between now and October we
are going to spend— I do not know how many
weeks will have to be spent in federal-
provincial conferences if we are to arrive
at the national solutions to the problems we
face and those that lie ahead of us which
must be decided. If we are, for instance,
to translate our decisions into legislation to
provide for a tax-sharing arrangement to
commence on April 1, 1967.
I would think the form and function of the
conference is something to which we should
be paying some attention, and I can assure
you as a government we are looking at it in
order to make suggestions as to how this
might better function.
794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The next point that was made was con-
sultation. I suppose, really, we make our
position public when we go to a conference.
And there is nothing secret about the posi-
tion that we take; these statements are pub-
lished. They do not get much publicity
because some of them are long and perhaps
not the most readable documents in the
world, but there is nothing secret about any
position we have taken at any conference.
You can see the papers we have submitted
there. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
we might have debate on these matters in
the House.
I would like to hear the hon. member for
Sudbury produce his ideas on the so-called
French facts. He seems to understand it very
well. But I do not know that my estimates
are exactly the place for this debate. I will
be very happy to enter into it later on during
the session, because there are many areas on
which we should have some exchange.
For instance, the point raised by the hon.
member for York South, in which he quotes
Mr. Dafoe. Mr. Dafoe puts his finger on a
very difficult point and this comes about
through the growth of the provinces. Some-
how or other we have to devise some means
of reconciling the growth of the provinces in
the last 20 years with the need of the federal
government to maintain fiscal control. And,
of course, these are obviously two separate
issues; you cannot put them together. You
cannot deny the fact that they exist, because
the provinces have grown so rapidly in 20
years.
For instance, you must realize that for the
federal government to draw back on capital
spending as a means of control of inflation is
absolutely meaningless unless it is done in
concert with all the provinces so that they
draw back, too; because we are spending to-
gether as provinces and municipalities. Over
85—1 think it is about 82 per cent— of the
capital government spending in Canada is
controlled by the provincial government and
the municipalities.
Now, this is not Ontario being big, or On-
tario waving a big stick, or Ontario not co-
operating. This is a simple fact of life with
which we have to deal in this country. And
Canada in 1966 is not Canada in 1936, and
we have to adjust many of these positions.
We have anomalies facing us which are going
to have to be recognized. I give you this as
one and I say Mr. Dafoe's point is very well
taken.
As far as co-operation is concerned, I
would say again that we have every intention
of co-operating to the utmost with the federal
government. But we have our own opinions
as to how things should be done and these
we will express. Everybody in this House
has a dual responsibility. In the first place,
we are all here, elected by the people of
Ontario, and in the second place, we are all
citizens of Canada. Sometimes these two
positions may come into conflict, one with the
other. And this, too, is a fact of life that you
must face. You just cannot be completely
perfect.
We have a responsibility to the province,
and in a broader sense we have a responsi-
bility to Canada. I do not accept the proposi-
tion that we are necessarily doing the right
thing for Ontario, or the right thing for Can-
ada, if we just simply go along with every-
thing the federal government says. It has
never been like this in the history of our
province, or our country.
So we will hammer it out over a period of
time if we approach it as men of goodwill
and if we can get our minds around the fact
that we should not be competing with the
federal government. We should be co-operat-
ing with them. But we now have political
parties competing and levels of government
competing at the same time. This is another
matter which in my view has to be straight-
ened out in our country, so that we have
some cohesive position as we move forward
across the country. This is my eternal plea
for co-operation. No fait accomplis, either
from us to them or from them to us. I re-
member the conferences when it was simply
a question of going to Ottawa, making a nice
little speech and the federal government
simply walked in and said, "Boys, this what
you are going to do," and we all said "Thank
you" and went home. Now, I think those
days are gone. They simply do not exist any
more and we are evolving a new method of
dealing with the problems that we have
today.
I really did not intend to get into this, but
these are just some of the ideas that we can,
I would hope, debate in some of the general
debates in this House. There are resolutions
here and we can arrange, as far as that is
concerned, to debate anything we like here
at any time, and we have time to debate
some of these issues.
As far as the committee on Confederation
is concerned, it is doing certain work for the
government. It is not our intent necessarily
that all their findings be secret. On the other
hand, they have a great deal of difficulty
reaching any consensus themselves, and some-
times maybe they are not as anxious as you
might think to put their names on some of
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
795
the material they may produce, but there is
no doubt in my mind and I have said-
Mr. Thompson: We do not want to hear
the consensus, we would like to hear the
different points of view.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would be happy to—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if I might ask the hon. Prime Minister a
question in this connection? I understand that
a number of studies are being done by the
committee on Confederation.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will get you a list of
them. I would be happy to bring in a list
of the various areas-
Mr. MacDonald: Not only the studies, but
the results. Can we have them or not?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: There have not been
many results to date. That is the fact of the
matter. The studies are continuing.
Mr. MacDonald: But when they are fin-
ished, can they be made available?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would say that the
committee is set up as an advisory committee
to the government, which means everything
it does is not necessarily public, however,
that does not mean that everything it does is
necessarily private. Let me put it that way.
Mr. MacDonald: But the government in-
cludes the Opposition as well as the adminis-
tration.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is right. You are
quite right, and I would have no hesitation in
putting these things into the public domain
so that we may have the benefit of these
men's work and efforts. Undoubtedly we
will not agree with everything they say, but
it is the basis for debate and thought and
consideration. So that is the question of the
committee on Confederation, and I would
hope that we can debate these questions of
federal-provincial relationships.
One other point. The hon. leader of the
Opposition suggests a Minister of federal-
provincial relations. On the other hand, he
turns around and says we have too many
Ministers— you know, somewhere or other-
Mr. Thompson: Actually, I am thinking of
you.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Thanks very much. We
have developed a secretariat within the office
of the chief economist to deal with various
problems of federal-provincial relationships
and Confederation, and I think this is a better
place for it. It did not happen this way by
chance; it was planned, because at the
moment the major field of federal-provincial
communication stems from the need for new
fiscal arrangements to be entered into approx-
imately a year-and-a-half from now. We
have co-ordinated the work that is being done
by the tax structure committee and our con-
tribution. You know that committee is served
by elements of government from coast-to-
coast and the federal government. Our con-
tribution to the work of that committee, as
a government, comes within, of course, the
ambit of The Department of Economics and
Development, and when we get to the esti-
mates of the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development, you will then have an oppor-
tunity to see just how far we are going into
this, when you see the amount of money you
will be asked to vote for the number of
people who will be working with the chief
economist in the area of federal-provincial
relationships. I will not, however, pursue this
point in these estimates, because it will be
all there for you to see when we reach that
point in the estimates.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Before this
vote-
Mr. Chairman: No, we have completed
the vote. This concludes the estimates.
Mr. Thompson: No, we are on 1402.
Mr. Chairman: That is what we finished.
Mr. Thompson: We had not finished. We
had not passed it.
Mr. Sargent: The point that I think is
pertinent to the House is the fact that this
is the first portfolio we have discussed in the
estimates for 1966. I think it is important—
you will agree with this, Mr. Chairman— that
the hon. Prime Minister has said that he was
not a party to ground rules at provincial-
federal conferences. I agree with that, but
he is in charge of the ground rules in this
House, I think. At least we hope he is, and
this may not be the portfolio to start with,
but I do think it is fair to look at the public
accounts here.
Mr. Chairman: Where does this come un-
der 1402?
Mr. Sargent: 1402. Well, on page N-3 of
your public accounts book you will see-
Mr. V. M. Singer: (Downsview): It is N-3
of the public accounts.
796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: I think it is important, Mr.
Chairman, that we have here, grouped in this
department, a total expenditure of $214,000
in the Prime Minister's department. I apolo-
gize that we should pick this department to
start with, but—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
ber give us that page number again?
Mr. Sargent: It is N-3, Mr. Minister, in
the public accounts.
Mr. Sopha: "N" is for "nuts."
Hon. Mr. Randall: Do not let them say
that about you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey
North.
Mr. Sargent: I think it is important that we
have here, starting to talk, Mr. W. Kinmond.
Now, we are not quarrelling with any in-
dividuals mentioned, but we do—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, last year
I tabled, at the request of a member in the
Opposition, the name and salary of every
person in the department, so do not feel
badly about saying it; it has been done
before.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the fact is
that we have grouped in this first vote here,
other salaries $49,000. Down further we have
maintenance, main office, $113,000. I think
somewhere along the line we should have
the right to know the breakdown. The thing
is—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): You asked for it last year-
Mr. Chairman: Has the member for Grey
North any information he wants in connection
with the main office? It can be given to him.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to get a ruling
from you, Mr. Chairman. We are talking
about ground rules.
Interjeetions by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I ask the members to listen,
please, to the member for Grey North.
Mr. Sargent: I have no quarrel with any
of the amounts here. We have a 25 per cent
increase in the budget in this department, and
probably there are good reasons for it, but I
think we should establish throughout the
next four or five months that where you have
large amounts, there should be breakdowns,
because there is no way of knowing the
details involved. May we have a ruling in that
regard?
Mr. Chairman: The member has a ruling
right now. Any information the member for
Grey North wants, all he has to do is ask for
it. Any information he wants, he may ask
for now.
Mr. Sargent: I think it is a fair request,
yes.
Mr. Chairman: The answer to the question
is that if there is some information that the
member requires, would he ask for it now,
please?
An hon. member: Ask for that information.
Mr. Sargent: I am asking for that.
Mr. Chairman: Asking for what? What
specifically is the member asking for?
Mr. Sargent: All right, in the main office
vote-
Mr. Chairman: We are on 1402 now.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Cabinet office break-
down. But the principle throughout the whole
budget is that where we have other salaries,
we have grouping across the whole board and
we should have breakdowns presented to the
House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I would
tell the hon. member that the staff in the
Cabinet office consists of nine persons and
their salaries as of March 31, 1966 are
$74,000. There is one vacancy and we esti-
mate for 1966-1967 $68,000, but there is
one vacancy in the staff, so that is the differ-
ence between those two figures. I do not
know whether that is the information that the
hon. member requires. You see, in the public
accounts themselves, if you turn to page 81,
you will see that it says the expenditure
statement by departments for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1965, are shown in detail,
with the exception of the following items
which have been summarized. In other words,
instead of filling up far more pages, they are
summarized — salary payments of less than
$8,000 per individual, where the salary is less
than $8,000; then the salaries of a group of
people will be put together. Everything over
$8,000 is shown as a separate item. Accounts
for merchandise and services, which are under
$5,000, are put together. That is where you
get those lump sum figures. Travelling ex-
pense payments under $1,800 are put to-
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
797
gether. That is why you get those large
amounts. The alternative would be pages and
pages of individual items.
Mr. Sargent: Throughout this Budget of
probably $2 billion we are talking about—
Mr. Chairman: Right now I would remind
the member that we are talking about what
constitutes the vote for 1402.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, you are
pinpointing this vote. I think we should set a
ground rule for the whole-
Mr. Chairman: This is the only way we can
operate. I am sorry. We have no alternative.
Mr. Sargent: Each time there is a grouping
of moneys, do we have to ask for it to be
broken down, or what?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, under each individual
vote.
Mr. Sargent: I might ask the hon. Prime
Minister to give us some ground rules on why
we should not have this information made
available to the public of Ontario? I do not
agree with the principle.
Mr. Thompson: I think the hon. member
for Grey North has a very valid point. We
are completely aware that when these esti-
mates come before the Treasury board we
know that you have an analyst in the depart-
ment who demands a clear breakdown, who
wants to know what the new projects are
in comparison with the old. We want a
breakdown that could be understood by the
people of Ontario and we know, Mr. Chair-
man, that this is a screening process, a
fogging process. After the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) has asked for a com-
plete breakdown in order that he can under-
stand the estimates, then it is put together
like this in order that things can be hidden.
And it is to this that we object.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, to supplement
this point, the committee on public accounts
spent a great deal of time in discussion just
a year ago and the chairman at that time was
the hon. member for St. George (Mr. A. F.
Lawrence). It was the unanimous opinion of
the committee on public accounts that these
accounts when they came before us should
be substantially supplemented, so that we
would have comparisons, breakdowns and
so on.
But all the recommendations— the same as
the interim report that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter was referring to earlier— the recommenda-
tions, the interim report of the committee on
public accounts— and the hon. Prime Minister
sets great store by interim reports— was com-
pletely ignored, completely passed over. The
hon. Provincial Treasurer just pretended it
did not exist and the accounts are in exactly
the same form. That is what the hon. mem-
ber for Grey North is complaining about.
I would think, when you have this com-
mittee and they submit this unanimous
public report— and I am sorry the hon.
member for St. George is not here now,
because he would certainly agree with me,
and my colleague, the hon. member for
Sudbury was on the committee, and there
are several other hon. members of the House
who were there. We all agreed this was the
way the estimates should be presented, and
we have not got them that way tonight.
Small wonder my hon. colleague cannot
understand these things; hardly anybody can
understand them because we have not the
details.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is talking about
the public accounts.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I cannot do it tonight,
but I am quite certain that there have been
changes made in these presentations as a
result of the recommendations made by the
committee on public accounts and we will
check those through. I might say once again,
I really do quite resent this not inference,
but bald statement that this government
does it this way to hide something.
You know that we do not wish to hide
anything. There is no information that is
ever asked for here— but you must realize
that we have to have some sense. For in-
stance, I pointed out to the hon. member
why they are lumped together. He is talking
about the public accounts, and if you want
pages and pages and pages, all right. But
there must be some practical position one
can take. If there is any amount in here that
anybody wants broken down— last year, I
do not know if you paid any attention to it,
I was asked to and did file a complete
statement of everybody in the department
and what they were paid. But to list all that
in the public accounts is just simply im-
practical.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to read the study which the hon. Prime
Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Just one moment, please.
I recognize the member for Woodbine.
798
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the answer
that the hon. Prime Minister has given on
this question is, I think, quite unsatisfactory.
It is quite true, as he says, that the govern-
ment in committee of supply produces almost
any information requested. I do not re-
member an occasion when it refused infor-
mation.
The problem is that the estimates them-
selves are presented in such a sketchy way,
and with no comparison at all, that it is very
difficult for the members to apprehend
exactly what is involved without a most
detailed cross-examination. It is not good
enough for the hon. Prime Minister to say
that great detail is given in the public
accounts of the province. That is a year or
more after the money has been spent. The
public accounts we now have before us are
for the fiscal year 1964-65. We are now
dealing with the fiscal year 1966-67 as far
as estimates are concerned.
The hon. member for Downsview said
that last year the committee on public
accounts made a recommendation on this
point. I would point out that the committee
on public accounts made that recommenda-
tion not only last year but the year before
and we have never had—
Mr. Chairman: As far as the committee's
recommendations are concerned, the mem-
ber for Downsview did mention these. At
that time I was going to rule him out of
order. I would like-
Mr. Bryden: I am dealing with this vote
because their recommendation applied to
this vote and every vote in this book. I had
intended to raise this matter at a different
time, Mr. Chairman, but now it has been
raised we might as well proceed with it. It
applies specifically to this vote, to vote 1401
and every other vote in the book. The gov-
ernment has never given a reason that is
worth anything as to why it cannot give
the sort of breakdown that is given for the
benefit of the Parliament of Canada and, as
far as I know, for every other provincial
jurisdiction in this country.
I would venture to suggest that these are
the sketchiest estimates presented anywhere
in this country. It is particularly difficult for
the members to have no comparative figure,
except those that are in the public accounts,
which do not provide a direct comparison.
I would say at the very minimum what we
require here would be not only the figures
that we now have in the estimates for the
coming year, but also the estimates for the
year now drawing to a close.
The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner) signals to me that we can get
the other book and put them together. So
we have last year's book of the public
accounts strewn on our desks— the maximum
of inconvenience— but there is one other thing
I think should be here that is not available
in any book. That is the statement of eight
months experience and four months estimates
for the current year, so that we will have
some idea of what the recent spending pat-
tern has been.
All these things are provided in other
jurisdictions and I see no valid reason why
they cannot be provided here. As has been
said, the committee on public accounts has
recommended that at least that much should
be done. It has recommended it on two
different occasions.
Last year the hon. Provincial Treasurer
appeared before the committee and said that
it would involve a lot of work on the gov-
ernment side. Well it may, but if it is work
that is necessary in order to provide the
House with information that it requires— and,
I submit, it requires it— then it should be
done. Beyond that we have never had an
explanation from the government as to why
this, alone of all the jurisdictions in Canada
I am familiar with, can only give a very
sketchy account of its spending.
Here is a book that represents spending of
almost $2 billion and it is encompassed in a
book that is about V4 in. thick. I submit that
that really does not give the members the
information they require. It puts an unneces-
sary burden on them in trying to interpret
the information properly and, indeed, it
withholds from them certain information
that is quite relevant, namely the experi-
ence for the current year, so far as that is
available.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on this I
would simply like to say again that I chal-
lenge the hon. Prime Minister. The hon.
Provincial Treasurer demands a far greater
breakdown before he will assent to financial
appropriations for any department; he has
an analyst in his department who has a far
greater breakdown demanded by each Min-
ister concerning what are new projects
and so on, far greater than is presented to
the people of Ontario through this Legisla-
ture.
I say that is secrecy. I do not care
what you call it when you combine it again
to make it an ineligible and unintelligent ap-
proach when it is presented to the Legis-
lature.
FEBRUARY 22, 1966
799
To back me up on this, I would like to
refer to the study which you helped to
finance. I hope that you have been able to
get Professor Schindler's book; I have one
copy. But let me quote from it at page 470.
He had done, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
an objective and impartial study of this Legis-
lature. He says:
The Ontario Legislature has so far
failed to adopt many of the most basic
procedures that other parliaments have de-
veloped to assist them in controlling public
expenditure. The estimates themselves do
not include enough information to make
intelligent assessment possible, and invari-
ably they call for larger amounts than are
actually required.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to chal-
lenge the hon. Prime Minister on a statement
he made. He said that they have no desire
to hide anything. Last year I asked a per-
fectly proper question, which was: "How
much did it cost to entertain the Shah of
Iran?" I am still wanting for an answer to
that. Public moneys were used to entertain
His Royal Highness and his lady. It was a
great clambake for the Conservative Party;
the landscape was replete with defeated can-
didates of that party. We have been waiting
over here— and I say this in all seriousness—
to invite Haile Selassie to one for the Liberal
Party and we would like to know-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury—
Mr. Sopha: But he is of equal prestige
with the Shah, as far as I know. Both of
them are constantly in danger of being
assassinated.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I just challenge him.
We do not know how much public money
was paid for all this curtseying and bowing.
Mr. Chairman: Does the member think
that this comes under the vote?
Mr. Sopha: He raised it. He said we—
you know that expansive gesture that he
learned from Leslie Frost—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, we did
file an answer to his question; I am quite
certain we did.
Mr. Sopha: But you did not tell me any-
thing. Look at the answer. It says nothing;
it said: "It is none of your business." That is
what it said.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Sargent: I will crystallize this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey
North is going to crystallize!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the fact is—
Mr. Chairman: Will the member start
crystallizing?
Mr. Sargent: The fact is that we do have
the information available in the files of the
government. That is established. They must
have it, or they would be able to pay these
people. As hon. members have pointed out,
this book, that we will use as our bible from
now on, is now two years away from actual
fact. We are dealing with a book that was
conceived in 1964— the big public accounts
book— and so we are two years off the pace.
Any township or city council has the actual
to deal with when they are setting their bud-
get, and you are asking us to work back and
forth from something that happened two
years ago, and something that you are plan-
ning to do in 1966 and 1967. I think it be-
hooves this government and the hon. Prime
Minister to lay down some intelligent ground
rules for 108 supposedly intelligent people.
What is the hon. Prime Minister's answer to
this? How do we go about this deal?
Mr. Chairman: Any information that the
member wants on vote 1402, ask for it and
we will provide it.
Mr. Sargent: All right, Mr. Chairman. We
cannot conceivably go through the whole
Budget asking inane things like this, so we
conceivably can come to you and ask you—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: I suggest to the hon. Prime
Minister that he make this available to us in
programme form.
Mr. Chairman: Is there any information
that the member wants now?
Vote 1402 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates of The Department of the Prime Min-
ister.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: That is a great relief,
Mr. Chairman. I will now be able to
carry on.
800
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the
estimates of The Department of Reform
Institutions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.40 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 28
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, February 23, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 23, 1966
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 803
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 803
Statement re the annual review of The Department of Mines, Mr. Wardrope 804
Statement re water control projects on the South Nation River watershed, Mr. Stewart 804
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman 809
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 831
803
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, February 23, 1966
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as guests to the Legislature today, in the west
gallery, students from St. Joseph's college
school, Toronto and also ten new Canadian
students from Parkdale public school, To-
ronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Mr. R. J. Harris (Beaches) moves, seconded
by Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin),
that Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview) be sub-
stituted for Mr. A. J. Reaume (Essex North)
on the standing committee on legal bills and
labour.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of bills.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Summary Convictions Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, the amendments would permit a
person who posts bail in the absence of a
justice and does not wish to return for the
hearing— possibly because of distance— and is
content to plead guilty, and who does not
in fact return for the hearing, to appoint
the court clerk to be his agent for the purpose
of pleading guilty. Surplus bail money after
deduction of any fine would be refunded to
the accused.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon.
Attorney General a question about The
Summary Convictions Act. Is this the only
amendment to bail procedures that the hon.
Attorney General contemplates introducing
this session?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is the only amend-
ment, Mr. Speaker, that I have under con-
templation at this time.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the amend-
ment to The Coroners Act, the several
amendments provide a number of small
changes in the procedures under the Act.
There is a retirement age provided for;
automatic removal or suspension in the event
of a coroner being deprived of his right to
practise by the college of physicians and
surgeons; provision regarding the shipping of
bodies outside Ontario. There is an increase in
the fines for certain offences; an amendment
authorizing and empowering the coroner or
Crown attorney to obtain expert assistance
in an investigation; provision for reporting
deaths in a number of public institutions,
which I will not recite at this time; provisions
compelling attendance of witnesses and pro-
viding fines if they ignore the subpoena, and
then provision for payment of experts; coro-
ners' fees are revised.
Generally, the rest has to do with small
fees.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
could ask the hon. Attorney General if he
intends to amend any of the procedures of
coroners' courts.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This matter, Mr.
Speaker, was referred to the law reform com-
mission a year ago or thereabouts, and I have
had some discussions with Mr. McRuer, the
chairman of that commission. One of those
discussions, in brief, was very recent. That
whole matter is being studied, I take it, under
law reform, possibly under the human rights
side, but he is not ready to report to us yet.
Mr. Singer: A wonderful cubbyhole.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, that is not a cubby-
hole. The law reform commission does very
804
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
thorough and excellent work and I should like
the House to know that there are a good
number of things there, not by way of cubby-
hole, but as a hard-working commission.
Anyone who knows Mr. McRuer knows the
calibre of his work and of the men he has
working with him. If they wish to inquire
into the amount of work that is going on in
that commission and the studies being made,
I think that they would be very satisfied that
this is not something to hide things in, but
a commission in which work is going forward
and very great progress is being made.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
should like to draw the attention of hon
members to the annual review of The Depart-
ment of Mines, a copy of which, through
your courtesy, has been placed on each hon.
member's desk.
As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the
publication of an annual review has become
traditional in The Department of Mines.
Frankly, it is a tradition of which we are all
justly proud. Since this comprehensive re-
port is written, assembled and printed all
within just a few weeks from the close of
the year under review— a unique achieve-
ment believed to be unmatched in Canadian
government circles— it goes without saying
that throughout the entire operation absolute
co-operation is the byword.
Scores of people work in harmony and in
haste to make this yearly summary of
activities possible. Geologists, engineers,
photographers, writers, printers— these and
many others contribute their talent to this
highly professional piece of work. Speaking
quite candidly, I must say that this year we
are particularly proud of our review, and
with good reason I might add. More than
ever it is chockful of helpful data for the
information of this House and the general
public.
As a point of interest I would like to
direct the attention of the hon. members to
the book's attractive front cover illustration
which so colourfully depicts the role Ontario
minerals play in our world today. It is
designed to show the close integration of the
mining industry with life and progress in
cities far removed from the original source
of the minerals. You will immediately re-
cognize, sir, the upper part of the picture,
the artist's conception of the new govern-
ment complex as it will appear upon com-
pletion. A more detailed description of the
cover theme can be found on the opening
page. Right now I would like to take this
opportunity to express my personal thanks
to all those on my staff who had a hand in
the preparation of this excellent report. Also
I would like to thank the mining industry
for its generous assistance in providing facts,
figures and photographs.
Finally, I would like to express, through
the hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management (Mr. Simonett), who is here
now, my gratitude to the members of his
staff who kindly provided the section dealing
with oil and natural gas.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that
I commend this report to the hon. members
for serious study. I honestly believe they
will find it both interesting and informative.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, may I take a few
moments of the time of the House in order
that the hon. members may be kept informed
of the recent development under the pro-
visions of The Agricultural Rehabilitation and
Development Act? Knowing the interest
there is in this federal-provincial programme,
I am sure that the House will be pleased to
hear that initial steps toward the develop-
ment of major water control projects on the
South Nation River watershed have been
approved by both the Ontario government
and Ottawa, in co-operation with Mr. Sauve,
the federal Minister charged with the admin-
istration of ARDA.
Following a preliminary engineering study
completed last year by federal-provincial
ARDA, it was concluded that seven major
storage reservoirs and two river channel
improvements would be required to provide
adequate agricultural drainage outlets, flood
control and summer flow.
At a meeting sponsored by the eastern
Ontario soil and crop improvement associa-
tions, county ARDA boards and the South
Nation River conservation authority, it was
unanimously recommended to the ARDA
directorate of Ontario that the highest
priority be given to the following projects:
1. Spencerville dam and reservoir; 2. A river
channel improvement above Chesterville; 3.
The river channel improvement above Plan-
tagenet; 4. The Bear Brook dam and reser-
voir.
In order that firm estimates can be
obtained on the cost of these projects, design
and field engineering will be carried out at
a cost of $105,000 which will be financed
on a 50/50 basis by the federal and provin-
cial governments under ARDA.
Mr. Speaker, this engineering will be com-
pleted by December of 1966 and will form
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
805
part of the comprehensive watershed de-
velopment programme in the South Nation
River for submission for federal ARDA for
cost sharing under the federal-provincial
rural development agreement.
The counties affected are Dundas, Stor-
mont, Prescott and Russell and parts of
Grenville and Carleton.
Agricultural land capability studies re-
cently completed indicate that 85 per cent
of the poorly drained agricultural lands,
amounting to 285,000 acres, can be improved
for production by outlet ditches and tile
drainage systems. Another 50,000 acres of
farm land are subject to annual spring flood-
ing and occasional flooding in the fall. In
addition to these hazards, summer and
winter stream flows in the Nation River and
its tributaries drop to very low levels in
most years and parts are completely dry at
times. With the alleviation of these major
hazards agricultural productivity can be in-
creased to provide better levels of income
for rural people.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House
will agree that this programme will have
far-reaching beneficial effects on agriculture
in eastern Ontario.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Speaker,
are conservation authorities interested in this
project? Are they a part of it; or has it been
carried on between yourselves and the federal
department?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I referred
to the fact that there had been a meeting
sponsored by the eastern Ontario soil and
crop improvement association that was com-
prised of the county ARDA boards, the South
Nation River conservation authority— they
have been in the picture right through the
whole development and they are part of this.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am not going
to labour this, but what I am trying to find
out is if it is The Department of Agriculture,
the hon. Minister's department, that is going
to be the predominant voice in the building
up of this programme?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, only insofar, Mr.
Speaker, as this is an ARDA project and The
Department of Agriculture is charged with
the administration of the Act. That is The
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development
Act.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben)
directed a question to me which required a
great deal of research and tabulation, and in
order to ensure accuracy, I took the question
as notice and promised to provide him with
the information at the earliest possible
moment.
His questions were: What is the average
educational level of the custodial staff at
Millbrook and Guelph reformatory? What is
the mean educational level of the custodial
staff at Millbrook and Guelph reformatory?
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that when most
people use the term "average" they are
usually referring to the mean. The mean is
calculated by adding all the grades and divid-
ing by the number of correctional officers.
Another type of average is the median. To
calculate the median is a rather complicated
procedure, but roughly it is the mid-point in
the range of grades. Using this terminology
the Millbrook—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I found
it a little more difficult in discussing with the
experts and my staff, to come to the quick
conclusion the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) did. However, I am not quite as bril-
liant and I appreciate his better education.
Using this terminology, Millbrook and
Guelph educational level averages are as
follows:
The mean average for Millbrook is 9.7; the
mean average for Guelph is 9.5. The median
average for Millbrook is 9.7; the median aver-
age for Guelph is 9.4. From these figures it
can be seen that the mean and median are
practically the same. It would be safe to say
that the average formal educational level of
the correctional officers of these two institu-
tions is nine and a half grades approximately.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South):I have
a question I would like to direct to the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts). Perhaps I can
put it on the record and it is possible that
the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Roberts) will be in a position to answer it.
My question to the hon. Prime Minister
was whether he could report on a meeting
which the government had scheduled this
morning with a delegation of the Algoma
Central Railway in regard to Bill No. 2?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, I would say that there
was a meeting and certain discussions took
place and there will be further discussions.
I can assure the hon. member he has nothing
to worry about.
806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, I did not get
the last sentence. The hon. Minister can
assure me of what?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: There is nothing to
worry about.
Mr. MacDonald: Nothing to worry about!
The hon. Minister is going to hold fast, is he?
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management, notice of which has
been given.
The question is in two parts: First, when
will the Ontario Northland Railway finally
eliminate the discharge of inadequately
treated or raw industrial waste into Lake
Nipissing? Second, when the North Bay
water pollution control plant is operated at
over-capacity does the effluent cause a de-
terioration in quality of the Lake Nipissing
water?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, on
December 20 of last year certain industrial
waste discharges from the ONR were rerouted
into the municipal sanitary sewer system. This
relieved the load on the capacity of the exist-
ing ONR treatment facilities and resulted in
improved efficiency of industrial treatment.
These modifications are being evaluated by
OWRC and ONR with a commitment from
ONR that expanded industrial waste treat-
ment facilities will be provided if necessary.
The answer to the second question: The
plant can operate for short periods of time at
over-capacity without adverse effects on the
quality of Lake Nipissing water.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Minister allow a supplementary question?
Would the hon. Minister comment on the
report of the Ontario water resources com-
mission, dated February 22, 1966, to the
effect that it is still recommended that the
Ontario Northland eliminate the discharge?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I might
say that I looked at that report yesterday
and I am sorry I was unable to talk to any
personnel from OWRC this morning as I was
busy. I would like to discuss it further with
them, and if the hon. member would care to
get in touch with me I perhaps can give him
a better answer.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question-
Mr. Speaker: The chair has recognized the
member for Scarborough West.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I had a question on the order paper
for the hon. Prime Minister which I assume
I should delay until tomorrow, and one for
the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree)
who wishes me to hold over until tomorrow
in asking questions.
I then have a question for the hon. Minis-
ter of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile), Mr.
Speaker: What does the hon. Minister intend
to do about the situation which has developed
between the Toronto children's aid society
and the Metro Toronto executive council?
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to
say that the introduction of The Child Wel-
fare Act has been very well accepted by the
municipalities and societies throughout On-
tario. This new Act assures greater services
to children and as in the case of Metropolitan
Toronto, the majority of municipalities will
contribute less than in the previous year in
the operation of the societies. In contrast,
the province is assuming much greater finan-
cial responsibility.
As I pointed out before, according to esti-
mates, Metropolitan Toronto will provide 33
per cent of the cost in comparison with its
contribution of at least 60 per cent of the
cost last year. I would just add, as I have
already stated, that the province has ad-
vanced its share of assistance to the societies
for the first two months of the present year
and a similar advance payment will be for-
warded within the next week or ten days, to
cover the estimated provincial share of child
welfare services for the month of March. I
believe it has been the practice throughout
the province for the responsible municipalities
to advance their share to the societies.
I will, of course, be meeting with Chair-
man William Allen of Metropolitan Toronto
to exchange views on services to children in
the care of the local societies.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, might the hon.
Minister read the first sentence of his reply,
which I missed, over again?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: The introduction of The
Child Welfare Act has been very well ac-
cepted by the municipalities and societies
throughout Ontario.
Mr. S. Lewis: Could I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? What does the hon.
Minister intend to do about the disregard for
the procedures laid down by this Legislature
under The Child Welfare Act, where the
municipalities are to go to the review board?
They refuse to; they are circumventing the
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
807
legislation and going to the hon. Minister.
Now, will the Act actually obtain, or will
they be allowed to use other routes to solve
the question?
- Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know if my hon. friend has any particular
case in mind, but as far as I know none of
them has circumvented the Act. We have
had some problems that have been brought
to us by some societies throughout the prov-
ince. They have been looked at by the muni-
cipalities and the people concerned and they
have been resolved in most cases. If there is
no resolution of the discussions between
themselves, then they will be coming before
the review board, but so far, we have none
that has come before us.
Mr. S. Lewis: I have a short additional
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is not
the hon. Minister aware of the report that the
Metro executive has agreed not to go to the
review board but intends to treat with the
Minister instead? I am asking, what then
happens to the legislative procedures on
which this House voted unanimously?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, I cannot answer
that, Mr. Speaker, except to say that I do not
refuse anyone with a matter of interest to
discuss with me, but nothing will be settled
by myself. It will go before the review board
if they cannot agree between themselves.
There might be some guidelines we can give
them, but as far as settling it with the
Minister, that will not be done. It will be
done before the review board.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion, almost in the same vein though there is
a difference, for the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare.
In light of the obvious problem existing in
the budgeting of the children's aid societies
and Metro Chairman Allen's statement that
municipalities are forced to raise taxes and
pay for services over which they have no con-
trol, would the hon. Minister consider assum-
ing his financial responsibility direct to the
children's aid societies?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Mr. Speaker, I think I
have answered that in the response I have
given to my hon. friend from Scarborough
West. I might point to the part in my remarks
in which I stated that we have already
advanced our share and we will be advancing
the share for March. We are not dealing with
the municipality as such now. We are paying
our share directly to the societies. I am sure
that is what my hon. friend had in mind.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my supple-
mentary question is: Assuming that they were
not contravening the Act, but that the muni-
cipalities were to keep to the Act and that
they respected the regulations set forth under
section 9 subsection 2 of The Child Welfare
Act 1965— and I am saying they are not con-
travening the Act, they are respecting it— will
the hon. Minister advise what course of action
will be taken if the budget of the children's
aid society is not approved by respective
councils before February 25? There is nothing
in the Act to say they have to do this. The
hon. Minister must have assumed that every-
one would not be in agreement with him;
what are the steps that he would take?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am
quite satisfied to tell my hon. friend that this
matter will be taken under consideration
and every flexibility that we have at our
command will be used in this particular
respect. Nobody will be forced to act to the
detriment of themselves or the societies. We
already have allowed one or two extensions
of time to particular societies and that is why
we are providing our financial assistance to
them.
The municipalities have had a preview
so that they can arrange to fix their tax
structure on the tax rate— if that is what the
hon. leader of the Opposition had in mind.
I anticipate no difficulty.
Mr. Thompson: I do not think the hon.
Minister quite understood my question: that
he had regulations by which a municipality
was told it had to approve the budget first
of all by February 25 and submit it to the
Minister.
Realizing the hon. Minister says that he
has looked at every flexibility and given
every consideration, what are the steps that
he considers would be carried out if a muni-
cipality did not submit to him the children's
aid society's budget and approve it by Febru-
ary 25; what steps would he take? He says
he has considered every angle. What are the
considerations he has made for that particular
angle?
Hon. Mr. Cecile: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if my mind is not very quick today,
but it seems to me that I have answered that,
in the sense that the regulations are there.
But if the parties do not arrive at an agree-
ment, they would necessarily go before the
review board. But it is anticipated that they
will come to an agreement. We have no
objection to letting them have a few days to
do that, over and above what the regulations
would require.
808
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
two questions of the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests, notice of which has been given.
The first one is as follows:
In light of a report from the annual meet-
ing of the Ontario federation of anglers and
hunters, could the hon. Minister inform this
House what action is being taken to protect
the 3,000 square miles in Algonquin park
from chain saws and bulldozers?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the question of my hon. friend from
Algoma-Manitoulin, the department policy
of multiple use in Algonquin park recognizes
on the one hand the long-standing position of
the forest-based industries in that part of the
province and, on the other hand, the more
recent development of intensive recreational
use of the park area. This whole question of
multiple use has been under discussion on
many occasions. I distributed to hon. mem-
bers an article on multiple use very recently
and I would commend to the hon. member
and others interested the definition of "multi-
ple use" because that is really the crux of the
problem— a proper definition and then work-
ing around it.
I may say that the Minister of Forestry
assembled a number of us earlier this week,
and the conference is still going on. One of
the subjects was this very subject of multiple
use. It should be pointed out that the depart-
ment is obligated to sustain certain cutting
operators in the Algonquin and Pembroke
districts for mills in such towns as Whitney,
Mattawa, Pembroke, and so on, and while we
recognize this need, there is at the same time
the desirability of meeting the need with the
minimum of conflict with other users of the
parks. Our staff in the park are in constant
surveillance of the logging operations within
the park and no roads are permitted to be
constructed without our permission.
The gentleman who got headlines at
Kitchener over the weekend is probably a
very sincere man, but he does have the habit
of resorting to extreme language in describing
his own opinion which is very frequently a
minority opinion, sometimes even an opinion
of one only, on many questions relating to
the great Crown land resources and their use.
Mr. Farquhar: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. Minister and I have a second question
for him.
In light of a report from the annual meet-
ing of the Ontario federation of anglers and
hunters, what action does the hon. Minister
contemplate on a resolution passed, calling
for more conservation officers in the prov-
ince?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in reply
I would say that the resolution to which
I think he has reference here— or the report-
is really a series of resolutions which were
passed some time ago by this association, who
were meeting in annual meeting at Kitchener
last weekend and in this House we have
taken under advisement their views and other
views in this connection over a period of the
last several months. This House will be asked
for funds, in the presentation of the estimates
of The Department of Lands and Forests, to
permit the department to employ a sub-
stantial number of new conservation officers.
At the present time we have some 238
conservation officers on full-time staff, and I
am not just glad to say— I have been impatient
to be able to say this— that salary revisions
are presently under consideration by the civil
service commission.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
second question for the hon. Prime Minister,
but in his absence I will withhold it until
tomorrow.
My final question is to the hon. Minister
of Labour: Is the manufacturing firm of
Empire Pants and Boys' Wear Company, 575
Adelaide street west, Toronto, a member of
the advisory committee of the men's and
boys' clothing industry under The Industrial
Standards Act; and, if not, why not?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I am informed that since last
September the product line turned out by
Empire Pants and Boys' Wear has not fallen
within the definition of the men's and boys'
clothing industry schedule. Hence the firm is
not eligible to be represented on the advisory
committee.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the fact that very recently this firm got a
contract from The Department of Health and
was able to seriously underbid other com-
panies which have to conform to The In-
dustrial Standards Act, I wonder if the hon.
Minister would review the situation and see
whether or not this company, because of its
production today, does not fall within the
jurisdiction of this Act.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I would
be glad to look into it personally and get the
story of the company and its operation for
the hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have the
temporary order in the matter of Tilco
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
Plastics Limited, certain defendants, and
also the permanent order of injunction, as
requested for tabling yesterday by the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). I am
glad now to table them pursuant to my
undertaking.
Mr. Singer: Are there extra copies of that,
Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have two carbons,
Mr. Speaker. I might be able to have them
photographed for the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scar-
borough West have a further question?
Mr. S. Lewis: My other questions, Mr.
Speaker, were to the hon. Minister of Labour
and to the hon. Prime Minister and I shall
wait until tomorrow to present them.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 22nd order.
House in committee of supply. Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Chairman, first, I would like
to apologize to the hon. members for not
having been able to place before each and
every hon. member a copy of the annual
report. As hon. members know, it has been
my practice in the past to make certain that
they have these reports well in advance of
presentation of the estimates of my depart-
ment. However, due to an undue amount of
illness and deaths amongst the employees of
the printer, the printer was not able to
meet the deadline. However, I was able to
prevail upon him to provide me late yester-
day with sufficient proofs of the annual
report so as to be able to place them in the
hands of the hon. leaders of the three parties,
I believe early this morning. I was also able
to prevail upon him to provide me with the
classification charts. I expect that the com-
pleted annual reports will be delivered at
any time.
Mr. Chairman, in presenting for the
approval of the House, the estimates of The
Department of Reform Institutions, it is my
pleasure to report a year of solid progress
and to inform hon. members of our very
positive plans to continue that progress in
the coming year.
I reported to the Legislature last year that
my department was embarked on a plan of
reorganization and progress which was to
keep it in the forefront of the correctional
world. This year I report a number of
achievements attained in this plan and ex-
tensions and consolidations we are now able
to make in it.
Before I detail our present and future
programmes, Mr. Chairman, I want to
emphasize some of the basic fundamentals
and implications of this work which, I think,
too often are overlooked.
It is so much easier to be glib than con-
structive when dealing with human lives. It
is so easy to base decisions entirely on emo-
tion rather than on scientific findings. And
the difficulties are even further developed
when one considers that we are dealing not
only with the lives of men and women, boys
and girls, with anti-social behaviour patterns,
but also dealing with the social byproducts.
By our actions, we can affect the lives of the
dependants of offenders and the immediate
family. We recognize an obligation to
society— a most definite and direct obligation
—to ensure that we do our utmost to reduce
the terrible ravages of crime.
We must be very objective about this. So
many, in their dealings with this field, find
it difficult to be objective. The offender
obviously finds it difficult to accept his be-
haviour on the same terms as society regards
it. After sentence, particularly, his main
interest is how soon he can return to a free
life— which is understandable.
Equally, society's interest is in the re-
duction of violence and other ravages of
crime as much as possible. Society wants
security and protection. Often, this involves
incarceration of the offender to diminish the
number of criminals at large, the deterrence
of other offenders and the hope that as
many offenders as possible can be given such
training and treatment as will return them to
society as useful members with reasonably
acceptable behaviour patterns.
Some members of society are subjective in
that their hearts rule their heads so that
they cannot look at the totality of the prob-
lem. They must take a subjective viewpoint
of individual actions. Their vision is often
so narrow that their contribution becomes
valueless, occasionally a source of irritation
to the rest of the population, possibly doing
more harm than good. There are in addi-
tion the publicity-seekers, who may even be
well-intentioned, but whose actions are
directed more particularly to the publication
of their actions rather than ensuring that re-
sulting good comes from such action.
810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As a department which has the respon-
sibility of carrying out a programme on be-
half of the public, we can in no way act on
the subjective approach. In arriving at our
total programme we must of course take
into account all points of view so as to en-
sure protection of the rights and needs of the
individual as well as of society as a whole.
However, our overall programme must be
based on the objective evaluation of the
whole subject.
To assist the whole department and our
staff at all levels, to evaluate their work in
this way, and to make a restatement of the
views and policies so well exemplified in
1946 by "The Ontario Plan," I tried during
the course of the year to have our thinking
on this subject crystallized and clearly de-
fined. This became a declaration of the phi-
losophy on which our work must be based
and by which we must judge all our actions.
It was circulated to all members of staff and
is printed in full on pages four and five of
the annual report. Even so, I think it can
stand the emphasis of being read in this
House so far as the opening statement is
concerned.
It states:
The main purposes of The Department
of Reform Institutions are:
(1) To hold in custody, for prescribed
periods, those persons sentenced by the
courts to its jurisdiction; and
(2) To attempt to modify attitudes of
those in its care, whether children or
adults, to such an extent that their actions
upon release will be essentially law-abid-
ing rather than law-breaking, and to pro-
vide them with the kind of training and
treatment that will afford them better
opportunities for successful personal and
social adjustment.
Any programme within the department
must be designed with prime emphasis on
these two purposes and carried out in such
a way that they are in consonance with
each other.
Mr. Chairman, it is in accordance with this
policy that we base all our actions. However,
a philosophy only has value when there are
staff, programmes and facilities to implement
it.
Although the department has over the
course of the years added many specialists
to its staff, the basic organization and the
areas of responsibility have remained fairly
constant. Services, facilities and programmes
have increased tremendously and there was
a need for a thorough reorganization of staff
administration in accordance with this in-
crease. The basic plan of reorganization was
reported to this House last year. In a short
time I expect to announce the appointment of
a director of social work. We will then have
a complete staff team, capable of carrying
out a most effective, positive and progressive
programme in keeping with our statement of
purpose.
In the recent book on corrections in Can-
ada, Professor John V. Fornataro, who is an
assistant professor at the school of social
work, University of British Columbia, states,
and I quote:
The presence of personnel trained in
such professional disciplines as education,
social work, psychiatry and psychology re-
flects the stated intention of governments
to operate their prison system for the
remedy or "correction" of the offender.
In a few institutions, officials with such
qualifications occupy key administrative
positions. In most, however, they do not
hold positions in the direct line of au-
thority, and frequently exert no real in-
fluence upon the institution's regime. This
is the group commonly called "treatment
staff," as distinct from "custodial staff."
This is a basic problem throughout the
world. If hon. members would care to check
in our annual report on pages ten and eleven
they will see that our major administrative
posts are indeed held by clinically trained
people— educationists as recommended in this
quotation. I think we have managed to solve
this problem, I think it is because these
people are attracted to a department where
they know forward-looking policies exist and
are put into practice. That is why we are
able to do what so few other authorities of
this nature throughout the world are able to
do: attract and appoint professional, trained
staff to positions of authority.
Even with sufficient staff, it is necessary to
have the programmes designed to meet not
only the common factors in the behaviour
problems of individuals, but also to take into
account the individual differences which exist.
In other words, one needs a detailed classi-
fication programme. This is one of the strong-
est points made by the Canadian corrections
association in its recently published criteria.
It is, with this department, one of our
strongest points.
It is so difficult to appreciate the extent,
detail and refinement of our classification sys-
tem, that we felt it was necessary to draw up
a chart so that the system and its implications
can be more readily understood. This chart
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
811
received tremendous acclaim when it was
displayed at the international congress of
corrections, with requests for printed copies
from interested individuals and groups in
this country and abroad. In view of the
interest displayed in the subject in this
House on many previous occasions, we de-
cided to publish such a chart.
I would draw the attention of the hon.
members to the chart which is now before
them. In essence, the chart shows the classi-
fication committees, procedures and cate-
gories which are used to transfer adults, not
only to the institution most beneficial for
them, but to the programme within that in-
stitution most suited to their needs. I think
this chart shows better than words the
advanced level of classification reached by
this department. This chart is, of course,
dealing only with adult institutions.
Changes taking place in our training
schools are also so extensive that the whole
of the classification system is presently
undergoing revision. A similar chart re-
ferring to training schools will then be pre-
pared. Changes are taking place, as I have
said, at all levels in the training school field
and this year has seen some most exciting
developments.
Obviously the most important was The
Training Schools Act, which was passed by
this Legislature during the last session and
which was proclaimed on November 1, 1965.
There is no need, I am sure, for me to repeat
its provisions here. Outside this House, and
indeed outside this country, it has created
considerable interest. We have had a number
of meetings with many people working in
this field, including magistrates and family
court judges, children's aid society people,
and we have discussed effective usage of our
facilities in accordance with this new Act.
There has been worldwide interest in the
Act.
After one session discussed it at the
United Nations congress in Sweden last year,
we were asked to place ourselves at the dis-
posal of delegates for further discussion. It
was accepted as a leading piece of legisla-
tion in the juvenile field. There was equal
interest shown at the international congress
of corrections held in Montreal, and we have
had inquiries regarding it from the United
Nations secretariat.
Those who have followed published re-
ports of the federal committee on juvenile
delinquency will realize how many of its
recommendations are in fact already incor-
porated in our Training Schools Act. I hope
hon. members will indulge me when I
suggest that once more Ontario has every
reason to be proud of showing leadership in
this area.
I reported to the Legislature last year our
acquisition of the property of the RCAF
station at Hagersville. We have carried out
reconstruction to convert it into two train-
ing schools. One is for boys under the age
of 12, the other is to provide a vocational
training school for boys in the 14 to 16 age
group.
The junior school is now occupied. It is a
school without precedent in this country.
Set apart from the main buildings of the
camp are about 30 houses, some single- and
some two-storeyed. These were formerly
used to house staff members of the air force.
Some of them will be used to house members
of our staff and their families. Some of them
will be used as the cottage homes of the
junior school.
Living in these cottage homes will be
small groups of eight to ten boys, with
teams of five workers to each group. An in-
novation here will be the fact that women
will work on these teams. Staff of each group
attend a daily case conference to discuss not
only the progress of treatment but also their
own development. Out of this we evolve
methods of working with each boy on the
basis of his own personality problems in a
much more intense and individualized man-
ner than is possible in the larger schools.
As an example, there is no unusual restric-
tion on the boys' movements. They play with
children of the staff, are invited to the houses
of the other children and in return may in-
vite them to their houses. Each boy has his
own clothes which he chooses in a downtown
store. They do not refer to the institution as
"the school" but as "home."
Everything is being done in this school to
reflect normal community living. We have
selected staff and given them further training
so that they may be more capable of dealing
with the individual problems of these young-
sters.
We have clinical staff to back up the
house parents and supervisors. With our high
staff-to-boy ratio, there are greater opportuni-
ties to develop strong and positive relation-
ships between adults and children.
The senior school at Hagersville will add
a vocational training school to our facilities
which will enable us to fortify our classifica-
tion programme for this group of boys. A
further benefit to be obtained, of course, is
an all-round reduction in the population of
our other training schools.
812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
For girls, we have had adequate accommo-
dation since the opening of Lindsay and do
not visualize that it will be overtaxed in the
near future. We have, in reviewing our pro-
grammes, concentrated on the reorganization
of facilities to enable us to make the best
use of them.
Extensive renovations are presently under-
way to use one of the buildings of the Gait
training school as a completely separate, self-
contained treatment centre for girls.
When this is completed the treatment sec-
tion, which is now part of the reception and
diagnostic centre, will be moved over to the
new location permitting an expansion of our
treatment services and relieving the other
schools of those girls who require more ex-
tensive treatment than can be provided in the
normal school programme. This unit will be
a therapeutic community containing facilities
for extensive testing, counselling and group
therapy.
A further advance in the programme at
Gait will be the provision of a pre-placement
programme in the building formerly used as
the superintendent's residence. This unit
will provide guidance and assist the girls to
develop responsibility to take their place in
the community.
With the introduction of this unit to the
school, four levels of training and treatment
will therefore be available under the control
of a single superintendent:
1. The reception and diagnostic centre—
for the initial diagnosis and classification, and
for those girls needing a somewhat restrictive
setting;
2. A treatment centre— for those girls re-
quiring intensive therapy;
3. The training school itself— which will
have a programme of training for girls in the
academic- vocational group; and
4. A pre-placement house— which will pro-
vide a setting where girls will accept almost
full responsibility for their conduct and ac-
tivity with the support of our staff in the
background.
This latter development at Gait is, of
course, a sort of halfway house or group
foster home on the property of the school
itself. We are at the moment studying the
use of group foster homes for youngsters who
are unable to return to their own homes.
Presently we have a small number of these
homes where three or four children are
placed. Preliminary studies seem to indicate
that there are a number of children who,
when they leave our training schools for the
first time, could do better in a group living
situation before their eventual placement in
an individual foster home.
Under our director of education, vocational
training programmes at a number of our
schools have been expanded.
At the Gait training school we have added
a course of instruction in the operation of
business machines and a course of study in
practical nursing.
At Bowmanville the vocational training
programme for the boys has been completely
revised in order to provide training courses
in keeping with the diversified occupational
training for students at the grades 9 and 10
level as prescribed by The Department of
Education. This has been possible as a re-
sult of the developments at Hagersville where
we will now provide vocational training on
a higher level for those boys enrolled in the
science, technology and trades course for
secondary school students.
At the moment plans are being made for
the reorganization of the vocational training
programme at St. John's, Uxbridge. It is
anticipated that this programme will include
additional vocational classes and the appoint-
ment of additional teachers both in the
academic and vocational programme.
During the past years, the private training
schools have been faced with an increasing
problem of providing satisfactory after-care
supervision to the large number of children
living in the community as wards of the
schools.
Last year, this government undertook the
complete financing of the private training
schools, and as a result the department is
now prepared to offer after-care assistance
of community programmes to the private
training schools.
Community activities within each of the
schools has been intensified during the year.
Students have participated in community
recreational and social programmes provided
by service clubs, professional groups, young
people's organizations, which equally have
been involved in some measure in the educa-
tional and social programme within the
schools.
The support of these organizations and
groups to the training school in their com-
munity and the interest which they have dis-
played in the welfare of the students in our
schools is most appreciated by our staff. It
is of tremendous value in our total pro-
gramme and of great assistance in the re-
habilitation of the youngsters under our care.
In concluding this section of the report, I
should emphasize to all hon. members that
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
813
when the youngsters originally arrive in our
training schools they are usually immature,
hostile, insecure or badly frightened boys and
girls. They believe that the world is essen-
tially hostile since this is what their experi-
ence has taught them.
It is our first task and the task of our
training schools to show the child that the
reason he was sent to the school was not for
punishment, but rather as a means of helping
him. I am proud of the way this is being
accomplished by devoted and hard-working
staff who are constantly mindful of the tre-
mendous responsibility which is theirs in the
moulding of the young lives entrusted to
their care.
Their aim is to provide a climate in which
the children may have their needs fulfilled
and their concepts and attitudes towards
other people and towards themselves modi-
fied; modified in such a way that their be-
haviour which has previously been found to
be socially unacceptable, can be given ex-
pression in a more positive, purposeful life.
With the appointment of an administrator
of adult female institutions and a superin-
tendent of the Mercer complex who are psy-
chiatric social workers, we have been able to
intensify our programme of bringing about
changes of attitudes and behaviour in the
women who are sentenced to our reforma-
tories.
All responsible bodies are agreed that the
demand for psychiatrists will be far greater
than the supply, certainly within the foresee-
able future.
We feel that the method of consultation
developed in therapeutic communities seems
to afford the most practical solution. We
propose to use our psychiatrists primarily as
consultants with the aim of enriching the
total interaction between staff and inmates
rather than using their services directly with
a small proportion of the total inmate popu-
lation.
Apart from considerations of necessity, this
deployment of professional staff is more par-
ticularly suited to the type of inmate in our
institutions. On the whole, we find more of
the impulse-ridden, character-disorder than
we do the neurotic or psychotic person. With
these people it is found that a combination of
environmental and psychological treatment
offers a promising approach.
This type of programme makes increasing
demands on the correctional officer who is
with the inmates all day and shares their daily
activities. We believe that to be effective our
staff must relate to these inmates in the
middle of their crises and that the skilled
handling of a crisis— an actual living situation
in which a woman needs firm, consistent and
considerate treatment— provides a real basis
of learning which is most necessary for the
non-verbal person. In other words, the daily
living situation must be treatment aimed at
a certain level of maturity before psychologi-
cal treatment can be effective. It is against
this background that the programmes of aca-
demic upgrading, commercial classes, training
in sewing, household skills and a varied recre-
ation programme including art, drama and
physical education classes, are planned.
Progress in the planning of the new Vanier
institution for women is well advanced and it
is hoped that tenders for the construction will
be called in the forthcoming months.
Our programme in adult male institutions
has concentrated on the expansion of overall
training facilities in all institutions. It is our
intention before the end of this fiscal year to
have academic training available in each and
every adult institution. Where appropriate
vocational training, which proves very valu-
able with the younger offender, will be ex-
tended on a geographical basis.
In the past year training centres have been
opened at our northern institutions of Fort
William and Monteith and during the com-
ing year another training centre will be
opened at the Rideau industrial farm. We
can now provide academic education and
trades training to selected youthful offenders
in a setting much closer to home. This has
great advantages in maintaining family ties
by means of more frequent visiting. Com-
munity ties are retained and consequently
employment opportunities will be greater.
We know the tremendous potential these
centres add to our rehabilitation programme.
Physically they are of the minimum security
type with no bars or fences. The staff-to-
student ratio is high to ensure close personal
contact of a nature conducive to attitude
change and personality development as well
as the acquisition of knowledge and the de-
velopment of skills. Many of these students
are school dropouts, and in these centres they
are given a second chance in life to lay the
foundation for skills and knowledge upon
which they can build when they return to the
community.
Another significant development this year is
the extension of psychiatric treatment serv-
ices into the field of sexual deviation, in
particular the pedophile or child molester.
The expansion of services was co-ordinated
with the programme of treatment of the
alcoholic and the drug addict at the Mimico
clinic.
814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Our staff work very closely with colleagues
in The Department of Health, drawing upon
the resources of the Lakeshore Ontario
hospital in this undertaking. In the light of
our experience with this programme, which
is under constant evaluation, we shall expand
it as appropriate in the coming year.
During the year we opened an additional
forestry camp at Wendigo Lake and we are
presently working on the construction of an-
other at Portage Lake. This latter is partially
occupied and will be completed during the
coming months.
The value of the forestry camp as a reha-
bilitative tool is unquestioned. It has worked
extremely well in our adult institutions, and
indeed we have one for 15 and 16-year-old
boys in our training school system which is
equally successful. We are able to make
effective use of these camps because of a
highly sophisticated and efficient classifica-
tion programme.
During the year, besides taking a long,
hard look at county jails, we have subjected
our own district jails in the north to the same
scrutiny. We have realized that our experi-
ments carried out in the forestry camps made
them particularly appropriate as minimum
security work units for district jails. We have
McCreight's camp as the minimum security
work camp taking prisoners from Sault Ste.
Marie and Sudbury jails. Available for the
use of inmates from the North Bay district
jail we have the forestry camp at Wendigo
Lake, and as I have stated Portage Lake will
also be available for some prisoners from the
Sudbury district jail.
Our reorganization of areas of authority
between the Haileybury district jail and the
industrial farm at Monteith, which now has a
district jail annex, will enable us to have
minimum security farm work programmes for
inmates in this area.
During the year nothing has pleased us
more than the progress we have made in our
discussions with county councils concerning
the establishment of regional detention and
classification centres. And I am sure that all
lion, members have felt equal satisfaction in
the progress that lias been made so far.
I do not think that I need to repeat in
detail our programme for replacing the out-
moded, ineffective, inefficient county jails with
modern, efficient and economic facilities built
with the co-operation of a number of munici-
palities and receiving a 50 per cent capital
grant from this government.
The present county jails are nothing but
a stumbling block on the road to modern
correctional practice. The new facilities must
and will be a positive force in the rehabilita-
tion programme, as well as being a sound
economic proposition. A planning committee
has been appointed to assist and advise on
the most effective facilities and programmes
which should be provided in these regional
detention centres in keeping with modern
correctional knowledge. This committee is also
listed in the annual report, with the exception
of Mr. David Archibald whose appointment
I reported to this House just recently and
was not made in sufficient time to include in
the annual report. I am sure that hon. mem-
bers will appreciate that the composition of
this committee is such as to make available
the best knowledge on this subject from all
points of view.
So far we have been able to announce
three agreements, two of which have already
been signed. The Hamilton and the county of
Wentworth agreement will be signed in the
near future. Further to this, we have held dis-
cussions with a number of other authorities
and the developments are most encouraging.
Mr. Chairman, I have only touched on the
highlights of the many developments that
have taken place in the department. During
the past year each day has brought develop-
ments in one area or the other, so that it
would be impossible to tabulate absolutely
everything that has been done.
The annual report of the department lists
many more of the changes we have made and
even there, in our day-to-day workings, in
our changes of emphasis. It is not possible
to report such things as the extension of inter-
departmental committees and the meetings
we have held on subjects of mutual interest,
of the meetings we have held with juvenile
and family court judges; of the university
liaison we have developed with members of
our staff in many cases acting as lecturers
and field instructors to students; of the many
hundreds, yes, it is actually hundreds, of
university students who have visited our in-
stitutions quietly and without any fuss; of
talks and discussions we have had with
magistrates.
There is also the trades and industries
advisory committee which was announced in
the Throne speech and which will shortly
be appointed. This committee will review
our total vocational training, academic and
industries programme to assure that it is in
line with modern-day requirements.
There is not one area of work, Mr. Chair-
man, which has not been appraised, in which
we have not sought the best information; the
most effective programmes and put them into
effect.
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
815
In conclusion, I want to put credit for this
great progress where it is due. We have ap-
preciated the help received from outside
agencies in the after-care field. I have been
grateful for the advice and assistance received
from public-spirited men and women who
voluntarily serve on committees such as my
advisory council on the treatment of the
offender, the planning board for the regional
detention centres, and the training schools
advisory board.
And finally, I am proud and sincerely
grateful for the magnificent job being done
by a very dedicated staff. To them especially
I express my thanks for a year of solid pro-
gress which has enabled Ontario to maintain
her lead in the correctional field.
Mr. Chairman, in the light of this forward-
looking programme of positive progress I ask
the support of all hon. members in the
authorization of the estimates of this depart-
ment.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman, I
have several remarks to address to you with
regard to The Department of Reform Institu-
tions in extension of some of the general
statements I made about that department in
my first speech before this House.
In that speech I dealt with some home
truths about The Department of Reform In-
stitutions and the performance of its present
Minister. The hon. Minister— and who can
blame him— found this unpalatable and he
responded last Thursday evening with a curi-
ously interesting and revealing speech. The
speech was interesting and revealing because
it was one in which the hon. Minister clearly
felt obliged to defend the record of his de-
partment—and I use his own words: "its very
active programme" from "a direct personal
attack," full of "loud, noisy nonsense," "with
little, or any basis in fact."
To this extent, Mr. Chairman, the first
speech I made to this House served a very
useful purpose. At least the hon. Minister
was bestirred.
We must all have felt the interest of the
moment when he rose before this House.
What would he say? What sort of a defence
would he muster for an attack on his own
performance and the performance of his de-
partment? Far more important— so much
more important, that any considerations of a
personal nature are altogether eclipsed—
would he persuade any fairminded person,
that is to say I am sure all the members of
this House, that the penal institutions of this
province are operated as intelligently, hu-
manely and progressively as any reasonable
man could hope? Would he, in fact, prove
that some general criticisms voiced by an offi-
cial critic of his department were just another
example of what he was pleased to call— and
I am happy to remind him— "bluster, invec-
tive" and "irrational wild statements"? Would
he? Did he?
I, of course, have an opinion— I can say a
judgment— about the hon. Minister's success
at a moment that presented him at the same
time with a great challenge and with what
some may have considered a marvellous op-
portunity. I have, moreover, the conviction
that it is an opinion shared, however regret-
fully and uneasily, by many of the hon. mem-
bers opposite— there are not very many right
now.
But we must concern ourselves here— it is
not a clash of personalities which may at
times have its entertainment value, but is
absurdly trivial when serious subjects are
being considered— what we must deal with
here is the record of a department of this
government in some of the most vital work
of our time, the work of reclaiming and
making useful citizens of the dross of our
society, the common criminal.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister's speech
last Thursday was of such a nature that it
tended to confirm, rather than react against
some strongly held views that I, and others,
have about the hon. Minister's department.
I will return to this later. Permit me to say
now that it was a speech which, nevertheless,
had its moments. Who among us did not
enjoy the hon. Minister's reference to sports-
writer Bob Pennington's column containing
some ironical jibing and, possibly, some well-
deserved references to me— although from a
purely rhetorical standpoint, the hon. Minister
may have gone on just a little too long with
that.
Who did not value the eloquence of the
hon. Minister's repeated use of the words,
"Was that lack of initiative?" in citing what
he would have us believe were the countless
achievements of his department? "I do not
want to be immodest," the hon. Minister said
with a blush, as he began, and then when he
ended, did you catch the pathos of that open-
ing remark— because when he ended, as hon.
members will remember, the hon. Minister's
record was very bleak indeed. But— and I
offer this in all sincerity— who did not respect
him for the forthright manner in which he
replied to what he obviously believed was
the point of my attack? The way in which
he did so only confirmed in my vew that the
Minister is an honest, likeable and honour-
able man. I believed this before I made my
816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
speech, I believed it when I made my speech,
and I believe it with even greater force now,
but-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Here comes the sting!
An hon. member: And away we go!
Mr. Ben: But! The hon. Minister had a
clearly demonstrated incapacity for his job.
I believed this before I made my speech, I
believed it when I made my speech and I
believe it with even greater force now that
he has read the introduction to his estimates.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister has de-
scribed me as a "two-to-three-week expert"
on the affairs of his department. Believe me,
it has taken longer than that for me to qualify
myself for the duties I have to this House, to
the hon. Minister's department, to the people
of this province and, if our constitutional
system is properly understood, to the hon.
Minister himself. Fortunately, I have had,
as many hon. members in my position imist
have had, the assistance of many people of
goodwill and much experience in penology,
as well as my own experience as a lawyer
in the courts and at the scene, familiarizing
myself with the conditions of the penal sys-
tem of this province.
One astonishing— one almost staggering-
fact, Mr. Chairman, is that many of those
whom the hon. Minister so proudly paraded
by name as deservedly esteemed advisors of
his department, are among the very people
who are most extremely critical of some of
the work that is done, or rather not done, by
that department. The hon. Minister, one
would think, must be aware of this, but we
heard nothing from him in his speech about
the flaws in the present system; nothing to
indicate that the hon. Minister has been
guided by some of the excellent advice he
must have received. Nothing about his con-
cept—if he has one— of the purpose of a
wisely administered penal system. Nothing
about plans for correcting the great defects
of the present system. Nothing to indicate
that the hon. Minister has conducted his
own intensive, on-the-spot study of the insti-
tutions and staffs under his control— or, if he
has conducted them, learned anything from
them. Nothing to indicate that he has read
or understood even a part of the great wealth
of invaluable literature that is available in
this field. In fact, nothing of importance
about the future, the present or the past.
Indeed— and I am happy to provide you with
a summary of his speech— the hon. Minister
provided us with extracts from his fanmail.
What! no criticism!
A long, long list of his advisors, a short,
short list of what he has so winsomely called
the achievements of his department during
the past two years; numerous threatening
promises that he was about to give an ex-
emplary, verbal thrashing to an upstart, im-
pudent enough to question his competence
and his wise, far-seeing benevolence— a mem-
orably grisly lesson in how this is not
achieved.
It is interesting also that the hon. Minister
should ask, "Was that lack of initiative?"
And so blithely citing all of 16 items as the
signal achievement of his department during
his term in office. I am happy to recall them
to you. I quote from Hansard at page 675
of February 17, 1966:
Number one: We built two new training
centres for young men, one in Fort Wil-
liam and one in Monteith. Is that lack of
initiative?
We have organized the most extensive
and advanced system for the replacement
of outmoded county jails, with modern
regional detention and classification centres
offering a 50 per cent grant towards the
cost of their construction. And everyone
knows by now this is proceeding at a very
satisfactory rate. Is that lack of initiative?
We have obtained the property of the
RCAF station, Hagersville, and opened one
of the two training schools already estab-
lished there. Is that lack of initiative?
We have established a research depart-
ment with an outstanding director, as I
mentioned earlier.
We have rewritten our Training Schools
Act to produce one of the leading pieces of
legislation—
We are building a new training school
in northern Ontario—
We have undertaken the full financing
of the private training schools—
We have supported the establishment of
the centre of criminology—
We have completely reorganized admin-
istrative positions—
We have reviewed and reorganized our
statistical methods—
We have started the use of plastic
surgery—
and so on. I could read them all but let us
find out which ones of those are initiative.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: I am going to get back to those,
because it is quite interesting which part of it
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
817
is initiative. Now can we criticize the hon.
Minister for managing to do this much in two
years? Certainly not. Inexorable pressure of
the time that would have moved any depart-
ment, even this one, can be credited for at
least the majority of these achievements and
normal revision with the rest. We may con-
sider that with regard to the research de-
partment and regional jail system the hon.
Minister, after two years, is at least making
a beginning and I rush to congratulate him
for that. But it is evident to me that the hon.
Minister must have failed to go through the
files of his department, or else he would have
found under date March 20, 1961, a report
addressed to his predecessor in office, the
Hon. George C. Wardrope from the John
Howard society, captioned, "Consolidation of
county jails in Ontario," pointing out why
they should be consolidated and the benefits
that would flow from such consolidation.
An hon. member: What date was that?
Mr. Ben: March 20, 1961. This is the pro-
gramme initiated by the hon. Minister.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): It goes back to the 1920's.
Mr. Ben: I could go back to 1946, you are
quite right.
Mr. Thompson: 1926.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It probably goes back
to 1866.
Mr. Ben: That is initiative! But of course,
when I spoke of lack of initiative, my refer-
ence was to the hon. Minister himself. I am
sure the hon. Minister would be most in-
terested in hearing what of his very mixed
bag of achievements the hon. Minister has
himself initiated, by what he must consider
his vigour, his relentless drive, his awakened
concern with the multifarious problems of
his department. Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister was good enough to invite me, in his
speech, to get down to cases and get down to
facts. As the hon. Minister so delicately put
it, I should, quote, "put up or shut up."
Mr. Chairman, I am going to put up, if
strength and opportunity are allowed me, I
am going to put up so much, to such an
extent during my term in this House, that the
hon. Minister and some other hon. Ministers,
are going to have to work for a change, to
try to understand their roles or stand in-
dicted before the people of this province for
failing to respond to legitimate inquiries and
failing to do their jobs.
Facts are difficult things, Mr. Chairman, as
this government, which has on occasion em-
ployed every device and pretext to spare
itself the embarrassment of them, well knows.
But in order to give you some idea of the
true state of the penal system of this province,
I plan to make, if time is allowed me, a
number of points in commencing to sub-
stantiate grave charges with which I was able
to deal only in a most general way in my first
speech.
Sometimes to me, the list of things I am
obliged to say about the deficiencies of The
Department of Reform Institutions seems
endless, and sometimes, I admit to you, I
find that the prospect of attempting to move
this department as presently administered, is
simply appalling. It is obvious to me that I
cannot hope to deal adequately with any one
of the innumerable important points in the
limited time I have this afternoon, but I will
use this time today to introduce you, at least,
those of you who are not familiar with them,
to at least a few enlightened standards of
penal reform, and show you how this depart-
ment, The Department of Reform Institu-
tions of the province of Ontario is grossly
failing to meet them. There is room for a
nice little pun here, but I do not think it
would be fair.
It is perfectly clear to me that a great deal
of information given in a short interval is not
readily assimilated by most people, to say
nothing of some hon. Ministers. Nevertheless,
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions can
read it at his leisure and I hope he finds it
instructive. I will return to each one of these
points and others when I can deal with them
at more adequate length after we start on
the individual items.
Each of them deserves at the very least,
a day's debate. They are presented on the
whole in no particular order of emphasis.
However, as I mentioned in my first speech,
I hope to deal with this extensive and vital
subject in a logical and progressive way. So
I am going to begin with a few principles
and a few observations by acknowledged
experts— although time does not permit an
adequate survey here of contemporary
thought in this field— and then relate these
principles to cases and facts.
This at least will be a beginning. I hope
to deal shortly with the individual items in
the Budget, tomorrow if not today, and will
interrupt the schedule I have for other sub-
jects to do so. If my time with regard to
these runs out, Mr. Chairman, I will break at
some point and come into this House and
resume at another time.
818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Among the advisors cited with such proper
pride by the hon. Minister of Reform Institu-
tions in his recent speech, there was one, and
only one, whom he mentioned twice. The man
the hon. Minister chose to single out in this
way, the man he described as "the outstand-
ing director of The Department of Reform
Institutions research department," the man to
whom we would expect the hon. Minister to
give his closest attention, was Dr. T. Grygier,
a most respected and knowledgeable man in
the field of penal reform. Listen for a moment
to at least a few of Dr. Grygier's views as he
expressed them in a scholarly essay on crime
and society, in a book published last year, by
the Macmillan Company of Canada, on crime
and its treatment in Canada. In his essay, Dr.
Grygier, who in some respects as is illustrated
by his stimulating book, is not entirely ortho-
dox in his approach, sets forth a thesis that,
as I understand him, our present approach
to penology frustrates the prime aim of
sentencing, which is to secure the rehabilita-
tion of the criminal. And it is my view that
this criticism is directly applicable to the
penal system of Ontario and it may not be
mere happenstance that Dr. Grygier ex-
presses them here. Although, like any good
civil servant, he is restrained by the nature
of his role, as well as by the nature of his
article from going into cases, I believe you
should hear certain excerpts. I will give them
to you for the moment, with the minimum of
comment, leaving those of you who are
familiar with Ontario's penal system to judge
for yourselves whether his remarks are
applicable here. I quote:
The sentence should fit the offender and
not the offence.
I quote:
Mr. Justice Kelly said law is retributive,
punitive, exemplary and corrective. This
view-
writes Grygier:
—though inspired by positive aims is still
harsh and negative when it comes to
means. Even the word corrective is nearer
in emotional undertones to a surgeon's
scalpel than to the rehabilitative approach.
I quote:
It is true as stated in the first chapter of
this book that punitive and rehabilitative
aims are incompatible. In one case it
would seem to be a pound of retribution, a
ton of deterrent and an ounce of reforma-
tion mixed together and put over a slow
fire in a vat of segregation. What is the
best mixture we are never told. This is to
be judged individually from case to case
but it is impossible to evaluate such judg-
ing if no criteria are stated and no general
principle is involved.
I quote:
A crime is an act for which criminal
legislation prescribes sanctions aimed at
the protection of society which includes the
offender.
The emphasis is mine. I will return to the
treatment particularly provided for offenders
in this province later. I quote again:
Some modern correctional methods such
as probation, conditional and unconditional
discharge and even medical treatment are
also the consequences of criminal acts and
are part of a wide range of modern sanc-
tions.
I quote:
The Shah of Persia was alleged to have
said at Ascot, while explaining to King Ed-
ward why he preferred to look at the
women rather than at the horses, "In Persia
everybody knows that one horse can run
faster than the other. Who cares which
.?"
our present system many
criminals are like the losing horses at
Ascot.
In a recent investigation of chronic petty
offenders the author, Grygier, said that none
of the 109 subjects was able to compete suc-
cessfully in a technologically advanced
society. They were all losing the battle with
life. They were treated as if they were out-
side the social system, although in fact they
were its inevitable product. As Professor
Seeley says in his paper, if 12 virgins are to
be sacrificed annually to the dragon, it is
more helpful to find out why we have
dragons and why they need sacrifice, than
to devise a selection system that determines
the choice of the virgin.
Scientific does not mean "approved by
scientists." It can mean "supported by
scientific evidence." How many of our
treatments have been supported by scienti-
fic evidence based on proper experimental
design?
How many indeed!
Juvenile delinquency legislation is par-
ticularly prone to enforce morality regard-
less of the social consequences of such
enforcement. But it differs from ordinary
criminal legislation in that it confuses the
enforcement of morals with the enforce-
ment of welfare.
A brief submitted by the Canadian corrections
association to the committee on juvenile de-
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
819
linquency appointed by the Minister of
Justice of Canada on January 18, 1962, says:
We believe no child should be categor-
ized as a delinquent in general terms. Also
we believe the power the courts may exer-
cise over the convicted child should bear
some relationship to his offence.
The author, Grygier, also favours deterrence
but not in the sense that we inflict punish-
ment solely to deter others.
Punishment not for the offence but as a
warning to others is equivalent for no
offence at all.
We already suffer from too many laws
and too much judging, too much punish-
ment and too much treatment. In fact, too
much state interference and too little
evidence that its declared objectives are
achieved.
At times we fail to protect the offenders.
On the contrary, we exploit them. We
exploit them in prison labour which
sacrifices constructive work and rehabilita-
tion for the sake of peace on the labour
front. Instead of productive work which,
of course, would compete with trade union
labour in the open market and for which
prisoners could be paid proper wages, we
impose on them endless cleaning and main-
tenance tasks for which there is no pay.
I quote from one of Dr. Grygier's sub-
chapters entitled "Moral exhortations and
hypocrisy as the backbone of our juvenile
laws":
The hypocrisy of our law and of our
system of administering justice to our
children can hardly go further.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you, has the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions really been
listening to this man?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that a rhetorical
question?
Mr. Ben: The hon. Minister may accept it
if he so wishes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member
want it now or does he want to wait for it?
Mr. Ben: Please yourself, sir.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man, if the hon. member for Bracondale
says so. I agree with everything he has said,
in quoting from Dr. Grygier. The hon. mem-
ber must be— I do not know where he has
been, but it was precisely because of this
philosophy outlined by Dr. Grygier about
juveniles that we brought in the new Train-
ing Schools Act embodying everything he has
outlined in that as a philosophy. And he had
the major portion in the designing of that
new Training Schools Act. So the hon. mem-
ber can hardly say I have not been taking
advice. I have not only been taking advice
from him, we enacted legislation as a direct
result of this philosophy which the hon.
member has just expounded.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, those of you who
have had occasion to read the Old Testament
may remember that when Israel was attacked
and Solomon was then king, the forces
against him were overwhelming-
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): I do not think
the hon. member will ever take his place.
Mr. Ben: Does the hon. member not want
to hear the Scriptures, Mr. Chairman? So
Solomon had his forces burnish their steel
shields, if you will recall, and he then re-
flected the morning sun from the shields into
the eyes of the Egyptians to blind them.
Now the hon. Minister is looking sort of
openmouthed; what am I driving at? I am
going to give the hon. Minister a little credit.
I want to go on record, Mr. Chairman,
that in my mind at least there is a very great
distinction between penal institutions— that is
reform institutions— and child training centres.
In my mind, these child training centres have
no darn business being in the department of
the hon. Minister. They should be in The
Department of Education. And I want to go
on record also, Mr. Chairman, that at the
present time the hon. Minister is doing a
fairly good job in the question of retraining
these youths, these children.
But I have continually stressed that
they should consist of and be treated simply
as vocational schools; and what they are be-
coming is almost government-run private
schools— and I admire the hon. Minister for
that. But he is not going to blind me by try-
ing to reflect whatever radiance may come
from the training section of his department
and blind me from seeing what goes on in the
reformatory section. And neither am I going
to permit him to try to blind the other hon.
members of the House with regards to that.
It is fine for the hon. Minister to say, "I
agree with everything that Professor Grygier
said," but I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that
all the remarks that I quoted did not deal
exclusively with juvenile delinquency or
juveniles or child training centres. They dealt
with penology and to me child training does
not come under the term "penology." If the
hon. Minister thinks it does, then I say to
him quite unashamedly that he should be
ashamed.
820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member in-
cluded that.
Mr. Ben: I did not, the hon. Minister did.
He tried to blind this House to what goes
on in the reformatories by holding up to
them what he is now presently doing in the
child training centres. To me there is a com-
plete distinction.
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Crys-
tallize it for him.
Mr. Ben: I have someone else on this side
to do the crystallizing.
Mr. McKeough: Okay.
Mr. Ben: From comments by A. M. Kirk-
patrick, another of the hon. Minister's
advisers in the same volume, I quote:
It is now generally accepted that the
social services of all major communities
should make provision to help the return-
ing prisoner.
Prisons are places that men leave; a few
die, a few are executed and a few become
insane. But it is an important fact that
they do not remain in prison. When pris-
oners are held in custody instead of being
killed or transported as in the past cen-
turies they must eventually be returned to
the community. It is then that their
second punishment often begins.
Mr. Chairman, I do not like to quote too
long from any particular author but the text
of an address given by Mr. Kirkpatrick to the
John Howard society in 1957— it was re-
printed in 1962, and I understand why it was
reprinted because it is a most excellent arti-
cle—I think is worthy of the attention of
this House, because it shows some of the
problems, I should say many of the prob-
lems, facing the prisoners on their discharge.
I regret to say it runs to about five pages
but I am afraid I do owe it to this House,
Mr. Chairman, to read a good portion of it.
It is captioned: Emotional problems on
release.
On return to the community—
You find this exceedingly amusing, do you,
sir? I am referring to the hon. gentleman
over there.
Mr. Chairman: Please address your re-
marks to the chair.
Mr. Ben: All right. I see that the hon.
member for Muskoka finds it extremely
amusing.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): What did I do;
why mention me?
Mr. Ben: To continue:
On return to the community there was
a notable need for the ex-inmate to develop
emotional roots to achieve a reduction in
hostility to the heightened frustration of
prison life, to secure acceptance by others
and to achieve a tolerance making possible
the acceptance of others. The latter is
particularly true in regard to his wife and
family if those ties are present. In his
absence the family may have changed
greatly due to disgrace, hardship and lone-
liness. There are many wives who achieve
for themselves independence and a meas-
ure of security which they are afraid to
relinquish and which threatens the male
providing role of the returned husband
or father of the family.
No smile now from the hon. member for
Muskoka.
The reorientation to freedom calls for
a return to self-maintenance and for exer-
cise of choice not only about major deci-
sions but about the minor activities of
organizing one's daily life. How to pur-
chase personal articles, to order a meal,
to move freely through open doors and to
open them without fear of reprimand, are
sometimes difficult re-learnings. Getting
rid of prison-made clothes which link
emotions to the past is frequently a step
to emancipation. In the first flush of
freedom it is little wonder that on occa-
sion light is made first of accompanying
liberty. Sorely needed financial resources
are frequently squandered in the resolution
of conflicting emotions, stored up desires,
liberty and freedom of choice. There is
an essential humanness about this conflict
that, though not condoned, places it be-
yond moralizing and comparable accep-
tance and understanding by the worker. It
is noted there is often an ambivalence of
vacillation as to the type of identification
to be made on return to the community.
Should the man maintain his present
formed attitudes or become a square jaw
and seek acceptance by the broader com-
munity? The former requires him to re-
linquish the more recent type of emotional
attachment and security he has known
while the latter involves him in a co-oper-
ative approach to authority which has
frequently seemed to him to be rigid and
punitive. He knows that his former associ-
ates are not likely to be helpful influences
to him and the joints he used to frequent
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
821
will return him to the marginal fringe of
criminal activity. But poor friends are
better than no friends. The attempt to
move into socially acceptable groups has
many obstacles. Some groups are reluc-
tant to offer acceptance to known ex-
convicts. Even though he is maintaining
an anonymity about his past he never knows
when this may be pierced. From within,
he feels the stigma and fears the hurt of
further rejection. Doing time, he is losing
time and many men feel a driving need to
make up for the wasted years. So much of
living has gone by. So much loss of earn-
ings. So much enjoyment. So much oppor-
tunity that the tolerance for frustration
can become very slight. There is an urge
to acquire the visible symbols of success,
such as expensive watches or rings. An-
other manifestation is the desire for good
fun, seen in stylish and expensive clothes.
Unless things break right and quickly, the
temptation is ever-present to revert to
known habit patterns and do it the easy
way. Linked with this is often a chip-on-
the-shoulder defensiveness which expects
discrimination and projects it even on the
most sincere helping effort if they do not
immediately produce the desired results.
I will try to skip some here. There is another
smiling one there.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): I am not
smiling.
Mr. Ben: To continue:
Ex-inmates present themselves in a
variety of ways. Sometimes the hostil-
ity is barely held in check and the initial
demanding attitude has to be worked
through before the real issue can be
reached and help rendered. Again they
may evidence confusion and inability to
mobilize energy into action even in the
matter of securing shelter or looking for
work. In such instances there is need for
a somewhat directive approach until the
personality begins to reintegrate. The im-
mediate problem of most ex-inmates is
survival. Gate money for provincial institu-
tions or prisons, earnings for the peniten-
tiary are so small that ex-inmates are to
all intents and purposes insolvent when
they leave prison. A rough estimate used
to be that a penitentiary inmate would
have on release an average of about $7.50
a year for time served, plus a dressout of
clothing seasonally appropriate. Recently,
prison earnings have been increased and
more money will be available to the men
as they leave, though estimates are still
difficult to suggest. The security of food,
shelter and workclothes is an immediate
necessity. The urge to be rid of prison-
made clothes may create a ready accep-
tance of secondhand clothing which may
be actually inferior to prison-made articles
both in quality and appearance.
Mr. Kirkpatrick goes on to show the difficulty
these people have in obtaining employment
because of their past record. Because of the
blanket bonding of employees which is be-
coming very frequent, the areas of employ-
ment open to ex-inmates are gradually
shrinking. Today, many delivery men, truck-
ers and warehouse employees are bonded and
the companies make rare exceptions, if any.
Then, when they refuse to bond an em-
ployee, explanations are in order and it is
highly probable that the ex-inmate will be
seeking new employment.
He goes on to say that when a man has
demonstrated over a period of years that he
is living a responsible life, free from criminal
activity or association, it becomes discrimina-
tion of the worst sort if he is denied oppor-
tunities to advance himself or pursue a chosen
avenue of employment.
In regard to employment, ex-inmates are
truthfully in the position of second-class
citizens and are forced in most cases into
the ranks of unskilled labour, even though
they may have excellent intelligence apti-
tude and reasonably good training. This is
particularly true of men who have had vo-
cational training in a prison and who seek
to have this training recognized for an
apprenticeship.
Mr. Kirkpatrick goes on:
The institutional classification statute co-
ordinates the efforts of the after-care agen-
cies and prerelease. But as much as
possible, the after-care agencies should
maintain their own prerelease representa-
tives and relationships in the institution. It
may be said that after-care agencies are
extensions of the institution in the local
communities.
I have omitted reading a good part of this
article. I should point out to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that yesterday I phoned the John
Howard society to find out exactly how many
representatives in the prisons their agency
had and I found they had two representa-
tives who travel.
What has the government of this province
done to solve this appalling situation? What
good is it having these prisons when this is
822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the situation that exists on the outside? Now,
I quote:
The earnings of prisoners in the peniten-
tiary system were increased in 1964 but are
still quite low, and the effect of the change
has not been fully realized, though now it
is estimated that a man may have about
$17 per year of sentence. The discharge
gratuities paid by the various provincial
institutions vary, but are also quite small.
For example, in Ontario the gratuity is $2
per month up to a maximum of $20 on dis-
charge.
Now that is a fine start on a new life. I
quote:
It has long been one of the cliches of
the prisoners' aid societies that you cannot
counsel a man on a hungry stomach.
And again:
Because they have been in prison a long
time, many inmates find it difficult to estab-
lish that they are eligible for welfare
assistance.
Lou Zicton, of the John Howard society of
Ottawa, continues:
Ideally, the prison dischargee should be
eligible for public welfare assistance, with
the function of the private agency founded
upon the giving of case work service to
help with psychological and environmental
problems, but providing material assistance
where necessary, for specific reason, as part
of the process.
Again, I quote:
It is essential that the service given an
ex-inmate be related to the experience he
has had in prison, and that the probable
effect of his imprisonment, his chance of
re-establishment in the community, be
taken into account.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a single
example before I proceed. Does the hon.
Minister really believe that the so-called
"trades training" work given at Guelph re-
formatory is part of, and I quote, "—a sound,
rehabilitative programme"?
Does the hon. Minister really believe that
the work is adequate to prepare these men
and boys for parole in society after they are
released? We must presume that the Min-
ister does, or else the Minister is quick to
agree that he is responsible for, and I quote:
—revolutionizing the reform institutions de-
partment would have to introduce at least
some measure of reform.
In passing, I would like to suggest, in all
deference to the hon. Minister, that he not
get too euphoric or self-congratulatory about
laudatory letters. We all receive them at
some time or another. While it is nice to
receive them, we are merely throwing sand
in our own eyes if we begin to believe that
they fairly reflect the total situation or the
measure of our involvement in it.
Let me point out, for the benefit of those
who do not know that the misnamed
Guelph reformatory is not even a creditable
attempt at a trades training school. The
inmates there merely pass their time in a
limited amount of woodworking, tailoring,
painting, repairing of automobiles— and it is
a convenient arrangement; the automobiles
belong to the staff— they also makes clothes,
raise beef, pork and vegetables for other in-
stitutions. All this activity is accounted for
on the credit side of the department's books
by the figure of almost $3.5 million which
you find both in the public accounts and in
the statement given by the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) and in the estimates.
What has the inmate learned that will help
him to re-establish himself in the community?
Virtually nothing. How then, do his qualifi-
cations upon discharge relate in A. M. Kirk-
patrick's words, "to the experience he has
had in prison"? Virtually not at all. He has
had no formal, progressive training that leaves
him immeasurably more skilled than when
he entered prison. He can produce no docu-
ment of value stating that he has completed
successfully a formal period of instruction
in a certain specialty. He is probably no
better with his hands or his head than when
he entered prison, unless, of course, he
learned from his peers some useful arts of
criminality that can be deployed against
society— and I will return to that later.
In the words of the Rubaiyat, Mr. Chair-
man, he "leaves by the same door he came
in." Re-establishment, God knows, is difficult
enough for a prisoner, without compounding
his difficulties by actually wasting an oppor-
tunity to equip him for later life. The re-
formatories of this province, Mr. Chairman—
and I say it with all solemnity— are not
reformatories in any sense. They are com-
pounds for indentured labour. The figure
of $3.5 million looks impressive on The
Department of Reform Institutions books, but
I would ask you to consider what that figure
really represents. It represents to a very
substantial extent, a waste of human material;
it represents human energy and human initi-
ative poured down the drain; it represents
failure, Mr. Chairman, the failure of the
reform institutions of Ontario to carry out
their public duty to reform.
What is the rehabilitative effect of the
current programme on what is so loosely
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
823
styled "trades training" in reform institutions?
Let us consider an expert view, that of Pro-
fessor J. Ciale of the department of crimi-
nology of the University of Montreal, in a
paper entitled, "Prison design and rehabili-
tation programmes" delivered at the annual
meeting of the John Howard society, held at
the city of Kingston on February 16, 1965,
Professor Ciale had this to say:
Trades training had no influence on the
rate of recidivism. A study carried out by
the FTC-
that is the federal training centre:
—staff supports this finding. Less than nine
per cent of ex-inmates who had received
trades training practised the trade they had
been taught upon release. This is not sur-
prising, for an ex-inmate will be credited
with six months' or one year's apprentice-
ship, as the case may be, by the certifying
trade board. His pay will be commensurate
with his level of proficiency. Usually he
does not relish work at the wage scales
offered until he obtains his master's card,
when he can immediately earn much more
money by driving a truck or getting some
analogous work. This also demonstrates the
importance of co-ordinating an inmate's
treatment plan within the institution with
his prerelease and post-release activities.
How much effort and how much money
are spent on trade training activities with
such a limited payoff?
One is obliged to ask at this point, Mr.
Chairman, what does The Ontario Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions do to further
equip the dischargee from Ontario institu-
tions? That question is rhetorical. The answer,
Mr. Chairman, is that The Ontario Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions does virtually
nothing.
Now to continue with Professor Ciale:
The recidivist has usually started his
criminal career before 21 years of age.
Most of them before 18. He is likely to
have been in a juvenile institution. He has
a low educational level.
What does The Department of Reform In-
stitutions do effectively to raise the standard
of education to abort that criminal career?
Once again, Mr. Chairman, the answer is
virtually nothing.
To continue from Professor Ciale:
Medium security institutions which
house approximately 350 inmates— and
select the cream, as it were, from among
the large unsegregated groups of maxi-
mum security institutions— have not suc-
cessfully bridged the gap to the inmate's
society. They have not reached those in-
mates who cluster and group themselves
according to the "right guys" and the
"suckers."
The reason why, I suggest that—
writes Ciale:
—is because their working hynothesis is
based on a regimented system of living
with trades training as a predominant
activity for those who are suitable, and
maintenance and regular work for un-
suitable, inmates. It does not allow inmates
to express themselves or to reach their
true needs. He, the inmate, must work his
way up through the institutional standard.
What happens is that the inmate adopts a
double standard; he pays lip service to
treatment, becomes obsequious and sub-
missive while his anti-social quarrel re-
mains unaltered.
Mr. Chairman, this is the sort of problem
the reform institutions department leaves un-
touched.
The hon. Minister has repeatedly stressed
—not to say harped upon— "the great value"
of The Department of Reform Institutions
training programme for its custodial officers.
Oh, I apologize— I believe they are now
called "correctional" officers— those men who
are in direct day-to-day contact with the pris-
oner; those men whose influence is crucial in
shaping his attitude to himself and to society
at large. One would gather from the hon.
Minister's pronouncement that his depart-
ment has a wise appreciation of the vital
role played by these men and bends every
effort to ensure that they are judiciously
selected and fully equipped for their tasks.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to read to you the
complete schedule of training provided for
new correctional officers as outlined in the
department's own directive.
O.R. Millbrook— primary basic training
for all new personnel to be completed dur-
ing first four weeks of service.
Now, this programme outlines who is to be
the instructor, but I shall omit that.
Course outline, subject-matter:
1. Purpose and scope of initial training,
explanation of training and what employ-
ment has to gain— one hour.
2. Conditions of employment. Explana-
tion of work schedule, pay scale, sick
leave, pension plan, etc.— one hour.
3. Conditions of employment. Training,
etc. Must qualify on all courses for per-
manent appointment. All call any time in
event of emergency.— One hour.
824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
4. Institution tour. Guided tour to ex-
plain the layout and facilities.— Two hours.
5. The Ontario plan and its objectives.
The peculiar relation to the whole pro-
gramme—One and a half hours.
6. Programme of this institution. De-
scription of the organization, lines of
authority, channels of communication, fea-
tures of facilities of the programme for
inmates.— One and a half hours.
7. Weapons. Legal use. Explanation,
discussion and presentation of confidential
memoranda.— One hour.
8. Weapons. Practical. Handling and
firing of all firearms and protective equip-
ment, maintenance, loading, safety precau-
tions, etc.— Three hours.
9. Officer-inmate relationship. A com-
monsense discussion pertaining to handling
of inmates.— One hour.
10. Policies and rules of the institution.
The meaning and importance of rules and
policies and interpretation.— One hour.
11. Daily routine. A description of daily
routine and daily events in 24-hour period.
—One hour.
12. Essential characteristics of a good
officer, using material available.— One hour.
13. Experience on post. Cell wings, day
room, work areas and shops.— Four hours.
14. Inmate programme. Reception to
release. Show reception and release pro-
cedure, documentation, transfers, identifica-
tion, etc.— One hour.
15. Emergencies. Typical situations
which may occur outlining what to expect
and what has to be done.— One hour.
16. Custody. Legal responsibility for.
Methods of techniques used to ensure, ob-
servation, supervision, counts, etc.— Two
hours.
17. Keys and locking devices. Observe
and study locking devices and keys. Handle
keys under supervision.— Four hours.
18. Reports. How to make proper re-
ports. Keep a notebook, telephone pro-
cedure, etc.— One hour.
19. Treatment and training. Outline
treatment and training, employment and
recreation programme. Group therapy,
counselling, etc. Two hours.
20. Religion and chaplain. Function of
the institutional chapel and chaplain. One
hour.
21. Purpose of institution education, ex-
plaining objectives of the educational pro-
gramme. One hour.
22. Library. Explaining importance of a
good library. One hour.
This may have sounded rather a boring reci-
tation, but out of these 22 items enumerated
here, four touch on the rehabilitation of the
inmates under their charge. And in this I
am being very liberal. Five is the Ontario
plan and its objectives, that peculiar relation-
ship to the whole programme— an hour and
a half. Nine, officer-inmate relationship, a
commonsense discussion pertaining to handl-
ing of inmates. I am willing to allow that
that is an hour and a half an hour. Item 19,
treatment and training, outline treatment and
training, employment and recreation pro-
gramme, group therapy, counselling, etc.,
two hours. That is now four and a half hours.
Purpose of institution education is one hour.
That is five and a half hours, and this is the
great training that these custodial or correc-
tional officers are supposed to get.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That is
the total-
Mr. Ben: That is the total course.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a point of order. I am prepared to sit
here and not interrupt the hon. member, and
answer him as is the usual fashion when the
other critic is finished. But I must correct
that statement. The hon. member is entirely
wrong. That is the introductory staff training.
There is further training and I will have that
in my answer for him tomorrow. But just
to correct the record here, he made the state-
ment that that is the total staff training. The
research of the hon. member has failed him
there.
Mr. Ben: Oh, no, my research man has
not. That is the total basic training pro-
gramme, and it is given over the first four
or some number of weeks there.
The hon. Minister implied that there is
another training programme; I am willing to
admit that there is. But this is for officers
and supervisors, and I have studied the pub-
lic accounts and the estimates with reference
to that. But I would point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that today the hon. Minister gave me
an answer to a question raised as to the
educational qualifications of the custodial
officers. They are called correctional officers
now; they used to be called turnkeys at one
time, then it became custodial officer and now
it is correctional officer. The mean and aver-
age educational level, as the hon. Minister
pointed out this afternoon, is grade 9%.
Another question I asked for which no an-
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
swer has yet come forth is the mean and
average education of the inmates. It is my
humble submission, Mr. Chairman, that the
inmates have a higher educational level than
the people who are there to correct, educate
and rehabilitate them.
An hon. member: The hon. member is
contradicting himself.
Mr. Ben: They say I am contradicting my-
self. It is clear to everybody except the
Chicago gang there, you know. As a matter
of fact, I almost avoided being in the House
on February 14. I did not know what to
expect from the Chicago gang, but the day
passed anyway. That is the total training that
is given to the average custodial officer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is a suggestion that I did not answer a ques-
tion. Will the hon. member, after he is
through, find the question in Hansard and
draw it to my attention so that I can answer
it? I understood him to say that he had
asked me a question about the average edu-
cational standard of the average inmate. Is
that right?
Mr. Ben: I asked the same question about
the inmates as I did about the custodial staff.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to see
that in Hansard; it is not the way we read
it in Hansard.
Mr. Ben: I will apologize to the hon.
Minister if that is not so.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think reading that
statement took that long, although some hon.
members think it took too long.
Mr. Chairman, is this the sort of miserable
fact we are to find recorded by a Minister
who, to quote from a letter to be found in
the Minister's own fanmail, a letter he so
proudly read to us last Thursday, is: "Tre-
mendously interested in his department and
has done more study than could normally be
expected"? Mr. Chairman, let me conclude
with Professor Ciale for the moment, with
one further excerpt from his paper: "I would
like to deal with—/' I am sorry; I will not
read this part because for the simple reason
that the hon. Minister has already admitted
in some of his articles that Millbrook would
not be there if he had his way. He is not
responsible for its location, and therefore it
would be unfair to the hon. Minister if I
started dwelling on locations of jails for
which he has or can bear no responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to turn now to the
report of the commissioner of penitentiaries
for Canada for the year 1949. In that report
there appears this statement:
There is an increasing realization that
the true purpose of the prison is not only
to keep in safe custody those committed to
its care but to train, uplift and educate its
inmates for better citizenship. Greater at-
tention to the basic needs and problems of
the individual prisoner, more sympathetic
concern for the needs and problems of the
inmate, better facilities for readjustment on
discharge, these are all evidences of a con-
cern for a prisoner as a human being.
As I indicated in the beginning, I intend to
deal almost exclusively with the enlightened
concept and sound principles in this address,
in an attempt to lay at least part of the
groundwork for some of the bleak realities of
the Ontario penal system that I intend to
draw to the attention of the hon. members of
this House.
Those who have been good enough to
listen to the expert views I have provided
thus far will already, I am sure, have some
appreciation of the gulf that separates this
government's observations about the prison
system it administers and some hard and un-
yielding facts. When I deal in detail with
the conditions of the Ontario penal system,
probably tomorrow, I will relate these condi-
tions to the views of many more outstanding
experts in the field of penal reform, including
those experts I have been able to quote
today. It seems hardly necessary to remind
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions that
these men are not two-to-three-week experts.
The hon. members of this House may have
perceived that some of the views I have pro-
vided today are the views of those the hon.
Minister cited with such obvious delight as
being prominent among his advisers. Mr.
Chairman, there is little point in having an
adviser if you do not occasionally take his
advice.
I would like to give, at this time, at least
one illustration of the discrepancy between
the statements of the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions and the facts; I intend at another
time to deal in detail with these facts. A
great many, far too many, of the hon. Minis-
ter's statements, Mr. Chairman, are little
more than an expression of myths and
legends of the Ontario reform institutions
department that the hon. Minister nurtures
so well. At this moment, I would like to
deal only with the one statement, because
it relates to what I have said earlier in this
address and I have not now got the time to
deal with others.
But first, to make an earlier point perfectly
826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
clear, I would like to quote from another of
the hon. Minister's distinguished advisers,
Mr. Joseph McCulley, former deputy com-
missioner of penitentiaries, now— I believe—
chairman or vice-chairman of the county—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Regional detention
centres.
Mr. Ben: He is the chairman now. This
quote is in reference to the previous quote I
read of the commissioner of penitentiaries for
Canada for the year 1949. He states:
Nothing is said here about vengeance,
retribution or punishment. Nothing is said
here about deterrents. There is recognition
of the fact that the offender cannot be per-
mitted to run at large in society, but there
is a clear statement that it is the prime
function of the prison insofar as possible to
return the offender to society prepared to
live a decent and law-abiding life.
Now consider a statement of the hon. Minis-
ter at a meeting of the same society:
Essentially, whether we are financed by
personal or property taxes or by voluntary
donations, we are given this money to pro-
tect society against the depredations of
crime. I do not think society in general
really cares too much as to our exact
methods although I hope—
and these are the hon. Minister's words:
—public conscience has improved to the
stage where most would prefer humani-
tarian rather than punitive methods.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister then con-
tinued in quite another vein:
While we ask ourselves what are the
purposes of our institutions, the answer is,
I would say, to provide for a therapeutic
programme of rehabilitation in a custodial
setting. Although we realize that the
therapeutic atmosphere usually increases in
inverse proportion to the amount of cus-
tody, we must recognize that necessary
custody varies with individuals and that it
cannot be reduced to such a level that it
fails to protect the public. Recognizing
that every institution in the correctional
field must be a therapeutic institution with
treatment programmes, one must immedi-
ately consider certain facts. Institutions
must be designed to fit a variety of pro-
grammes, not the other way around. Treat-
ment programmes will need to be many
and varied in order to deal with every type
of inmate, but we should also have pro-
grammes which are adjusted to every stage
of an inmate's progress.
Mr. Chairman, does the hon. Minister really
believe this reflects the state of things in
Ontario's penal institutions? Fantastic! What
variety of programmes, what many and varied
treatment programmes are provided under
the hon. Minister's benevolent auspices at
Millbrook? If he wants to answer, I will sit
down. Or does the hon. Minister believe that,
in his own words, society in general really
does not care too much?
Let me convey to you, Mr. Chairman, what
life is like at Millbrook. It is a harsh life and
a bleak life, a life virtually unrelieved by
variety or interest or wholesome stimulation.
It is a life full of the sound of clanging doors
and the metallic clatter of machines stamping
out licence plates. It is a life of bored, lonely
and sometimes desperate men. Mr. Chair-
man, no man of goodwill would countenance
a reform institution that was operated in a
slack and undisciplined way like some in-
effectual boys' schools. But, Mr. Chairman,
no man of goodwill who has seen it could
approve the dreadful monotony, the almost
human sterility and the vacuousness of life
for an inmate at Millbrook. And yet the hon.
Minister recently condoned the use of tear
gas for five consecutive days in Millbrook.
This gas was used indiscriminately on men
innocent of any part in the prior disturb-
ance, and all of them were trapped in their
cells— each to an individual cell. Was this part
of the hon. Minister's therapeutic programme
for the men and women entrusted to his
care? Or, once again, does the hon. Minister
really believe that society in general does not
care too much?
I will read to you a statement by J. A.
Graham, Deputy Minister of The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions, from the depart-
ment's annual report:
They—
the inmates at Millbrook:
—constitute in general the type described
by the former Chief Justice J. C. McRuer,
as "a predatory class of people." They are
so constituted that they either cannot live
responsible lives or they prefer to be
parasites. They demonstrate by their con-
duct that they will not live disciplined
lives.
Remember, the Deputy Minister is talking
about men.
I read to you an excerpt from an editorial
in the Peterborough Examiner of July 10,
1965, dealing with that Millbrook disturb-
ance. When I put the question to the hon.
Minister a few days back as to how much
damage was caused by the riot, he was quick
to jibe at me that there was no riot. I was
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
827
quite aware that there was no riot, Mr.
Chainnan. One of the first things that struck
me on my visit to Millbrook was the fact that
although gas had been shot for five days and
it was all over the papers as a riot and a
disturbance, I could not find any evidence
of damage. Now, if there is a riot or dis-
turbance, they either smash dishes or destroy
furniture or rip up mattresses or break
windows or plug the toilet bowls or something
like that. The amazing thing was that I could
not find any evidence. I asked the staff what
damage was done besides blankets being
impregnated with tear gas. What were they
doing?
As far as I could understand, they had
all these people segregated because they tried
to go on a hunger strike because of their
objection to the food there. I am not passing
judgment on the food, I am just saying that
they were going to go on a hunger strike, but
they could not get together because they were
all in isolation. So the strike did not succeed.
At any rate, I understand they took 15 of
the so-called ringleaders and put them in a
special wing— I think it was five wing.
After the fire they had there, simply be-
cause the custodial staff feared that they were
going to lose control— these individuals were
in individual cells behind locked doors that
were operated by remote control from a
booth outside the wing— the guards went in
there and started shooting gas in cells where
people were sleeping and where other people
were lying down on their bunks reading and
where others came to the door and asked for
a light from the guard because their lighters
had been taken away and they had been told
that if they wanted a light to ask the guard.
If I have ever met anything as inhuman as
this— short of a way— I do not know where.
These people were trapped like rabbits in a
dead-end burrow, and for five days they got
gassed. Now that is humane treatment!
Then, when a report was made on the
incident, as reported in the paper— when you
consider that all of these people were isolated
in one wing and each in an individual cell
behind a door that either opened simultane-
ously with the other doors or individually, the
man who prepared the report said that at no
time was there any risk of losing control. I
should think not! Unless they were going to
chew their bars through.
I say "shame" to the people down there!
The only justification I can find for this, Mr.
Chairman, is that the hon. Minister or the
people down at Millbrook must have read
the statement of the American government
that tear gas is the most humane way of
dealing with insurrection, or something. So
I guess he must have got some satisfaction
out of that.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is he
right? #
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has not been right
for one minute.
Mr. Ben: Not been right for one minute!
Well, I can produce signed affidavits on it
and I will take the hon. Minister down.
Then there is the man who is sitting there
while we were in there discussing the matter.
The man makes a report and he admits in the
report that he did not speak to a single in-
mate—did not speak to a single inmate when
he was sent down there to make an investiga-
tion, Mr. Minister. And when we asked him
why he did not speak to a single inmate,
he asked, "You do not expect us to believe
inmates, do you?" And I pointed out to the
man, I said, "Well, you talk like the magis-
trates in the city of Toronto."
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Do you believe
inmates?
Mr. Ben: You never believe the accused
when a policeman says something because
policemen always tell the truth and the
accused always lies, so the custodial staff at
Millbrook always tell the truth and the in-
mates always lie. I pointed out to them that
one of the things of which I had to take
notice was that although the inmates lied,
they all told the same lie!
Now, here is the excerpt that I started to
read from the Peterborough Examiner, deal-
ing with the disturbances:
A system that relies upon starvation,
mental oppression and solitary confinement
for control, has little or no chance for
they are referring to Millbrook:
It is obvious that the amount of training
available for staff and superintendents is
limited or non-existent.
I read the conclusions of the Anglican
Church committee's report on Millbrook re-
formatory and I hope to have some words
to say on that at another time, too.
The committee maintained that the loca-
tion of the reformatory was bad.
The hon. Minister acknowledges that because
it is not situated in an area where specialized
psychological, psychiatric, medical, sociologi-
cal and educational help was really available,
and it is there— I am not going to bring up
828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that to the hon. Minister for he acknowledges
it is there. He cannot pick it up holus-bolus
and dump it anywhere else— it is there.
But the committee noted that:
The educational qualifications and pay
rates of custodial staff are far too low and
the training programme for these should
be greatly increased. The committee
warned also that the training of inmates
left much to be desired and in its present
condition was "unlikely to bring about
rehabilitation."
And yet, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
tells us— if you remember his words— that:
Every institution in the correctional
field must be a therapeutical institution.
Now, I must leave the subject of Millbrook,
but we will get back to that at a later date.
The hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
who congratulated himself warmly in his
recent speech because his department had—
and I use his own words:
—had the initiative to set up two new
forestry camps on purchased property at
Hagersville, for a training school.
What the hon. Minister at that time neglected
to make clear was that these camps and
training schools are not for those who require
the most help, but for those who require the
least; that is, those who are most likely to be
rehabilitated. Now this is amply demon-
strated by data collected by Mannheim,
Wilkins, Vernon, Croft and Grygier, to the
effect that "the mere fact of adjudication,
classification and allocation creates measur-
able dynamic forces which make our good
people better and our juvenile delinquents
worse."
Now, Mr. Chairman, I must apologize.
This is in very statistical language. There
was another article by Grygier, a darn good
article, a talk he gave to an association in
St. Louis about— it must have been four or
five years ago, before the hon. Minister came
into office— where he pointed out that, ac-
cording to his empirical studies:
Contrary to the belief that everything
tends to the norm, when it came to penal
institutions the trend was to diverge from
the norm.
He put it in much simpler language in that
article than he did here. What he was
saying there— and I think he made a study
of Brampton, if I remember correctly, or
one of the institutions— was that incarcera-
tion makes the good better and the bad
worse; that instead of coming toward the
norm— making the good become less good and
the bad become a little better— the bad be-
came worse and the good became better. I
even have it here some place. It was a sort
of white paper. So that if we take a success-
ful institution, such as Brampton, which is
a successful institution, Mr. Minister— if you
will just wake up for a second, thank you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am awake and I
am listening to every word.
Mr. Ben: It is a successful institution and
I suggest I know why, although it may not
be the answer, because a psychologist can
still bring out some reports. After the pris-
oners get into Guelph, they are in a manner
classified, and there is no doubt that they
send the best prisoners— those who have the
greatest chance of improving themselves, as
the hon. Minister's chart here points out, age
16 and 25, IQ over 85, good custodial risks,
well motivated; in other words, the good
ones— to that place and they are successful.
Frankly I really thought that Brampton was
really something special until I read Gry-
gier's report. I still think it is a good
institution, but at least now I know why it
is so singularly successful. It is not just the
treatment they receive, but the fact that you
are managing to get the good there and I
hope you will continue to send the good there
and that they become better.
But is this something for this government
to congratulate itself about? What about
those who desperately need help? Undoubt-
edly this is useful work in Brampton, but our
main concern should be making the bad
better, as well as making the good more
content. What has the department done in
essence— and this, believe me, is reflected in
almost every phase of its activities— in giving
some help to the good and brushing aside
those it so readily calls "the bad"? Now
"brushing aside" is— there is a comment over
there, Mr. Chairman. These are bold words,
but let us deal with facts, not with words.
In the fiscal year ending March 1965, The
Department of Reform Institutions set aside
the magnificent sum of $56,000 for staff train-
ing. This year it is $75,000. $56,000. Now
that would go a long way, would it not, to
educate these men, these custodial officers. I
believe, according to the last record, there
are 700 of them. It is approximately the bud-
get of a three-room school.
And what did the department spend of that
great sum to do this vital work? It spent half,
$28,000, and it did not even spend, so to
speak, all of that. If you will look at the
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
829
public accounts on page S-6, it gives the staff
and training development programme.
They spent altogether $28,915.06 out of
appropriation of $56,000. For sundry per-
sons, $12,720.02. Travelling expenses account
for $1,800. $1,178.43. Maintenance and lec-
turers accounts under $5,000. $13,601.63.
$27,500.08. Less government of Canada re-
payments, $7,940.95, for a net of $19,559.36.
Then, training courses. University exten-
sion and other specialized courses: Sundry
persons, $4,665.93. Less government of Can-
ada repayments, $1,310, for a total of
$3,353.93. And now that makes it roughly-
sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am looking for a slip
-$22,800. Now it is supposed to be $28,000.
So, the last item: Training fellowships to
students in psychology and social work at-
tending Ontario universities. Sundry universi-
ties, $6,000. Yet the $28,000 is shown as
being for the training of staff, but in essence
this government spent $22,800 out of a bud-
get of $56,000 for the training of its custodial
or correctional staff, the people who are do-
ing a very great job and who, with an aver-
age of nine and a half grades of education
probably do need some training at that. And
this is what the hon. Minister calls training.
The preliminary training I listed before is
not sum total of the training the hon. Minister
tries to indicate. What kind of training are
these 700 members of the staff— and he has
got the number listed here in this report. I
do hot want to get the numbers wrong. I am
sorry. Correctional officers grade 7, I do not
even know what is exactly the difference be-
tween grade 7, 6, 5, 4, but at any rate, cor-
rectional officers, 718 of them. Correctional
officers grade 4, 79 of them. Correctional
officers grade 5, 25. There are over 800 of
them and this department spent the smash-
ing sum of $23,000.
And they keep talking about this training
programme that they have for their correc-
tional staff, and about the school they have
down in Guelph. This year there is $75,000
in the estimates for this very important— what
should be a very important— programme, and
1 am just wondering how much of that is
going to be spent in direct training.
Mr. Chairman, could I, at this point, move
the adjournment of the debate?
Mr. Chairman: No. We do not adjourn the
debate in this case.
Mr. Ben: You do not? You go right on
until 6 o'clock, do you?
Mr. Chairman: We will carry on, and the
House leader will tell us when it is six
o'clock. We will move the adjournment at
that time. At this particular time the subject
of adjournment would be the committee
would rise and report progress, but that may
be at six o'clock. The member for Bracon-
dale may carry on.
Mr. Ben: What kind of a programme does
the department really expect us to believe it
has been carrying on for $23,500? It may be
normal, if not laudable, for a government to
grow, to express it in the kindest way, a little
nonchalant about moneys required for a de-
partment that is rarely in the public eye.
But for the government to deal in this cava-
lier way with some of the most vital work
of The Department of Reform Institutions,
for the Minister of that department to not
merely countenance but approve that treat-
ment, to me is grossly unconscionable, if not
absolutely reprehensible.
As the hon. Minister indicated, during our
caucus today, which incidentally finished in
the afternoon, we were delivered a proof
copy of the hon. Minister's report. It was
fortunate that this debate, from my point of
view, was not last night, because we would
not have had this until the debate was over.
At any rate, we have got it here and I
would like to deal with some of the things
mentioned in this report, albeit I will have to
gloss over them, because it had to be a very
hasty reading, between one o'clock and three
o'clock, in order to, in some way, try to pre-
pare myself on the basis of this report:
This year at your request there was
undertaken an evaluation of the depart-
ment's activities and progress over the past
20 years, the period of time which the On-
tario plan has been in effect.
Twenty years this Ontario plan has been in
effect.
In this period great changes have taken
place. The department now operates three
times as many institutions.
Operates three times as many institutions.
That must be progress.
We are getting more prisons all the time.
And now that must indeed be progress in this
day and age.
Its staff is four times larger than in 1946.
Well, Parkinson could have predicted that
even before 1946.
The work of social, welfare and proba-
tion services outside the department has
expanded enormously and this has reduced
the number of first offenders in reforma-
tories.
830
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would question that statement on the hon.
Minister's own statistics that come later on
in this report.
As a consequence, the typical inmate
today is a far different type of person than
a typical inmate of 20 years ago.
Now, in what respect is he different; in what
respect, Mr. Chairman, is he being treated
differently? 20 years ago they had the cattle
barns out at Guelph reformatory, they had
the piggery out in Guelph. The cattle were
still the same registered herd that they
have, the carding mills were here 20 years
ago. From my inspection of the buildings,
they have all been there for 20 years.
What has changed in this 20 years? The
instructions there — are they newer? Well,
what has changed about that concept? What
fantastic changes evolved in the 20 years
with reference to the Ontario reformatories?
True, about a year ago there were 900 in-
mates in there. A year before that, there were
1,000 inmates in there, on the average. When
I was there, there were 719 inmates. It is a
change, if you want to call it a change, but it
changes from day to day, so every day there
is a change.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, that is a pretty
good change, isn't it?
Mr. Ben: In fact, when I first entered the
door there were only 704, before I left there
were 719, and as far as I know there were
no women up there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
was out of his office then, they were losing
cases for you.
Mr. Ben: I did not hear the remarks so I
cannot reply.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said the hon. mem-
ber was out of his office and could not
defend these people.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Ben: Now, one of the— we were dwell-
ing on a subject, Mr. Chairman, of the
education of the inmates. I pointed out that I
lauded and applauded the hon. Minister on
what he is doing with what I call "child
training," but a section that has no business
being under his control, not because of any
inefficiency, but because I simply do not
believe that these children should fall under
what is called a Department of Reform In-
stitutions. We could always give them to the
smiling Scotsman over there; I think he could
handle them pretty well, but to put it under
The Department of Reform Institutions is
beyond me. But I applaud the fact that it is
becoming a vocational training programme
because one of the tilings that has struck me
in all the statistics that I have studied—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which page of the
report-
Mr. Ben: On the education statistics—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, do not
bother.
Mr. Ben: Page 36. And similar statistics
are to be found in the Dominion bureau of
statistics and in the previous statistics of this
department. It gives education status: Illiter-
ates, 185; elementary, 5,515; high school,
3,371; college or university, 105. It seems
that until you reach approximately grade
9% the curve rises— that is, the probability
of incarceration rises. When the education
standard goes over 9% or around 10, then the
chances that you are going to be in jail
diminishes. So I should think that the first
battle to keep these people from returning to
prisons would be to upgrade their education
level.
But virtually nothing— I should not say
"nothing at all" because there are some
teachers in these institutions— but virtually
nothing is being done in this regard. And I
think that the government is making a big
mistake in that the hon. Attorney General
(Mr. Wishart) does not try to use his good
office to have the present procedure of sen-
tences reversed. The present trend is to give
a determinate sentence and then a shorter
indeterminate sentence. I think a lot more
could be accomplished, Mr. Chairman, if the
determinate sentence was the shorter sen-
tence and the indeterminate sentence the
longer sentence. Then you could use that
indeterminate sentence as a sort of tool to
rehabilitate the inmate. You could almost
force him to upgrade his academic standing
and if he was— while he was upgrading his
academic standing— responding to the treat-
ment of the institution, he could be released
on parole but he would still have that inde-
terminate sentence, on condition that he con-
tinue his courses on the outside.
He could take one of these retraining
courses, he would then be no longer the
financial responsibility of The Department of
Reform Institutions, but he would be receiv-
ing an allowance under this retraining pro-
gramme. So he would be learning while he
was earning.
But that does not fall under the jurisdic-
tion of this department. The hon. Minister
FEBRUARY 23, 1966
831
cannot go and tell the judges what to do.
I doubt very much whether the hon. Attorney
General could tell them what to do, but I
think he should try to bring about some
amendments both through the federal gov-
ernment and through his own office to make
this possible. I watched those people taking
these so-called training trades and I could
not see any future in it. Even the people
there admit it, that most of them were just
taking it to sort of ingratiate themselves
with the institutions. And they were quick
to admit that it had no therapeutic value,
that a lot of these inmates were pulling the
wool over their eyes, that one way to make
it look good to the parole board was to get
in one of these training courses and make
out that you are going to take up this trade
when you get out, although statistics point
out that not 9^ per cent of them do it.
So I believe that something should be done
in that regard.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has the
floor until he is finished and then he may sit
down.
Mr. Ben: I will not be finished for another
hour.
Mr. Chairman: He may carry on until six
o'clock.
Mr. Ben All right. Now, to understand the
people we are dealing with, we have to try
to examine every facet and the time to do
this is before man is in captivity. By then,
as our statistics on recidivism show, there
is less chance for reform. Somehow, they
keep coming back. Many people, far more
qualified than I, have tried to find out why.
In most cases, they point to a lack of
education and many other reasons— the home
life, or lack of it; loss of contact with reality;
subnormal intelligence; bad influences; lack
of guidance. The major question today is
what can we do to improve the record? Mr.
Chairman, we in this House should be aware
of a social revolution that is now taking
place, with some extremely frightening
aspects. Month after month, year after year,
more people are trekking into our teeming
cities from the smaller communities to make
a new way of life. The rural children of the
past had the opportunity and space to roam,
seek adventure, grow and mature under the
watchful eye of the parents. The father could
hitch up his team and work the far 40 within
sight of the home. The mother either worked
in the garden, cooked or made preserves, or
made clothes for the family.
Today, we find the father hopping into
his car and driving through miles of traffic
on crowded streets and highways, while the
mother, in many cases, holds down a position
to help provide the extra items for the family,
or to contribute to pressing family needs. It
is quite possible that only one, or neither,
of the parents is at home when the children
arrive for lunch. The child, however, can
expect the parents home in time for a hurried
dinner before the young ones are placed in
bed, if they are lucky.
The problems we face with today's youth
are staggering, but they should not be
frightening nor impossible, except for the
timid. As in the case of many of our re-
sources, this government has remained un-
aware of the proper uses. Are our youth tired
of politicians believing that they, the youth,
are our greatest investment for the future of
this nation? They want and need someone to
invest in them. We are raising our youth
altogether too impersonally in this jungle of
cement and concrete with a minimum of
mindful attention that we should be placing
on our investment in the future.
Tired parents do not have all the time and
patience needed to help the children, who
wonder who they actually are and what they
will become. The government itself helps
to prolong emotional agonies of our youth
by not pitching in to help our youth find
a sense of security or belonging.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour)
moves that the committee of supply rise and
report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr.. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to pro-
ceed at 3 o'clock, after the opening, with the
Throne debate, and it being Thursday, from
five to six will be reserved for private mem-
bers' debate on private motions. In the eve-
ning at 8 o'clock, we will continue with
the estimates of The Department of Reform
Institutions.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6 o'clock, p.m.
No. 29
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 24, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 24, 1966
Fourth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 835
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, first reading 835
Statement re picketing at the Tilco Plastics premises, Peterborough, Mr. Wishart 836
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Boyer, Mr. Nixon 845
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 854
On notice of motion No. 17, Mr. S. Lewis, Mr. Eagleson, Mr. Ben 854
Recess, 6 o'clock 865
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have guests to the Legislature and today we
welcome students from the following schools:
In the east gallery, W. F. Herman collegiate
institute, Windsor, and in the west gallery,
Don Mills junior high school, Don Mills.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills,
presented the committee's fourth report
which was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. Prll, An Act respecting the city
of Brantford.
Bill No. Pr27, An Act respecting the town
of Burlington.
Bill No. Pr35, An Act respecting the board
of trustees of the Roman Catholic separate
schools for the city of Windsor.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr6, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Toronto.
As the following bill has been withdrawn,
your committee would recommend that the
fees less the penalties and the actual cost of
printing be remitted:
Bill No. Pr33, An Act respecting the
Salvation Army.
Motions.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves,
seconded by Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth
East), that resolution No. 11 standing in
his name be discharged from the order
paper.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Perhaps I
could give one word of explanation of my
motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall put the motion first.
Thursday, February 24, 1966
Mr. Bryden: I do not propose this motion
because I believe that the resolution is in
any way defective. However, there is no
question in the world that the subject-
matter was precisely covered by a vote held
last Friday. That being so, it would be out
of order now for it to be brought forward
in this House.
I understand a procedure has been agreed
upon whereby we will remove from the
order paper items that cannot be debated in
any case, so as to prevent the order paper
from being cluttered up with extraneous
items. That is the reason for the motion, sir.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture) moves first reading of bill intituled, An
Act to amend The Co-operative Loans Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Has the
hon. Minister nothing to say about this bill
at all?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple
amendment. It simply brings The Co-opera-
tive Loans Act in line with the amendments
that were made to it last year, whereby the
united co-operatives of Ontario could bring
in other co-operatives through amalgamation.
It would allow the united co-operatives of On-
tario central organization to assume the first
mortgage liabilities that the smaller co-opera-
tives might owe. In total, this might well
amount to more than the $100,000 which is
the limiting factor in The Co-operative Loans
Act. This provides that they can do this.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
the Attorney General has a statement.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to advise this honourable
House that we have today instituted pro-
ceedings in the supreme court of Ontario to
836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
bring before a justice of that court 28 men
who are alleged to have been in defiance of
an order of the court relating to the picketing
of the Tilco Plastics premises in Peterbor-
ough.
The proceedings we have taken are de-
signed to place before the court the facts
substantiating these allegations so that our
high court of justice may determine whether
or not the conduct established by those facts
is, in law, a contempt of the court that war-
rants the punishment of the individuals.
It is with personal regret, Mr. Speaker, that
I have directed that these proceedings be
undertaken. Never in the history of this prov-
ince has the Attorney General had to institute
contempt of court proceedings where persons
have purported to act in defiance of the orders
of our highest court. I had hoped that, by
previous statements to this House, I might
have counselled the leaders and members of
responsible-
Mr. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I submit to you, sir, that what the
hon. Attorney General is now, in effect, doing,
is commenting on the merits of these applica-
tions that are going before the court. We
have had too much trial by headline already
and I would suggest to the hon. Attorney
General-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bryden: —that he refrain from further
comments-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Bryden: —after having made his an-
nouncement.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would contend that
the Minister is simply making a statement of
his position with regard to the strike at the
Peterborough plant and that it is in order.
Mr. Bryden: He has announced what he
has done and I submit that he should make
no further comment in the interests of a fair
trial. This is sub judice, surely, and he ought
to know that better than anyone.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I had hoped, Mr.
Speaker, that by previous statements to the
House I might have counselled the leaders
and members of responsible labour groups to
pursue their desire for a change in our laws
by the proper means.
Mr. Bryden: Again, Mr. Speaker, I raise my
point of order. The hon. Minister is implying
that what these men did is improper, that
therefore they are guilty of contempt; and I
submit he has no business saying that. He
has been acting as judge and prosecutor all
through the piece in trial by newspaper head-
lines.
Mr. Speaker: I am of the opinion that the
Minister's statement is quite in order, and I
would ask him to proceed with it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would just say,, Mr.
Speaker, that the decision will be made by
the court, not by me.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that by previous
statements to the House I might have coun-
selled the leaders and members of responsible
labour groups to pursue their desire for a
change in our laws by the proper means that
have been effectively utilized by our society
throughout the history of its development.
However, since this advice has fallen on deaf
ears, it is my intention that we shall bring
the facts before the court, which may then
take such action as it may deem proper and
just in the enforcement of its own order.
It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there
has been no violence in the assembly at Peter-
borough. I have been in constant touch with
the Crown attorney, the sheriff, and the chief
of police at Peterborough, through the offi-
cials of my department, and I have the assur-
ance of all these responsible persons that the
picketing and actions have been orderly. The
police of the city of Peterborough have per-
formed their duties admirably in this respect
and will continue to do so. There is no law
preventing a lawful assembly, and it would
be a shocking commentary on our community
if we even contemplated that such assemblies
should be restricted.
This is modified, however, by the existence
of an order which has been made and which
relates directly to the assembly that has taken
place. The problem that must be the concern
of all law-abiding citizens of this province is
whether this conduct is a contumacious defi-
ance of the order of the supreme court, and
this the court will ultimately decide.
I have deemed this question to be of such
importance that I have undertaken the action
on behalf of the public rather than leaving
the process to be pursued by the private liti-
gant, as might otherwise have been done. I
assure this honourable House that the law
enforcement agencies and my department
will provide all the objective evidence avail-
able to the court, and such other assistance
as the court may direct.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day and in
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
the absence of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Thompson) I have a question that
he had phrased for the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts). The hon. Prime Minister was
not present in the House yesterday so I put
it to him today.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
may I comment on the statement of the hon.
Attorney General rather than—
Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for
Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Would the hon. Prime Min-
ister inform this House whether the govern-
ment intends to submit a brief to the federal
committee on justice and legal affairs which
will conduct public hearings in an inquiry of
federal legislation governing divorce in Can-
ada?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, there were two questions held over
yesterday and perhaps my answer now
could include both of them. The other one
is from the hon. member for Scarborough
West (Mr. S. Lewis): In view of the an-
nouncement last night that the federal gov-
ernment has set up a committee to hold
public hearings on divorce and abortions,
will the government of Ontario make repre-
sentations on these important issues?
Mr. Speaker, I would say that upon mak-
ing inquiry it appears that no special com-
mittee has been set up for any such purpose.
I checked through the House of Commons
debates of February 21, 1966 and, on pages
1539 and 1540, there is a most interesting
exchange as to where a number of private
members' bills might go in the House. The
discussion indicates, to me, the complete
confusion in the matter of divorce, abortion
and so on. I might just point out some back-
ground to the committee to which the
questions refer.
After some procedural byplay— to which
we are also accustomed in this House— there
were sent to the standing committee of the
House of Commons on justice and legal
affairs bills No. C16, C19, C41, C44, C55,
C58, and C79. These private members' bills
dealt with the dissolution of marriage, but
ranged all the way from: An Act to amend
The British North America Acts (1867-1965),
to additional grounds for divorce, annulment
of marriage, A Canada Divorce Act, A
Divorce Act, A Canada Marriage and
Divorce Act, and dissolution and annulment
of marriage.
These were the subjects covered in this
group of bills that were sent to the justice
and legal affairs committee.
This standing committee of the House
of Commons on justice and legal affairs may
or may not in due time deal with these pri-
vate members' bills. There is no suggestion
in what I read that public hearings were to
be held covering the broad matter of divorce
and there is no suggestion that public hear-
ings, such as we understand the term— and
as I would assume the hon. leader of the
Opposition understood it when he put this
question— were to be held.
To confuse the matter still further, there
were four other private members' bills to
amend the Criminal Code, and these are
involved in the question by the hon. member
for Scarborough West.
These private members' bills were C22,
C40, C64, and C71, and they dealt with:
Exemptions from the code for persons ad-
vising on family planning; Excluding crim-
inal liability for pregnancy termination; Ex-
empting agents distributing means, instruc-
tions, medicines, drugs or articles for the
purpose of family planning; and, providing
that it is not an offence to supply means,
instructions, medicine, drugs or articles to
prevent conception.
Now these four private bills, one of which
has within it the elements of abortion as I
read it, were sent to the standing committee
of the House of Commons on health and
welfare.
Once again, there is no indication that
there will be any public hearings, as we
normally understand the term, or that any
submissions will be invited. I would make
the point very clear that these are not
government bills that are being sent to these
committees, they are private bills submitted
by private members of the House of Com-
mons.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a comment concerning the confusion
in this question of divorce. I would say
first that the Criminal Code, of course, is a
federal law, completely; and the dissolution
of marriage is also completely within the
jurisdiction of the federal government. Pro-
vincial governments are often criticized these
days for their attempts to encroach upon the
jurisdiction of the federal government. This
perhaps is an area which is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada, and perhaps they might concern
themselves more diligently with it.
In view of certain press reports today and
yesterday, and the factual information that I
838
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have now furnished to the House, I would
point out that this government is not opposed
in any way to the reform of the divorce laws
of the province if they are necessary in the
best interests of our people. The stand that
we took on Tuesday— I believe it was Tues-
day afternoon— was simply that we were not
prepared to agree that the matter had been
thoroughly debated in this Legislature; there
was a motion at that time, of course, which
would have closed off the debate. Nor were
we prepared to accept a direction to enter
into immediate discussion with the federal
authorities. What I pointed out to you today
indicates the state of confusion existing in
this matter at the present moment.
Since the federal authorities have monopoly
jurisdiction in this regard, I would say that if
a Royal commission were established to deal
with these problems, then I would think that
commission should deal with both the prob-
lem of divorce and the problem which will be
debated later on this afternoon— covered, I
believe, in the private resolution of the hon.
member for Scarborough West; and indeed
what is apparent in some of these bills, the
full question of the use of contraceptives
and what amendments might be made to the
Criminal Code. If there were a Royal com-
mission established by the federal govern-
ment, which has jurisdiction in this matter,
this government would be very happy and
pleased to develop and present to that com-
mission a position which would represent
what we might consider would be the posi-
tion of the people of this province. I am
certain that this would take a great deal of
preparation; it might even mean the holding
of public hearings in this province in order
to ascertain what the feeling of our people
is.
It certainly would require more debate and
discussion in this House, but I think that this
would be an approach to the whole problem
and if this course of action were followed, or
some other independent investigation were
conducted by the body that has jurisdiction
in this field, we would be very happy to take
part and to do anything we could to assist
in the matter of making recommendations for
divorce reform.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a
supplementary question: Surely the hon.
Prime Minister will agree with me, not-
withstanding the jurisdiction in divorce being
solely a federal jurisdicton, that this province
would bitterly resent any change in the
divorce laws as they affect Ontario, without
prior consultation with Ontario; and by the
same token, would probably take the position
that what might be applicable in Newfound-
land, or Quebec, or British Columbia, would
not necessarily be applicable to Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
would agree with what the hon. member
says. I think that this is true in many areas
in which we are carrying on discussions
with the federal government at the present
time. The question we are discussing here
has not been raised, if my memory serves me
correctly, in any of the discussions in which
I have participated with the federal govern-
ment. This does not mean that it will never
be discussed. But to date it has not, and I
do not think it is too far reaching for me
to suggest that if there is an apparent need
for changes— and I might say these private
members' bills mentioned previously come
from various parts of the country, they are
not limited to members from one area— I do
not think this is the way to suggest that there
might be some initial action taken from that
side.
Mr. Singer: By way of a further supple-
mentary question: Do I understand, then,
from the hon. Prime Minister's remarks, that
for the present time he is not prepared to
take any initiative in this matter on behalf of
the government of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, that is
not the case at all.
The point really is that, in my view, it will
require a great deal of investigation and study
before any representations could be made to
anybody, and this is the point that I made in
regard to a Royal commission. We are quite
prepared and happy, and would consider it
perhaps our duty, to examine all phases of
the law. We have a law reform commission
operating in this province. We have various
committees that we have established to look
at various facets of the law here, and un-
doubtedly this subject will receive its share
of scrutiny and examination as these matters
develop. As a matter of fact I have discussed
this with the hon. Attorney General.
The point I really made was that I was
not prepared to accept a direction, at that
stage of the game, that we would immediately
enter into discussions with Ottawa on this
matter.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, as a final supplementary question to
that observation: If in fact the hon. Prime
Minister felt that the debate was not sufficient
last Tuesday afternoon in terms of the
adequacy of expression of government
opinion, and inasmuch as I am sure the
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
Opposition parties would unquestionably
agree; would the hon. Prime Minister con-
sider calling that resolution again this
session, giving it a full debate with that
portion of government opinion which was not
expressed, and allowing the consensus of the
House to be determined at a later time?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
have to say that this was a private member's
resolution and what the hon. member is now
asking me is to express in this House, some
time during this session, I suppose in some
detail, the position that the government itself
might take. When the time comes for us to do
this we will do so; but I cannot undertake
that it will be done in further debate on this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would, with
your indulgence, revert to the statement
made by the hon. Attorney General today,
and with his consent, comment on it.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member should
ask his questions first, and perhaps in asking
his questions there would be some oppor-
tunity to ask a supplementary one on the
Minister's statement. I understand the mem-
ber has a couple of questions relating to this
subject.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the question
which I had raised with the hon. Attorney
General has now been answered by the
statement which he made a few minutes ago
in this House. It is in the light of that state-
ment and question that I would like to now
place a supplemental question to him.
Mr. Speaker: As long as the member does
not debate the statement he is in order: that
is the point. I will allow a supplementary
question on the statement the Attorney
General has made in view of the fact that
you had asked a question on this matter. As
long as the member does not debate the
statement that was made, he is in order.
Mr. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had
placed on the order paper a question for
the hon. Attorney General today, asking
him if he would assure this House that he
would not initiate any court proceedings by
way of summons or otherwise in connection
with the dispute at Tilco Plastics, so long as
the textile workers of America continue to
obey the terms of the injunction and so long
as any other persons expressing support for
the strikers conduct themselves in an orderly
and peaceful manner. Mr. Speaker, the
statement made by the hon. Attorney General
has answered that question and I would now
ask him to answer the following supple-
mental questions in connection with it.
How did the hon. Attorney General select
the precise persons whom he nas seen fit to
summons before the court for contempt of
court proceedings?
Does the hon. Attorney General really be-
lieve that the interim injunction granted in a
private dispute applies to every citizen of
the province of Ontario?
Would the hon. Attorney General inform
the House whether there is or is not an
appeal from any decision of a high court
judge in a matter relating to contempt?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the per-
sons named now in the notice of motion to
which I referred in my statement were
persons seen to be, in our opinion, disobey-
ing the order which I have before me, not
the interim but the final order, made by Mr.
Justice King, which in its own language
reads:
This court doth order that the de-
fendants, their servants, representatives
and agents, or any person or persons act-
ing under their instructions, or person or
persons having notice of this order, are
hereby restrained until the trial of this
action or other final disposition thereof
(a) from watching, besetting or picketing
or attempting to watch, beset or picket
at or adjacent to the business premises of
the plaintiff-
Then it describes the premises:
(b) from molesting, stopping, intimidat-
ing or threatening harm to or in any way
interfering with the servants, agents, em-
ployees, suppliers, patrons or customers
of the plaintiff or any other person or
persons seeking peaceful entrance to or
exit from the said premises of the plaintiff;
and (c) from ordering, aiding, abetting,
counselling, procuring or encouraging in
any manner whatsoever, either directly or
indirectly, any other person or persons to
commit the aforesaid acts or any of them.
The persons named in this notice of motion
were seen to be doing what in our opinion
was contravention of a court order. There-
fore we bring it to the court, charging con-
tempt and leave it to the court to decide.
The second question was— I have forgotten.
Mr. Renwick: The second question was
whether the hon. Attorney General in fact
believes that the interim injunction issued in
840
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this dispute, which is a private dispute, be-
tween two parties, is in fact operative against
every citizen of the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I just read the order.
Surely, the hon. member, who is a member
of the legal profession, can interpret that
language. It says: "Any person or persons
contravening the terms of the order."
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, does the hon.
Attorney General mean by that that it is now
absolutely improper for anyone to parade
around the Tilco Plastics plant regardless of
where he comes from in the province of
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: If he keeps within the
terms of the order he would not be con-
travening it or be in contempt of court.
The language of the order is very explicit
and very clear.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the last part
of my question is whether or not there is an
appeal from the decision of the justice of the
high court in a matter relating to contempt
of court proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
have my law books in front of me; I have
to speak from my general knowledge of the
law. I think the answer is this— and I believe
I am right— that there is an appeal against
sentence in a matter of contempt proceed-
ings, but I think not against the finding of
contempt itself. I give that as an offhand
opinion, but I believe that it is correct.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, there would
then, in the opinion of the hon. Attorney
General, be no way in which the substantive
issue can come before—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order!
The member now has had several supple-
mentary questions and I am afraid that he
cannot debate the matter further.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have three questions. One is to the hon. Min-
ister of Public Works (Mr. Connell), notice
of which has been given him: In view of the
fact that some of the men over 65 who were
discharged last Friday are continuing on staff,
does the hon. Minister plan to review the
cases of the other men so affected?
T. R, Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in a pre-
vious reply to a similar question by the non.
member on February 8, it is not the policy of
Ike department to lay off tradesmen whose
services are needed. As the work of renova-
tion of the Parliament buildings is nearing
completion, it has been necessary to lay off a
number of the tradesmen. Those over 65
years of age, along with others who did not
have seniority in their position, were given
notice in accordance with the usual practice
when work is no longer available.
A review of requirements in the electrical
trade indicated that two men in the 65-year-
old range were needed for temporary work
for a short period of time and their services
have been retained. The other trades are not
affected by this review.
Mr. Young: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? If work does appear
within a reasonable time, as the spring season
approaches, would these men have some pri-
ority in the matter of work?
Hon. Mr. Connell: There will be other
work coming along. I cannot guarantee any-
one any particular job, but there will be other
work.
Mr. Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Rowntree). When will the regu-
lations regarding electricians be available for
The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen Qualifica-
tion Act, 1964?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the electri-
cians' regulations is being prepared and
drafted at the moment. It will be brought
into effect as soon as the work is completed.
I understand that the hon. member fox
Yorkview was in touch with the Deputy
Minister of Labour on this matter two or
three weeks ago.
Mr. Young: I have a further question for
the hon. Minister. Could he inform the House
if his department has laid charges against
Joseph Suckonic of Fraserwood avenue in
connection with the construction death, on
January 10, of Nicola Michetti of McRoberts
avenue, Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, charges
were laid on January 25 last, against the com-
pany involved in connection with the con-
struction death of Nicola Michetti
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond). Is he aware
that many of the chartered banks have not
received the OMSIP forms for distribution to
the public, as is now being promoted on
radio end in newspapers? Would the hon.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
m
Muster advise as to the date and time radio
and newspaper advertising commenced, and
the date and time of distribution of these
folders, to the banks?
' ■ • 1 ■
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
In reply to the first part of the hon. member's
question, I am not aware of this. The banks
we have checked have the material but postal
delivery is not as good as it might be in some
parts of our province. It is conceivable that
certain branches have not yet got it.
We received the names and addresses of
1,923 branches from the Canadian bankers'
association who, in turn, received them from
the individual chartered banks. Parcels of
material left the Parliament Buildings last
Monday afternoon, after I had placed the
material on the desks of the hon. members
as I had undertaken to do. It would have
been expected that, in most cases, those
should have been delivered on Tuesday. The
advertisements in the daily newspaper ap-
peared in the morning and evening issues of
Tuesday, February 22; the radio commercial
schedule commenced on the morning of Sat-
urday, February 19.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Prime Minister. Will he
intervene to the same extent as he did in the
Oshawa Times dispute to bring about the
resumption of negotiations at Tilco Plastics
Limited?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in reply I
would say this to the hon. member: I will do
anything in my power to bring this industrial
dispute to a halt, and whatever degree of
intervention is necessary will be exercised.
I believe that there is a question being asked
of the hon. Minister of Labour; in his answer
he will detail what The Department of
Labour has done to date and the procedures
that have been followed.
I would say that, as I see it, the role of
the government in this whole field of indus-
trial relations is to assist the parties in col-
lective bargaining. We are neither on one
side nor the other; we attempt to perform a
service in bringing them together. But you
must understand, of course, that we do oper-
ate under a system of free collective bargain-
ing—this was discussed in this House at really
great length just about a year ago, when we
were dealing with another industrial dispute
—but any powers of persuasion we have will
be exercised. I can assure the hon. member
that 1 will do everything in my power to see
that these parties are brought together
and that they achieve, between themselves—
with our assistance, if this is necessary— a
settlement that will be satisfactory to both
sides.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Prime Minister permit a supplementary ques-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was not aware, Mr.
Speaker, of the hon. member's skill as a
lawyer. He likes to cross-examine and I
am prepared to subject myself to this.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. Prime Minister for his comment. I am
not skilled as a cross-examiner; I am actually
trying to get some information. Has the
hon. Prime Minister, in fact, personally inter-
vened in this particular dispute?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it is not
always possible to say exactly what one has
done in the course of these disputes, but I
can say this: I have asked the hon. Minister
of Labour to put himself in the position
where he would ask the parties to the dis-
pute to meet with him in order that we may
establish a basis upon which negotiations
may take place. As the hon. member well
understands, it is not always possible to say
publicly and precisely when these negotia-
tions are taking place, or what one is doing,
but I can give him the assurance that I will
leave nothing undone as far as I am person-
ally concerned.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have two or three questions. The
first one is to the hon. Minister of Health:
In view of the information which the hon.
Minister's department has received from the
federal government concerning the extremely
dangerous levels of pesticides in milk supplies,
particularly in the Newcastle, Hamilton,
London and Chatham areas, (a) would the
hon. Minister inform the House with regard
to this situation; (b) what action does he
intend to take concerning it; and (c) what
research or inspection staff has the hon.
Minister to cope with this growing danger?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I have
to take this question as notice. In view of
the fact that three departments— The Depart-
ment of Agriculture for Canada, The Depart-
ment of Agriculture for Ontario, and my
own department— are all involved in the
matter, to correlate the information takes a
little time. I will have an answer for the
hon. member tomorrow.
-.'■'-..
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, my sec-
oad, question — to which the hon. Prime
842
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister alluded— is a question to the hon.
Minister of Labour, asking him if he would
indicate what role if any his department is
playing at the moment in the labour-manage-
ment dispute at the plant of Tilco Plastics
Limited in Peterborough.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, The
Department of Labour has been actively
engaged, in an effort to bring the parties
together with a view to finding some resolu-
tion to this dispute, since September of last
year. The most recent action by the de-
partment was taken on February 22, when
the union and the company were invited to
attend a meeting in Peterborough to resume
negotiations on February 23. That meeting
did not take place; the company involved
declined to meet the union.
I think that the hon. members of the
House would want me to record with them
the sequence of events which have taken
place with respect to this particular labour
dispute. On July 30, 1965, the union was
certified— namely, the united textile work-
ers union— as the bargaining agent for the
employees at the Tilco Plastics Company
Limited. On August 30 of last year the
union applied for conciliation services which,
as hon. members will know, is a technical
step to involve a neutral chairman and the
facilities of the conciliation branch of the
department.
On September 7, 1965, Mr. Norman Soady
was assigned to this matter by the chief
conciliation officer. On September 30, after
various private discussions with the parties,
the first meeting was held with both parties.
On October 12, a scheduled meeting was
cancelled by the company.
During October the parties met by them-
selves without the presence of anyone from
The Department of Labour.
On October 21 a second conciliation meet-
ing was held indicating that the parties had
requested the conciliation officer to return
to the proceedings.
On November 19 a third conciliation meet-
ing was held and on November 26 a fourth
meeting after a misunderstanding between
the parties had apparently caused a break-
down in negotiations.
On November 29 the conciliation officer
filed a report, which was directed to me,
recommending that no conciliation board be
appointed in this matter because no useful
purpose would be served.
On December 6 of 1965 the parties were
advised of the "no board" situation, mean-
ing that I, as Minister, was not going to
order the appointment of a board, and a
strike followed on approximately December
15, 1965.
Now in late January and early February
the department resumed its activities in the
matter and there were numerous and many
contacts made with both parties, either per-
sonally or by telephone communication. On
February 8 the chief conciliation officer of
the province, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Soady
of his staff, met representatives of the union.
From February 8 to February 17 con-
tacts with the company were established with
respect to renewing negotiations.
On February 17 Mr. Keith Brown, mem-
ber of the Legislature for Peterborough,
the Deputy Minister, Mr. Eberlee, and the
chief conciliation officer, a Mr. Dennis, met
with officials of the company but failed to
persuade the company to agree to resume
negotiations.
On February 22, on behalf of the mayor
of Peterborough or after some communica-
tion with him and with me, the chief con-
ciliation officer wired both parties requesting
them to attend a meeting for bargaining
purposes, as I mentioned earlier, to be held
in Peterborough at 2 p.m. on February 23.
The union agreed to attend, the company
refused.
At the moment I have discussed the matter
on several occasions in some depth with the
hon. Prime Minister as to what the actual
situation is and what is keeping these parties
apart. We are aware of the fact that it is a
fairly tight situation and that emotions are
not normal, if I could put it that way, with
respect to the situation. Feeling is running
high, and we currently are endeavouring to
develop ways and means and procedures, or
some method of bringing the parties together
so that negotiations can be carried on and
resumed in an orderly fashion with a view
to trying to get some resolution to this labour
dispute at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the hon. Minister would entertain a supple-
mentary question?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: In view of the repeated
failures of management in this instance to
come to meetings, the latest being on
February 23 when convened by the hon.
Minister himself; does the hon. Minister not
think-
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Conciliation officer!
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
843
Mr. MacDonald: Conciliation officer— does
the hon. Minister not consider that this is a
refusal to bargain in good faith?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, to be quite
frank about it, it certainly has all the appear-
ances of it.
Mr. MacDonald: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker: Does the law not
have certain penalties for a management
which refuses to bargain in good faith, and
if so when are they going to be imple-
mented?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: As the hon. member
for York South knows perfectly well, the
procedures are all set out and the remedies
provided for in The Labour Relations Act.
The practice in these matters is for the
aggrieved party to proceed and seek leave
to prosecute before the labour relations
board.
Mr. MacDonald: Meanwhile the strikers
go to jail.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think in the mean-
time it is in everybody's interest to obey
the law, whether they agree with the law
or not.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to
ask my question, one is moved to ask the
hon. Minister of Labour if perhaps he would
have the hon. Attorney General take up the
matter on behalf of the aggrieved union and
the people of the province.
I have three questions for the hon. Minis-
ter of Labour, Mr. Speaker, notice of which
was given some 24 hours ago:
1. Why has it been necessary to commence
installation of telephone monitoring equip-
ment for lines into the claims division of
the workmen's compensation board?
2. Will outside callers be aware that their
conversation can be or is being monitored by
a third party?
3. To the hon. Minister's knowledge, does
any other branch of his department employ
a similar monitoring system, or for that
matter any other branch or government?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I have
had no knowledge of this matter or of any
complaint in connection with this subject
until I received the question from the hon.
member. On investigation I find that no
such monitoring by the workmen's com-
pensation board exists. Nor does it exist in
The Department of Labour.
Some months ago, on another matter, I
had conversations with the hon. Minister of
Public Works, Mr. Speaker— not related to
this particular matter but on another matter
—and I was assured by him and his officials
that no such monitoring existed with respect
to any branch or department of the govern-
ment of this province.
With respect to the compensation board,
however, I am informed that the board has
been reviewing its operation and, in an
endeavour to (a) improve its service to the
public and those concerned with claims, and
(b) as part of a training programme for the
staff, discussions have been held with the
employees concerned— and I take it that that
means those engaged in answering the ques-
tions, probably people in the claims depart-
ment—and with their consent a monitoring
system was agreed upon as a means of im-
proving the service and as part of their
further instruction and training in their work
with respect to their employment.
My information is that the staff concerned
have participated in the discussions leading
to this proposal and have agreed to this
approach, but the monitoring has not been
instituted.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. Minister answer the second question
that I put to him? Will outside callers be
aware that their conversation can be or is
being monitored by a third party?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am not aware of
that situation. I do not know the answer to
that. I will be having some discussions with
the board itself, probably early next week,
and I will raise it with them at that time.
Mr. S. Lewis: I ask this supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact-
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the member
is beginning to make a statement.
Mr. S. Lewis: I had asked no supple-
mentary questions at all, Mr. Speaker. I
merely repeated a question that was not an-
swered. I am going to ask a supplementary
question.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, I thought you were
about to make a statement.
Mr. S. Lewis: No, I was preambling the
question.
In view of the fact that, as the hon. Min-
ister says, this policy has not been applied
to any other branch of his department or of
the government for reasons which may ap-
pear obvious, might he not perhaps analyze
844
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the administrative procedures within the
board which have prompted this action; and
whether or not there are infringements of
rights involved when outside callers do not
in fact know the conversations are being
monitored?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would be glad to
take that into account, Mr. Speaker, when
I am discussing the matter with the board
next week.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Speaker, in the absence
of the leader of the Opposition, his ques-
tion was to the hon. Minister of Health:
Will the hon. Minister advise if there are
17 beds in the general hospital and six in
St. Vincent de Paul hospital in Brockville not
covered by Ontario hospital insurance, when
there is a waiting list for beds by subscribers
of this plan? And, if this is the case, why
does this situation exist?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is no, I am not aware of this. All
of the rated beds in both of those hospitals
are covered under the programme.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question which I was going to address to
the hon. Prime Minister yesterday, but I
withheld it in his absence. It is in five short
parts:
1. How many leaflets on OMSIP were
printed?
2. What agency handled this promotional
material?
3. With what company was the printing
order placed?
4. When was the order placed?
5. When was delivery of the leaflet made?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The answers in the
order in which they were asked are:
1. Three million.
2. McKim Advertising Limited.
3. After competitive quotations were re-
ceived by McKim Advertising Limited, they
placed the order with Telford and Craddock
Printers Limited.
4. The printer was advised on January 21
that his quotation had been accepted.
5. Initial delivery of the leaflets was made
to the medical services insurance division on
February 10. Delivery of the full quantity
will not be complete until March 4.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order of rather extreme importance
in this House.
A week ago, on the 14th day of the
month, I raised a question in this House with
regard to the fact that the hon. Minister of
Health had indicated that this literature
would be distributed on the 15th of the
month.
I referred to an article in the Toronto
Telegram, in which the hon. Minister was
reported as saying:
Health Minister Dymond said in an
interview yesterday he hoped to get pro-
motional pamphlets and application forms
out to everyone over 21 in the province
by mid-February.
The hon. Minister intervened, as found on
page 481 in Hansard, and he said:
Sir, this is a misstatement of fact. I did
not say that I had literature prepared; I
said that literature would be prepared and
ready to go out when this bill received
passage in this House.
Mr. Speaker, at that time you compelled me
to withdraw because I had suggested that the
hon. Minister had misinformed the House.
I suggested again that the hon. Minister
was misinforming the House, but I had to
accept his word for it. The hon. Prime
Minister has now confirmed that four days
prior to that, on February 10, the first de-
livery of the literature had been made.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.
Minister of Health had misinformed the
House at that time and he must have known
it, and he compounded it by misinforming
it a second time after I had drawn it to his
attention.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, speaking
to this point of order, I still say that what I
stated in the House and what the hon. mem-
ber just quoted now was completely correct.
This is the first time I, myself, knew that
this material was delivered on February 10.
It was my understanding that it was delivered
to The Department of Health on Monday
morning of this week. Now I grant you I
did not even know that this question had
been asked, or I would have certainly looked
into it myself, but I say to you, sir, unequi-
vocably, the information I gave and which
the hon. member read out from Hansard
now was correct insofar as I knew it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I draw to your attention that the
hon. Minister's original statement to the To-
ronto Telegram was on January 29, when he
said that it would be distributed by February
15. Furthermore, his deputy, on January 29,
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
845
as reported in the Toronto Daily Star, is
quoted as saying:
Deputy Health Minister Dr. K. C. Chan-
nOn said today promotional pamphlets and
application forms will be mailed to every
householder after mid-February. This will
be combined with an extensive advertising
campaign in the newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult, to the point of
impossible, to believe that the Minister
of the department and his deputy would not
be aware that the literature was available
when he— two weeks earlier— had said that it
was going to be distributed by that date.
Mr. Speaker: The member has spoken more
than once to this point of order, so I am
afraid the point of order has concluded.
I have a request from the Attorney Gen-
eral to correct an answer regarding the mem-
ber for Riverdale's question.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, when the
hon. member asked me a question of law as
to appeal from a conviction for contempt of
court, I mentioned I did not have my law
book before me. I gave it as my opinion that
there was not an appeal from the conviction
against the punishment.
I was partly right. I had forgotten that
there is a division in the section dealing with
this. I am reading from the Criminal Code,
section 9:
Where the court, judge, justice or magis-
trate summarily convicts a person for con-
tempt of court committed in the face of
the court and imposes punishment in re-
spect thereof that person may appeal
against the punishment imposed.
That was what I had in mind. The section
goes on, however:
Where a court or judge summarily con-
victs a person for a contempt of court not
committed in the face of the court and
punishment is imposed in respect thereof
that person may appeal from the conviction
or against the punishment.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
rise On a point of personal privilege. Today
the Toronto Telegram carried this quotation:
Outside the House he-
referring to myself:
—said that prisoners were being punished
for their part in starting a protest fire
which got them transferred to a federal
penitentiary.
This is referring to the people in Millbrook
reformatory. This statement does not mean
what it states. I have spoken to the reporter
who will indicate that I am saying that they
were punished for taking part in the fires.
The statement is intended to imply that the
reason they were punished was for taking
part in the fires, but does not imply that I
said so. As a matter of fact, in going through
the draft of Hansard, I find that I stated
quite categorically that these people were
innocent of having taken any part in that
disturbance.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order. Re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend- I
ment to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the open-
ing of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
may I say that it is a pleasure again to be
taking part in a session of the House and I
would like to compliment those hon. mem-
bers who have participated in and provided
an interesting debate on the Speech from the
Throne, commencing of course with the hon.
members for Lambton West (Mr. Knox) and
Armourdale (Mr. Carton), who moved and
seconded the motion for reply.
By way of introduction to what I would
like to speak about today, I will refer to our
nation— to Canada— and the attitudes of Cana-
dians toward our country and how, in my
opinion, Canadians need to be possessed of a
greater feeling of Canadianism and of pride
in their own nation and its accomplishments.
We are aware at the present time of great
conversations or debates which are taking
place on several matters relating to our
country. There is a debate on Canadian
cultures and their place in and their effect
upon national unity. There is another debate
upon the government structure of Canada,
and if we are to replace The British North
America Act with new legislation— the Con-
stitution of Canada— then how to ensure that
the new system will protect and serve all
parts of our country.
Then there is the vaster consideration of/
nationalism versus continentalism and whether
our public policies will, more and more, be'
influenced by continentalism. I do not wish
particularly to develop any of these themes,
only to note that these are matters which are
affecting our political life and attracting the
attention of all who are concerned in the'
9**1 ' - ■-'('
846
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
administration of the country and its various
parts.
As a nation we have had, and are having,
our problems politically, but it is a fact that
the union that we enjoy— and hope to be able
to maintain— is in itself one of the world's
outstanding accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, the chronicle of Confedera-
tion and development of our country is with-
out parallel in the history of democratic
government. Never before had a mere hand-
ful of people occupied and administered
so vast an area of country in a way which
has brought increasing natural wealth. In the
beginning there was a population hardly as
big as some of the world's great cities, and
this population was spread over half a con-
tinent, but democracy was made to function
by these people and, as a result, the citizens
have prospered.
We in Canada have enjoyed the steady
influence of parliamentary and judicial in-
stitutions patterned after the British system.
Free government under the Crown has proved
a success in our nation, because this system
has shown itself as adaptable to this great
half continent and as useful to Canada as to
the island where this system was developed.
But to look at Canada from the other side
of the fence, as it were, many consider us to
he backward— not in the sense, I would say,
of newly developing countries in other parts
of the world— but backward in the sense that
we are greatly overshadowed by our big
neighbour to the south. Indeed, many
Americans seem to consider Canadians to be
"slow Americans." Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are not slow. To the contrary. But we are
slow to speak out about ourselves; and un-
fortunately, when we do speak out, we tend
to downgrade ourselves. This reserve and
reticence is a characteristic of our people; it
is a heritage that has been handed down
to us generation after generation. Here in
Canada we tend to accept that others should
lead and that we should follow.
In the early part of last year, I read the
book "Lament for a Nation" by Professor
George Grant, in which he expressed the view
that our country may have already lost its
national sovereignty.
Similar thoughts have found their way into
Canadian publications. Indeed, on the last
day of 1965, in commenting on certain de-
velopments of the year, the Toronto Globe
and Mail suggested that it was dishonest
and dangerous to refuse to admit that in the
next few years Canada is almost certain to
lose economic and, to a certain extent,
political control over large areas of our
national being.
These are ominous words. Are they valid?
Have we indeed already lost our Canadian
sovereignty? I do not concur with this, but
if there has been a trend toward losing our
country as a country, then I submit that one
of the reasons has been because we have
not been more vocal. As Canadians we
have not—
Mr. J. H. White (London South): It is
because of the Liberals in Ottawa.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I might accept
what was just said, but I was going to give
another reason.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): I certainly
hope so!
Mr. Boyer: I believe that if there is a
tendency to lose our country, as a country,
one of the important reasons has been be-
cause we have not been more vocal. As
Canadians, we have not proclaimed our
accomplishments and our abilities to the
world and, what is even more important, to
ourselves. For probably we need to be im-
pressed with Canadianism, as much as we
need to impress Canadianism upon the
world.
Last spring, to learn about American views
on Canadians generally the Ontario govern-
ment concluded an opinion survey. Without
giving details about the findings, I would
like to mention that the consensus seems to
be that our southern neighbours, by and
large, look upon Canadians as simple, hard-
working people surrounded by vast empty
spaces. The Ontario Department of Economics
and Development has developed a policy to
cope with this particular attitude and to
impress upon other countries of the world
the stature of Canada as an industrial nation
—to make known, to the world at large, how
well we have developed in these fields.
I would like to read a few paragraphs
from a letter from the hon. Minister of that
department (Mr. Randall), which was sent to
several members of the House in recent
weeks. I quote:
When the department's economic and
industrial promotional efforts became more
intensive in foreign markets, we found that
Canada was not recognized internationally
in an industrial sense, and people did not
seriously think that Canada had any signi-
ficant industrial capability or potential. We
were primarily considered as a source of
raw materials and a good export market.
We were not considered to any extent as a
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
847
source of supply for industrial and con-
sumer products that required any degree
of technical skill and manufacturing know-
how.
Indeed, advanced manufacturing was
considered an unusual activity for us. We
subsequently confirmed this estimate of
Canada's industrial image from a major
in-depth public opinion survey of foreign
attitudes toward Canadian products among
those individuals and those areas that we
should be dealing with. The results of the
study confirmed the estimate.
As a result of this survey, we launched
out international advertising campaign, a
campaign that was designed to provide an
umbrella over all of our international acti-
vities. In this campaign we present an
image of Canada, through Ontario, as a
progressive, technically advanced, major
industrial centre able to compete in a great
many areas on an international level.
To establish this image, we not only talk
about our industrial achievements, but
Ontario's achievements in education, trans-
portation, the arts, construction, architec-
ture, research, and electrical generation,
just to name a few.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, one
of our faults as Canadians is a hesitancy to
talk up accomplishments. We have very much
to be proud of in this country. And there is
no reason why we should be afraid to let our
voices be heard, hailing the progress that is
going on around us, and giving due credit to
fellow Canadians who have contributed to
that progress.
After all, this has been an attitude in the
United States which has impressed American
industrial know-how upon the world at large.
We are very familiar in our country with the
message which is sent through all forms of
media, in a very deft manner: American
magazines, television, and so on preach to us
a story of American superiority, but I submit
we do not need to take second place in our
own country.
I would like to recommend to hon. mem-
bers of this House a study which I think is
most fascinating. It has to do with the scien-
tific accomplishments of Canadians in many
fields; that is to say, the inventiveness by
which Canadians have contributed to and
hastened scientific progress the world over.
They have been pioneers in countless devel-
opments.
There has been research into the scope of
these achievements by the Dominion bureau
of statistics, and a good source of informa-
tion on this subject is an article which was
printed in a recent issue of the Canada year
book; though even this list is far from com-
plete.
We need, I submit, to overcome feelings of
inferiority as to our country and its accom-
plishments. I might mention one instance in
particular; one among many hundreds of
Canadian achievements. There is in our coun-
try a young man, 37 years of age, whose name
is Dr. Gerald Bull. He has been a pioneer in
space research. A native of North Bay, he is
a member of the faculty of McGill University.
It almost appears that federal support for
his project, which has proved itself most suc-
cessful, may be withdrawn and that by de-
fault this programme may have to be taken
over by authorities in the United States. I
trust that this will not be the case.
But I quote a statement that was given in
the Toronto Daily Star in December, the
words of Dr. Bull:
How often have I heard people say a
thing can't be good because it is developed
in Canada. No group has less faith in Can-
ada than Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this I hope is not going to be
the attitude of our country. I trust that Dr.
Bull's accomplishments will be well sup-
ported and that he will be able to continue
his great work in this field, though evidently
he has a feeling that the support he requires
is not forthcoming.
There may be no way of reaching a con-
clusion upon this matter, but I think if hon.
members would take the time to look into the
matters that I have mentioned, the long
history of scientific accomplishments in this
country that have had their effect upon the
progress of the world at large, I would think
that there is hardly another nation in the
world, on a per capita basis, which has pro-
duced so many first in fields of engineering,
scientific accomplishments, medicine, in navi-
gation techniques— whether by water, by air
or space— in communications, transportation
and so many other fields.
In our province we are trying to develop
a feeling of patriotism and pride in Canada.
It has been said about Ontario that this is
the only part of Canada which has never
seriously considered separating from the rest
of the country. We have in the hon. Prime
Minister of this province (Mr. Robarts) one
who is dedicated to the great Canadian ideal
and who is doing his part in trying to main-
tain a great spirit of unity in our nation.
Among world pioneering developments I
might have mentioned several in connection
848
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with administration of affairs in our own
province. In the field in which I have the
honour to serve, in Ontario Hydro, it is true
there have been many great pioneering engi-
neering accomplishments.
I would like to refer also to the Ontario
water resources commission, which within the
past decade commenced a great programme
in this province in maintaining the quality
of water, in cleaning up difficult situations
where water quality was impaired in many of
our watersheds and in our greater lakes. I
would like to say of that commission that
its work in this field is actually far ahead
of jurisdictions which are neighbours of
our province, and that other parts of Canada
are looking to Ontario. The progress that
has been made by this commission is a model
for what they hope to do themselves.
We do not talk about these things enough;
we do not claim, as we properly could, that
we have undertaken great pioneering efforts
in connection with matters of this sort.
Mr. Speaker, I continue by referring to a
few matters in the Speech from the Throne
which indicated that many important matters
would be brought before the House. A
number have already come before us in the
form of legislation and there is one matter to
which I would particularly like to refer, and
that has to do with an enactment which will
be brought before us before long.
I welcome the statement that legislation is
to be introduced to extend financial aid to
small businesses in those areas of the prov-
ince where mortgage or other capital funds
are not readily available on reasonable terms
or conditions. While, as I say, the details
of this legislation have yet to be disclosed,
I sincerely trust that small businesses, as
mentioned, will include a number of tourist
establishments which can qualify.
We have already had an interesting debate
in this House on this aspect of the tourist
business of the province and I do not wish to
go over that ground again, except to say that
it was made plain in that debate that the
Ontario development agency has been per-
forming a most useful service in giving advice
to a number of operators as to their financial
arrangements. In co-operation with The
Department of Tourism and Information
this agency has done much to mark out good
pathways of sound administration for small
businesses.
As it is with industrial firms, so with tourist
establishments; quite often it is not so much
money that is required as it is better busi-
ness technique.
The question of capital assistance or guar-
antee of loans has been discussed in this
House in previous years. One big forward
step was taken in the time of the Diefenbaker
administration at Ottawa when tourist estab-
lishments were included in the small business
loans enactments. It may be now that the
federal authorities will consider special aid
to the tourist industry under the designated
area arrangements, since this was one mat-
ter which was mentioned by the Rt. hon.
Mr. Pearson in last year's federal election
campaign. Nothing further has been said on
this matter from Ottawa to this date, so far
as I am aware, but I would submit that it
would be logical for the federal area devel-
opment agency to undertake such a project
in designated areas in the same way as grants
are made to industrial firms.
Sir, I would like to point out that the pro-
vincial government's contribution to the de-
velopment of tourism in Ontario is one of
very large dimensions indeed. For 20 years
we have had a separate department of gov-
ernment here in Ontario dealing with this
subject, publicizing the travel attractions of
our province and promoting ever higher
standards of accommodation.
Consider the tremendous advantage this
province's tourist areas have in the excel-
lent and ever-improving system of highways.
On a number of inland watersheds, it is the
province which has provided the navigation
aids and which provides efficient locks when
required, which is very important with the
great growth in small boating in our inland
waters. This is a responsibility for the prov-
ince in connection with inland waterways
which goes back to Confederation, at which
time a division was made between the fed-
eral government and the province with re-
spect to responsibility for public works to
improve navigation as between those water-
ways which are connected with the Great
Lakes and those which are wholly inland.
The Department of Lands and Forests,
the parks integration board, various parks
boards, have programmes of vast importance
in the matter of encouraging travel in On-
tario. And indeed there is hardly a depart-
ment of government which is not concerned
in some way with the tourist business. In
every part of the administration policies are
formed with the requirements of the tourist
industry in mind. This has been made par-
ticularly plain in the recent report of the
Ontario economic council.
It has been in the field of capital invest-
ment that there have been difficulties in
connection with the tourist development in
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
849
parts of the province. We know that this is
a matter which in tb^ first place is within
the jurisdiction of the; national government,
but it is evident from the quotation I have
made from the Speech from the Throne in
this House, that our government here has
considered the need and will do what may
be possible within the limits of provincial
responsibility to overcome this difficulty.
In mentioning the services of the provincial
administration to the tourist industry, I would
like to speak of one aspect of the situation
of particular importance. In order to preserve
the recreational advantages of the main
bodies of water in the province, the Ontario
water resources commission in a number of
areas makes periodic checks as to water
quality. In the district of Muskoka this work
is carried out in conjunction with the
Muskoka health unit. The waters of Muskoka
have always enjoyed a reputation for their
high quality, and indeed over the past ten
years the greater requirements for sanitary
and sewer installations have resulted in the
overcoming of possible sources of pollution
so that the water in Muskoka today is even
better than a few years ago. The 1965 report
of the OWRC as to the Muskoka watershed
showed that the bacteriological quality of the
water in the lakes was excellent and entirely
suited for the recreational activities of that
area.
Now, sir, no surface water anywhere can
be considered safe for drinking without some
minimum disinfecting procedure, and remarks
about the Muskoka lakes as to water to be
used for drinking purposes applies just the
same to any lake in the province, even a
lake back in the bush far from human habita-
tion. But while water quality in the Muskoka
lakes may be high, there is no ground for
complacency, with the continued growth of
shoreline summer home construction.
The Muskoka lakes association, which is
one of the oldest such associations in the
province, conducted a most worthwhile water
workshop at Port Carling last May when rep-
resentatives of provincial departments were
among those on the programme for a day-
long conference attended by many summer
property owners, municipal representatives,
officials from Muskoka district bodies and
other interested citizens. The responsibility
of each person was stressed in developing
what President Frank Fisher of that associ-
ation called "a sanitary conscience." Mr.
Fisher made it plain that it was the duty of
each property owner to make sure that no
pollution was permitted to enter the water
from the owner's premises and he pointed
out that existing summer dwellings were so
numerous that no public body could possibly
check each premises. With new construction,
of course, the health unit has the responsi-
bility of passing upon the sanitary arrange-
ments provided and Mr. Fisher asked the
complete co-operation of each person in this
respect.
When the report of the OWRC based on
the 1965 testing programme in Muskoka was
issued lately, out of the vast area of the
watershed three individual locations were
mentioned where the bacteriological quality
of the water was said to be unsatisfactory. I
want to make plain to hon. members that in
each case the local municipal council had
been advised of this problem last fall, and I
would like to pay tribute to the municipal
people in the Huntsville area, at Port Carling,
and in Medora and Wood, for having acted
at once to investigate and to endeavour to
overcome the problem.
In this connection may I observe that it is
a worldwide phenomenon with the daily news
services that it is the exceptional, the un-
usual, which makes news. Perhaps there is
nothing newsworthy in the fact there is no
great problem of pollution in the Muskoka
lakes and that it is entirely doubtful if
there is any trend towards wholesale pollu-
tion. There is no news, it would seem, in the
fact that experts in the field say the bacteri-
ological quality of water in the main lakes of
the Muskoka watershed is excellent. I am
among those who are concerned that when,
out of the very many locations tested, only
three small areas were found deficient, these
particular places were given practically the
entire attention of newspapers— which used
sensational headlines— and the radio news
reports.
I do not believe for a moment in trying
to hide such matters, or trying to hush them
up, but neither do I believe that Muskoka
as a whole, with its many resorts and shore-
line properties, deserved to have a statement
taken out of the much larger context and
given such sensational treatment. I realize
that I cannot fight against the ways of the
world and the press; however, I can empha-
size here that the quality of water in the
Muskoka lakes is excellent.
I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that
in the last day or so I have received a
letter from a lady in the Toronto area who is
a property owner on one of these lakes. She
says that she had been approached by repre-
sentatives of a realty company who were try-
ing to obtain her property, buy it from her
for resale, at a good profit, of course; but
the argument that they gave to her was that
the newspaper reports had lately shown
850
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that there was pollution in the lakes and that
perhaps it might be a good time for her to
sell. I advised the lady that no doubt the
company concerned would not be interested
in the properties if they did not see a good
opportunity for themselves to resell this
property to their own advantage.
There is, as I have said, sir, no reason to
be complacent about the existing situation
with respect to excellence of water, and I
would report that there is a determination
on the part of our authorities that if Muskoka
has good water for swimming and other
water sports it must be kept that way.
Some time ago arrangements were made for
a meeting one day soon of officials of the
Muskoka health unit with the Ontario water
resources commission to consider ways and
means of strengthening procedures in our
anti-pollution programme; but I will just
assert that this meeting is in no way a
sequel to the publication of misleading articles
recently.
It is known that the law provides penalties
for those who do not co-operate in anti-
pollution measures, but so far, Mr. Speaker,
education and persuasion have produced
favourable results.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
am I permitted a question? In the United
States, in a pollution programme down there,
there is a deadline in 1968 to clear up pollu-
tion in Lake Michigan. What deadline is the
government setting to clean up pollution in
our Great Lakes? All we do is talk about it.
Is there any firm deadline in meeting with
industry?
Mr. Boyer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. member was not in his seat at an
earlier time when I was mentioning that, in
this province, we should take great pride in
the fact that the Ontario water resources
commission takes leadership among all the
jurisdictions in this section of the continent
in the matter of an anti-pollution pro-
gramme; and that a great deal has been
done in and by this province, in cleaning
up pollution.
I was talking, though, about one particular
watershed, showing that it was already in
excellent condition and that we were making
every endeavour to keep it that way. Of
course, this watershed feeds into one of the
Great Lakes, Lake Huron, and I think it will
be an advantage to that lake if we overcome
any problems that there may be before the
water reaches there, but—
Mr. Sargent: Are these people fined?
Mr. Boyer: I have already dealt with that,
Mr. Speaker. I hope that I do not have to
repeat myself.
I certainly think that, "as Ontario people
and as Canadians, we welcome everything
that is being done across the line in the
anti-pollution programme in which the
federal government of the United States is
now taking such a part and intends,
evidently, to devote much money.
Mr. Sargent: But you have no firm pro-
gramme or deadline.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that this
is away off the subject that I have been dis-
cussing. The hon. Minister of Energy and
Resources Management (Mr. Simonett) will
shortly be presenting his estimates to the
House and I am certain that he will show
what has been done-
Mr. Sargent: I do not think he will.
Mr. Boyer: That is just your opinion. I
think that the hon. Minister will present such
a programme, and I hope that the hon.
member will be here and will listen to it
attentively.
I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, in connec-
tion with something that the hon. member for
Grey North said, that it is known that the
law provides penalties for those who do not
co-operate in anti-pollution measures; but so
far education and persuasion have produced
favourable results. In some cases, it may be
necessary to go to court, but I trust that this
extreme measure will not be necessary. If
it were, however, I am one who would
support the authorities if they had to lay
charges.
I do not think that the number of cases
brought into court is any index of the great
progress that has been made by the prov-
ince in this field.
It is some time, sir, since I have spoken in
the House on matters concerned with my
own riding in any detailed way. Today I
have endeavoured to refer to Muskoka only
as part of the provincial picture and on
matters which I felt have a wider interest
than just this one constituency. I would like
to conclude with a reference to our muni-
cipalities in Muskoka. With the growth of
shoreline developments— what might be called
summer properties, although many of them
are used throughout the year— there has
been a corresponding growth in the respon-
sibilities of the municipalities, particularly
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
851
the townships, to provide greater services
and to furnish additional services to look
after such growth. But, also, if the assessed
values of properties are to be protected, a
greater measure of planning and land use
standards can be recognized as a require-
ment. This is one of a number of subjects
where, if it were possible to have some
system of district standards, there would be
much advantage to all property owners.
Muskoka is not a county; it is a provisional
district. There is no form of common, local,
territorial administration. Each of the 25
municipalities has a high degree of sovereign
autonomy. I can outline this difficulty by
mentioning the details of the rather cumber-
some method required to establish a district
child welfare budget board under the new
Child Welfare Act. Since there are to be five
members on the board, the executive of the
association of councils, which we call the
district council, suggested by letter to each
council that they get together with four
neighbouring municipal councils and pro-
pose one name. Eventually all five names
were received.
It was then necessary for the secretary of
the district council to submit all five names
to each of the 25 councils, which then were
expected to pass a by-law to appoint the
five persons. What we would do if we did
not have a district council, I do not know;
but I think there should be a simpler method
of dealing with this and other business. I
am not complaining about The Child Wel-
fare Act or its provisions; I am only using
this as an illustration of the cumbersome
method of trying to do business on a district
level in Muskoka.
I must report, however, that with the
present understanding that municipal gov-
ernment in general is being closely examined
in this province, changes in administrative
methods are being considered. Many muni-
cipal people in Muskoka are seriously think-
ing about possible means of possessing some
form of common territorial administration. I
have to say that they do not seem to be con-
vinced—nor am I— that county status is the
solution, for even county government may
not provide all the answers required. Several
meetings have been held lately under the
auspices of the district council, at which this
subject has been discussed. There will be
further meetings with representatives of all
municipalities and others interested.
The Department of Municipal Affairs is
well aware of these developments and has
given much assistance, including the staging
of a municipal workshop last autumn at
Muskoka Sands, which was a very great
success.
Whatever happens for the benefit of Mus-
koka in its future form of municipal admin-
istration, or whether a decision is made to
keep our present status, I emphasize that this
movement is taking place in the district itself.
And this, sir, is the best way. I deplore the
ideas of a number of Opposition speakers
who seem to think, for example, that the hon.
Minister of Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile)
should force district or county welfare units
upon local jurisdictions in a mandatory way,
or that the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner) should force county or district
assessors upon municipalities without their
co-operation and agreement. This Legisla-
ture may have the power to do so; but this
strikes me as being the opposite of demo-
cratic.
I would like to thank the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs and many members of his
staff for their interest and concern with the
subject I have mentioned with respect to
Muskoka.
I have further notes and I wish to take up
another matter, but I feel that I have already
transgressed on the patience of the House,
so I will leave this subject for a later time.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
remember the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) referring to this House as the most
select club in Ontario; but the really select
group are those of us who attend debates of
this nature, particularly when the hon. mem-
ber for Muskoka (Mr. Boyer) and myself are
on the speaking list. I think this group is
much more select indeed, but I am delighted
that you, sir, are in the chair today so that
I have the opportunity to extent to you,
officially, my congratulations on your election
as Chairman of the committee of the whole,
and of course as Deputy Speaker.
I am sure you will recall with me the
campaigning days back in 1962 when both of
us were candidates in the winter by-elections
in that year and of our experiences then and
since then. I am delighted that you have
been selected to occupy the chair and I must
say to you, sir, that I have complete confi-
dence in your impartiality and firmness in
dealing with the deliberations of this House.
As a matter of fact, I would like to extend
the same compliments to Mr. Speaker
himself, the member for Ottawa West,
whom you are relieving now. I regret in
some measure that I have been one of a
large group in this House who have been
852
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
called upon to question his rulings on two
or three occasions since the House began a
few weeks ago. I believe that this is caused
entirely by the disorder that has crept into
the rules and procedures and customs of the
House over the past years.
We on this side have done our best to con-
vince the government that a committee of the
House should be struck to look into this mat-
ter and to report as soon as possible. It
appears that this is not going to occur and I
was wondering if it might not be possible if
Mr. Speaker, and his assistant, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, and the Clerk of the House might,
in an ad hoc fashion, go over the rules and
customs that have developed over the past
years and bring some order out of them; even
though it might not be presented to the
House for any far-reaching change, certainly
not a root-and-branch investigation, but just
so that so many of the rules and customs that
have been amended, either through practice
or by motion of the House, would be brought
up to date.
I understand that Lewis' book of rules was
published in 1939, and whether or not it has
been extensively amended since then I am
not aware, but I know that the present Clerk,
who is a precise expert on the customs and
rules here, might very well be given this
assignment by the House. I am sure that the
present Clerk would have a continuing and
great interest in keeping the book that we
use as our basis of order in this House up
to date; and I was thinking particularly that
some action might be taken before your
present term of office is concluded some time
in the future. This is a suggestion. I think
it is a workable one and I would hope that
you, and those with whom you work, would
consider it.
It seems many weeks ago that the motion
on the address in reply to the Speech from
the Throne was moved by the hon. member
for Lambton West (Mr. Knox) and seconded
by the hon. member for Armourdale (Mr.
Carton) and I want to congratulate them
on their attempt to defend what I would call
the indefensible and to find words to make
this government look good. I remember
very well the hon. member for Lambton
West talking about the waving palm trees
of that earthly paradise down there at
Sarnia, but perhaps even more direct is my
memory of the hon. member for Armourdale
referring to the ship of state of Ontario.
In our opinion, and in the opinion of a
good many people across Ontario, his de-
scription falls a bit short of what we would
term the tortuous and ineffective course that
has been laid out for the Ontario ship of
state under the guidance of our myopic
friend, the navigator from London North,
the hon. Prime Minister. It is in this con-
nection, sir, that I want to speak this after-
noon, because I am speaking in favour of
the amendment that has been put to the
House by my hon. friend, the leader of the
Liberal Party (Mr. Thompson), which points
out the shortcomings in the courses of action
which have been taken by this government
and which have been pointed out in the
Speech from the Throne that we are pres-
ently considering.
I would like to say, sir, although we have
dealt with at least one important piece of
legislation this session, the amendment to The
Medical Services Insurance Act, it appears
that although there are a number of orders
already on the paper none of them is of
overwhelming importance. There are a good
many matters that will be brought to our
attention later no doubt, but I hope that the
hon. Prime Minister is able to prod his
Ministers so that the legislation is put before
us before the last few days or the last few
weeks of the session, so that we will have
an opportunity to consider it ourselves, and
take it back to our constituencies where a
good many of the citizens would have opin-
ions to express; and that there will not be
the unseemly rush that has occurred in other
sessions, particularly the last one.
For my part, I feel that a reversion to the
former practice of having a fall session would
very much expedite and improve the work
of this House. I realize the hon. Prime
Minister did not have a good experience with
the fall session in 1961 and it may very well
be that he looks back on that situation.
Hon. J. P. Robarts: I enjoyed it very
much.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I remember very well
reading about the calling of the Royal com-
mission at that time and I realize that it was
my hon. friend's indoctrination into the
leadership of the House, but I feel very
strongly that he has shied away from fall
sessions from that time because of his feeling
that debates are repetitious and actually
there is altogether too much talk in this
House about matters that he would not con-
sider important.
Now this is something I feel could be
improved considerably if the session were
called in the autumn. We would have an
opportunity to consider the reply to the
Speech from the Throne and to complete
that debate before the end of the year. We
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
853
would also be able to deal with the private
bills that are put before us each session and
a considerable amount of private members'
business; as well as, of course, any govern-
ment business that was ready that early in
the season.
Then, returning for the second part of the
session after the new year, we would be
able to address ourselves to the Budget im-
mediately and also to the main burden of
the government business.
This suggestion has been made before, I
realize, but it is a useful suggestion and I
hope that the hon. Prime Minister has not
dismissed the idea of a fall session entirely
from his mind. The day has long since gone
when the requirements of those of us who
are members of this House who are also
farmers are going to affect the ordering of
the business. I am sure that a good many
people, presently members in the House,
can recall the day when the warm breezes
. began to blow and the snow melted away
and the tulips out in front here began to
sprout, that it was necessary for the farmers
to get back to the business of the land. I
suppose this day has gone forever. I for one
regret it; nevertheless I am very much in the
minority in this regard and am prepared to
sit here all summer, as the hon. Prime Min-
ister so often says, if this is necessary to
deal, effectively with the business of the
province.
Nevertheless, it would be possible to order
the business of the House not just so the
farmers would find it more convenient, but
so that there would be a division over Christ-
mas and the New Year that would divide the
two major sections of our business very effec-
tively indeed. Even the hon. members of
that most exclusive group, the Albany club,
would have an opportunity to go and get
their tan before they return to deal with the
Budget.
Mr. Speaker, there are two or three mat-
ters that I would like to deal with in the
unrestricted atmosphere of the Throne De-
bate and the first has to do with the responsi-
bilities of the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart). I know that he has particularly
heavy responsibilities these days pertaining
to matters that were discussed before the
orders of the day, and even though he has
this heavy weight of responsibility on his
shoulders he is looking forward to a very
pleasant evening indeed, because I under-
stand that he is going to attend a meeting of
the Progressive-Conservative association in
Brantford. This will surely buoy him up in-
deed, and I wish him a pleasant trip. Even
though he is attending the city of Brantford
under what I suppose are questionable aus-
pices, I would warn him— he is not present in
the House right now— but I would warn him
that he might come in for some criticism
based on a statement that he made publicly
some weeks ago, and which may not appear
to be too controversial. But I would like
to read it to the House and I quote from the
Toronto Globe and Mail of January 1, 1966,
in which the hon. Attorney General said, in
releasing the list of QC appointments that
Character, general capability, leadership
in the law profession and contribution to
public service were taken into considera-
tion in naming QCs.
That is, those who are designated Queen's
counsel.
I understand that the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral makes these designations under section
6 of The Barristers Act, and in making these
decisions he is guided by the qualifications
that I have read from the newspaper clipping.
But the people in Brantford and Brant
county, to whom he is going to speak this
evening, are a bit put out about this.
In the last two years and, in fact, for a
good long period of time indeed, there have
been no designations of a single Queen's
counsel in that area— even though there have
been qualified applications of those who, in
the opinion of any reasonable judge at all,
do have a good character and do exhibit gen-
eral capability and have shown their leader-
ship in the law profession and have made
significant contributions to the public service.
And I want to say something about the desig-
nation of these QCs in the two or three min-
utes that remain to me before this debate
should be adjourned.
I was interested in my research on this
subject to read of an incident involving Sir
John A. Macdonald, a former Prime Minister
of Canada, and a former Premier of Ontario,
Sir Oliver Mowat. These two gentlemen were
associated in the practice of law; Sir John as
the senior partner and Sir Oliver as his junior
to begin with, and advancing as a partner.
Before their ways divided politically Mr.
Mowat, as he was then, was chiding Sir John
about the awarding of QCs to his political
friends. Sir John, in reply, apparently said
that he would be glad to designate Oliver
Mowat as a QC and, so that it would be dif-
ferent from some of the more common
designations, he would give him an entire
edition of the Ontario Gazette for the an-
nouncement in order that this would be set
apart for his friend, Oliver Mowat. And I
understand that this was done, although I
854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have not been able to locate a copy of that
Ontario Gazette, or at least the Gazette of
the day— I suppose it was of the united prov-
inces of Canada— that would bear out this
tale.
But it is true that, in the years following,
Sir Oliver and Sir John had serious differ-
ences of political opinion. Sir John went on
to become leader of this nation, and when
Sir Oliver Mowat became Premier of Ontario
he was moved to begin the practice of award-
ing QCs on a provincial basis. I understand
that it was under his regime that section 6
of The Barristers Act was introduced. It is
also true that he made an attempt, and a
successful attempt, to make the provincial
QC take precedence over any other QC
awards— that is, the federal award— and I
believe this continues to this day. So even
in those days there was some evidence that
political partisanship, in fact patronage, had
some part to play in the award of this honour.
But as far as we are concerned in 1966,
our main complaints are these: That the
designation Queen's counsel has become com-
mon. There are, in fact, too many of them.
In 1966, 110 lawyers were so honoured; in
1965, 107; in 1964, only 79, because under
the direction of the immediately previous
Attorney General, a much stricter policy was
in force towards these appointments.
I must certainly excuse my hon. colleagues
in this House, who themselves have received
this award, when I say that it has become
too common; because in their cases certainly
it is well deserved and recognized by all the
members as such. But in other cases the
award is, in fact, a misleading one. For the
man in the street who is looking for some
legal counsel, these magic letters following
the name should mean much more to him
than in actual fact they do. They do not
place any special responsibilities on a lawyer,
nor do they assure his client that he is of
special competence and, in this way, I feel
they are misleading.
Mr. Speaker, I have some further remarks
to make on this and other topics and if you
will permit me at this time, since it is five
o'clock, I would move the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
17, by Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West):
Resolved,
That this House urges upon the govern-
ment of Canada the repeal and . subse-
quent redrafting of the relevant sections
237(1)(2)(3) and 209(1)(2) of the Criminal
Code in the direction of liberalizing the
grounds for the granting of therapeutic
abortion to take into account such factors
as, in addition to preserving the life of the
mother, rape, incest, emotional well-being,
and related considerations.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I move resolution No. 17 standing
in my name, which has just been read.
Mr. Speaker, according to statements made
by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) in
this House this afternoon, he is apparently
not willing to pursue vigorously at this time
questions of divorce reform or reform of the
abortion laws. And in regard to abortion, Mr.
Speaker, the insensitivity of that statement is
breathtaking.
Suppose for a moment that every year
25,000 men were being forced by govern-
ment edict, or, in the absence of government
definition, to undergo a painful and danger-
ous operation in the city of Metropolitan
Toronto. Would the hon. Prime Minister, I
ask you, sir, be so bland and brusque in his
countenance of delay? I say that, Mr. Speaker,
because we should be very clear what we
are talking about when we discuss the abor-
tion laws.
The question, as some think, is not whether
abortions should be done; abortions are being
done, they are being performed— criminal
abortions in staggering numbers.
It is our responsibility, I suggest, to face
the fact and to decide whether the abortions
shall be done in fear, in secrecy and in
danger, or whether they shall be done safely
and equitably in a humane society.
In case the hon. members of this House
are unmoved by the abstract word "abortion,"
or its medical definition — the premature
expulsion of a fertilized ovum or foetus prior
to what is considered the age of viability,
namely 28 weeks— assuming that the hon.
members are not moved by those definitions,
I would like them to recall for a moment
the recent case of Mrs. Barbara Diane
Butcher. Mrs. Butcher was so desperate to
avoid having a child, Mr. Speaker, that she
tried to abort herself with a ball-point pen,
and in this enlightened province of ours
died a peculiarly painful and horrifying death
due to an air embolism. Mr. Speaker, these
tragedies do not merely grace the headlines
of the newspapers; they are documented
regularly in reputable medical journals. Let
me indicate to the House what is involved.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
In a recent issue of the Ontario Medjical
Review, there is an entire page of cases
entitled "Maternal mortality report No. 19—
abortion." Let me read two of the cases
into the record of this House:
A 33-year-old patient of unknown parity
and gravidity had a criminal abortion per-
formed and was brought to hospital dead
on arrival. Autopsy revealed the seven-
month pregnancy with an intact normal
male foetus. The membranes were intact
but the placenta was separated from the
uterine wall by a large blood clot. There
was extensive and widespread air embolism
all through the body, including the heart,
pulmonary vessels, kidneys and even an
incising into the abdominal cavity.
Another case, Mr. Speaker:
A 30-year-old widow was found slumped
over the toilet seat, about eight hours
after her death, by two of her children.
Apparently a douche syringe had been
used by the patient to inject toxic material
into her uterus in an attempt to procure an
abortion. Autopsy revealed an intact five-
and-a-half-month pregnancy and evidence
that the injection had been directly into a
retroplacental blood vessel. There was
acute congestion of lungs, liver, spleen and
kidney, also suggestive of overwhelming
toxemia.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members are
perfectly capable of imagining the tragedy
of those deaths.
I wonder how our genial and imperturb-
able hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart)
feels about it. In his own laboratory, he can
examine at leisure, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of
instruments to which an estimated one out of
every four pregnant women in the province—
40,000 a year— resort each year.
The other day I visited that laboratory, Mr.
Speaker— and I suggest that hon. members
of this House might be similarly inclined to
do so— in the Ontario provincial police build-
ing at the foot of Jarvis street. And there,
stuck neatly into a cupboard-like arrangement,
is a showcase of instruments of injury and
death, visual aids for criminal abortion. And
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is an
open indictment of our system. Dr. Sharpe,
who is the medical director of the laboratory,
went through the array of instruments— the
pathetic grouping of manual and mechanical
devices, the irritants and drugs, all the
methods, all the apparatus that causes so
much unbearable tragedy for so many thou-
sands of women. And one needs simply to
contemplate the consequence in human terms
to recognize that this Legislature, as part of
a confederal system in this country, has a
compelling responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, how is it that we are col-
lectively so sanguine about a public health
problem in our midst of this dimension? We
are so calm and rational about it. Can it be
because we are, in fact, men? Because we will
never know, personally, the tragedy of abor-
tion?
And does this explain, sir, why our laws
are so callous and senseless? Our laws, Mr.
Speaker, made by men, presume to rule over
the personal physical destinies of all the
women in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that this govern-
ment is supposedly dedicated to individual
liberty. It has become a fetish— so much a
fetish that we will not countenance compul-
sion for having people buy medical care; we
will not force municipalities to provide houses
for the homeless or to educate the disturbed
children— and all this always in the name of
individual liberty.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Legislature has no
such delicacy in presuming to interfere with
the most intimate aspects of the lives of
women, to pronounce to them in tones of
moral righteousness what they shall do with
their own bodies. This Legislature is guilty,
I suggest, of an intolerable infringement of
personal liberty on an impressive scale.
The most authoritative studies in the United
States, Mr. Speaker— and in this country-
show that the incidence of abortion varies
from one in every three pregnancies to one
in every seven, which would mean something
in the vicinity of 20,000 to 50,000 criminal
abortions in this province alone. Others
suggest that 22 per cent of all pregnancies
end in abortion, of which ten per cent is
criminal. The Metro Toronto morality squad
estimates that there are 35,000 abortions in
Metro Toronto every year. The most learned
consultation available, a meeting of 43 medi-
cal specialists in the United States in the late
1950s, said that one out of four was a
perfectly legitimate figure.
The death toll is high; and the crucial fact,
Mr. Speaker, is that criminal abortion is con-
sidered to be the major cause of maternal
death. I re-emphasize that: the major cause
of maternal death. This contention is made
by the Ontario medical association in its
journal, as well as many other medical asso-
ciations.
Now that is a fact to ponder, Mr. Speaker,
when one considers that the maternal death
rate is commonly considered to be a good
indicator of the level of civilization in any
society.
856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A study by two Toronto doctors, Dr.
Noonan, head of obstetrics at St. Michael's
hospital, and Dr. Cannell, of Toronto general
hospital, shows that between 1958 and 1963
there were 333 obstetrical deaths in Ontario;
69 of these, or 20.7 per cent, resulted from
criminal abortion. The OMA, to put it on
record, says this:
Criminal abortions are still the most
common cause of preventable maternal
death in all major centres. This deplor-
able fact probably will not change until
our laws, our philosophy, or at least our
methods of communication with the public
change.
The deaths, of course, Mr. Speaker, are not
the only result. Medical complications,
suffering, and possible sterility are other side-
effects of this disease. In a London, Eng-
land, teaching hospital, where much study
has been done, it is found that one out of six
admissions to gynaecological wards are as a
result of criminal abortion. In conversation
with a leading member of the department
of obstetrics and gynaecology at Toronto
general hospital yesterday, I learned that it
runs as high as one out of four admissions to
our gynaecological wards in this city.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a very great part of
this is due to the incredible legal ambiguity
which is involved in the Canadian law.
There are lawyers in this House— I believe
one of them intends to speak— but I feel I
should indicate that medical-legal opinion is
very much divided. There are some who
contend that abortion is illegal, therapeutic
or otherwise, under any circumstance in this
country. In a very excellent article, "The
doctor, abortion and the law," Dr. J. J.
Lederman, who is also a lawyer, says this in
the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
August, 1962; and I quote:
It is the object of this paper to demon-
strate that the law of Canada does not per-
mit abortion on any grounds whatever, and
that legal sanction for abortion on therapeu-
tic grounds does not exist. Nowhere does
the law make provision for the ground on
which an abortion may be lawfully pro-
cured, therefore even where the life of
the mother is threatened by the continua-
tion of her pregnancy and even when con-
sultations are obtained confirming the
threat to the mother's life and even wh^n
all consents to the operation are obtained
and valid and even when the operation if
performed by a qualified and registered
doctor in a recognized hospital, even
when all these conditions have been met
an abortion performed would appear t6
this writer to be in the present state of
the law as much a crime as any criminal
abortion.
Now very simply, Mr. Speaker, there are
two sections of the Criminal Code which
supposedly relate to this matter. The first is
section 237, which defines the crime of using
any means with intent to procure an abor-
tion. It speaks of no exception. It provides
for no exemption from criminality, and the
lawyers say that surely it is reasonable that
the section of the Criminal Code which ex-
plicitly sets out the word abortion would
provide for the exception for therapeutic
abortion.
Another section of the Criminal Code, Mr.
Speaker, does deal with an exception, section
209; and it makes an exception in favour of
any person who causes the death of a child
that has not become a human being where
such a person acts in good faith to preserve
the life of a mother. But, Mr. Speaker, the
word abortion is not used; the word mis-
carriage is not used. Such an operation is
never referred to, and the contention of
many legal authorities is that other opera-
tions—such as a craniotomy— are referred to;
that, in fact, to apply therapeutic abortion
under that section means criminal abortion.
It does not seem reasonable, Mr. Speaker,
that doctors should be subject to this in-
tolerable ambiguity of the law because that
results, I suggest to this House, in inability
on their part to make the pronouncements
and the judgments which they would other-
wise make. It is a state of legal farce be-
cause, Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this
House knows, medical interpretation already
exceeds all the legal definitions.
Mr. Speaker, what my resolution does is
ask that the laws be clarified to permit the
indications for abortion which accepted med-
ical practice have already make legitimate.
What do we mean by "legitimate"? Well
simply, Mr. Speaker, that there are a great
many therapeutic abortions already being
performed.
The statistics are minimal and fragmen-
tary, but even those available in Canada and
in Ontario reveal a fascinating set of trends.
I have two studies which I want to reveal
to the House; I do not think either of them
have been made public before. One of them,
of lesser import, by a Toronto doctor, shows
vividly how difficult it is to penetrate the
barrier of secrecy that our laws create* This
gentleman— I met him incidentally, Mr.
Speaker, in the presence of one of the hon.
members of this House— was investigating
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
857
so-called legal therapeutic abortions in hos-
pitals right across the country, and attempted
to find information from hospital services
commissions in various provinces.
His information, to say the least, was frag-
mentary. It amounted to this: That in British
Columbia between 1958 and 1963 there were
259 therapeutic abortions; in Alberta during
1960 there were 50; and in Saskatchewan,
there were 53 between 1960 and 1964. The
Ontario hospital services commission at first
declined to answer because it had to apply
a computer to find out; when it did answer
it gave him the one figure of 28 therapeutic
abortions during the six months of 1962.
That those figures are absurdly incomplete,
certainly for the province of Ontario, is
borne out by a fascinating study conducted
by Dr. J. Norris, of Wellesley hospital in
Toronto, along with Dr. T. G. Reilly and
Dr. B. W. Mustard. I would be pleased to
table it in the House at some point for mem-
bers who are interested.
This piece of research covers six Toronto
hospitals: Toronto General, Women's College,
East General, Grace, Wellesley, and Western.
For the years 1957 to 1961, the total number
of therapeutic abortions was 168. That is
an incidence of one abortion for every 566
live births. But most interesting of all, Mr.
Speaker, is what it reveals about the women
who get a hospital abortion. One hundred
of them were over the age of 30, and 52
over the age of 36 years; and it is commonly
acknowledged in all countries where studies
have been made of therapeutic abortion, in-
deed of criminal abortion, that most of the
women involved are married and most of
them are in their mid or late 30s.
Dr. Robert Hall of the Sloan hospital for
women in New York made a survey of 65
major hospitals in the United States and
showed that 75 per cent of the women re-
ceiving abortions were married. Sir Dougald
Baird, who is chief of obstetrics in Aberdeen,
Scotland— a courageous pioneer in this field-
points out that of 203 abortions in his hos-
pital, 179 of the women were married. So
it is the older women who have abortions.
Yesterday the hon. member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha) said to me with great good
humour that perhaps the resolution related
to sex and the single girl. He was, I think,
inadvertently voicing what is a common mis-
conception. In fact, the view is really nothing
but a guilty projection of our own conception
of what thousands of women are involved in.
And I suggest to you that that kind of pro-
jection is at the root of this problem— one of
the reasons why we have not yet reformed
the laws, and is nothing short of shameful.
To continue the analysis of the report of
abortions in Toronto hospitals, it contains the
most damning piece of evidence about the
way in which the law discriminates in favour
of the middle class, and against the poor and
unsophisticated who most urgently need help.
Just as in the case of divorce laws, Mr.
Speaker, and just as in the case of the dis-
semination of birth control information— I am
sure the resolution of the hon. member for
Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) will point it
out— we have class legislation, and again the
study confirms it.
It shows that 133 abortions were performed
on private patients but only 35 on patients in
public wards; and even that figure was in-
flated, Mr. Speaker, because a large number
of clinic, or public, patients were really
private patients referred to them by psychia-
trists. So the number of genuine public
patients was really very small.
Yet another growing trend shown in the
survey is that most therapeutic abortions are
granted for psychiatric reasons not covered
by the Criminal Code of Canada. It is worth-
while pointing out that, on the private
patient's side at least, most of the abortions
—over 50 per cent of the therapeutic abor-
tions—are now provided for psychiatric rea-
sons.
Mr. Speaker, as more and more abortions
are performed on psychiatric grounds, it be-
comes more and more difficult for an impov-
erished woman— the woman with a large
family and limited financial resources, the
woman who has no recourse from financial
despair, precisely the woman who most des-
perately needs an abortion— to get one. The
inequity of the law has been increased with
the passage of time, not decreased.
The Toronto study, Mr. Speaker, also high-
lights the invidious position our doctors are
being forced into by the law. Psychiatric
abortions are the most important but are not
sanctioned. Not only does this force the doc-
tor into an anomalous position but it makes
him, out of his own insecurity, enforce a
particularly rigid selection system in their
hospitals. A woman must have strong letters
of recommendation from at least two doctors^
and the application must be passed by an all-
medical board of the hospital. It is a cruelly
capricious system, Mr. Speaker.
We demonstrated on a political party
broadcast last night that it is purely a matter
of chance whether a woman will be granted
a therapeutic abortion in Toronto or in Montr
real, or in one of the states of the United
858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
States— dependent upon which of the doctors
she approaches and the strength of a letter
of recommendation.
Will the hon. members for a moment
imagine the panic of a woman whose own
life, whether physical or emotional, is threat-
ened, whose precarious family and financial
life is hanging in the balance, who must face
an unpleasant operation on her own body,
and then on top of all this must seek out the
furtive and sleazy unskilled abortionist with
his or her little armoury of lethal weapons.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it
simply need not be; that there are many
jurisdictions around the world which have
liberalized abortion law. And it is possible,
Mr. Speaker, to do so without any increase
in the incidence, to introduce a dramatic
measure of reform.
The reality, surely, Mr. Speaker, is straight-
forward. Although the effort to obtain an
induced abortion may indicate that the
woman is physically ill, more often it reflects
one or more of a complexity of factors— such
as poor social or economic environment, dis-
turbed marital relations, psychiatric or neu-
rotic disturbances in the family, or quite
simply a need to keep her family at its
present size. And all of these, I hasten to
emphasize, Mr. Speaker, can be valid and
compelling factors beyond the restrictive na-
ture of our present Canadian law.
The countries of Finland, Denmark, Nor-
way, Sweden, East Germany, Poland, Hun-
gary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia
grant abortions, therapeutic abortions; where
pregnancy is likely to endanger life or health,
physical or mental, of the mother; where
intercourse is of a criminal nature— incest or
rape; where there is evidence of hereditary
disease, a grave risk of a physically defective
child; and they often include social factors
producing a psychiatric reaction.
And they have a variety of boards which
hear these cases, Mr. Speaker, not confined
purely to medical opinion in the physical
term but medical opinion in psychiatric
terms. Opinion from social workers, from
psychologists, from responsible lay people,
and from a very strong application on the
part of the woman herself.
Certainly the most dramatic evidence of
an excellently functioning board is in the case
of Sir Dougald Baird's experiment in Aber-
deen, Scotland. I want to read to this House
his brief account from the British Medical
Journal of the way in which his community
views abortion cases:
In arriving at our conclusions whether
or not to grant therapeutic abortion, many
factors may be taken into account, such
as the personality of the mother, the rela-
tions between husband and wife, the
number of previous pregnancies a/id the
outcome, the mother's physical health and
emotional state, living conditions, pro-
longed and serious illnesses in other chil-
dren entailing added work for the mother
and the effect of fear of giving birth to a
defective child on the health of the
mother. Discussions take place with the
family doctor and a health visitor, and
reports of home visits by hospital social
workers are studied. The public health
apparatus is worked directly into the
analysis. In a city where all patients are
referred to clinicians working in a unified
and integrated obstetrical and gynaeco-
logical service, broad lines of policy can
be agreed upon. The same organization
and teamwork exist in the department of
mental health. Difficult problems can be
discussed more formally at the weekly
staff meetings. There is a large measure
of agreement among the Aberdeen con-
sultants on the present policy of both
tubal ligation and termination of preg-
nancy, and it has the strong backing of
the family doctor.
This makes it possible, Mr. Speaker, for
therapeutic abortions to be granted for
different reasons and to a large number of
older women who show extreme debility
usually associated with excessive child bear-
ing; not medical in the limited sense of the
term, but medical in the sense that anemia
and lethargy and emotional well-being are
involved.
This is what Dr. Baird says about his
study and I commend the thought to the
hon. members of the House:
The incidence of therapeutic abortion
in Aberdeen is about two per cent of all
maternity, and there seems to be very
little termination of pregnancy by un-
qualified persons possibly because women
know that their difficulties will receive
sympathetic and unprejudiced considera-
tion from the medical profession in Aber-
deen.
Now, contrast that with the fearful, insular,
difficult procedures forced by Canadian
abortion law.
That is a significant statement, Mr.
Speaker, because it deals with one of the
two major fears in this area. There is no
reason to assume that liberalizing abortion
laws increases illegality or irregular sex
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
relationships. It was Dr. Cannell of the
University of Toronto, head of obstetrics at
Toronto general hospital, who pointed out
that when Sweden reformed her abortion
laws there was a decrease in deaths— a sig-
nificant decrease in deaths— due to criminal
abortions.
Now the second fear, Mr. Speaker, and a
legitimate one, relates to the possible psychi-
atric trauma associated with terminating
pregnancy; fear of the emotional upheaval
subsequent to the operation. The statistics
are slim, I admit to this House, but the
opinions we do have suggest that this is not
so.
Dr. Hall suggests that in the post-abortion
period— the post-operative period— there have
not been deleterious psychiatric effects. Dr.
Baird draws four conclusions from his study
of over 200 cases: there was improvement in
general family well-being; a more congenial
home atmosphere; better marital relations;
and obvious improvement in mental health.
This after abortion.
In the best study that we have today, con-
ducted by Dr. Exblad of Denmark in 1961,
a progress report of 200 women was care-
fully documented in the post-therapeutic
abortion period for 10 years. The British
Medical Journal makes this comment:
Psychiatric and neurotic symptoms were
no more common than one might expect in
the population generally. In those who
had been disturbed, results were very
good. In general, Exblad's experience
agrees with our findings that the results of
therapeutic abortion are most satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, for these and equally impor-
tant reasons, the cry for abortion reform has
become worldwide and irresistible. The
British House of Lords gave second reading
to Lord Silkin's bill on reform of abortion
laws, on November 30 last, by a vote of 67
to eight. A House of Commons Conservative
member is about to introduce a private
resolution whose frame of reference almost
exactly corresponds to the one before this
Legislature.
The committee of the Anglican Church
has resolved its stand in precisely the
terms of this resolution. The Ontario medi-
cal association agrees; the American medi-
cal association has it under discussion;
and most of the legal authorities in the land
agree. Dr. H. B. Cotnam, our supervising
coroner in Ontario, agrees. The United
Church board of evangelism and social serv-
ice asks for a liberalizing of the grounds, and
a recent survey of all the obstetricians in the
state of New York showed that more than
85 per cent favour liberalizing our abortion
laws. Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, to my
conclusion.
Why, I ask this House, are all these learned
individuals and organizations pressing for
reform of this law? Why is there a world-
wide groundswell of demand? My party, and
these others, are not champions of licentious-
ness, Mr. Speaker. We are not advocating,
nor do we think it psychologically or socially
desirable, that abortion become a casual
affair— let us say as casual as the buying
of contraceptives by males.
Abortion is by no stretch of the imagina-
tion a substitute for a general public con-
traceptive programme; a programme which,
one hopes, will one day be instituted by this
government through its public health offices.
Abortion is in no sense sufficient without
also working to remedy the causes of abortion
—poverty, family upsets, emotional distress
and related factors. But the present law can-
not be so continuously strait- jacketed; nor can
doctors be asked to operate under such a law;
nor can we continue to condemn 30,000 or
more women each year in the province of
Ontario to the extremities of procuring a
criminal abortion.
We are tired and impatient with the old
moral hypocrisy of governments which find
it easier to do nothing and, in doing nothing,
to cause misery and desperation all around
them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the impasse
here, as perhaps in divorce reform, is pri-
marily the attitude of the Roman Catholic
Church— which it may well be— then I say that
the attitude of a religious minority should
not govern the will of the majority who
remain, and should not impose its own moral
criteria on an entire population.
If this Legislature prefers to sidestep the
issue by talking about destroying the life
of the unborn, then I suggest that it is
seriously intruding into the privacy of others
and destroying their lives in the light of its
own questionable puritanism, guilt and eva-
sion.
I join with thousands of others around the
world in pleading the cause of the right of
the individual to decide for herself, subject
to the opportunity of consultation with experi-
enced and expert counsel. I thus propose the
reform of our abortion laws in the context
and with the impetus and direction that is
inherent in the resolution here put forward.
Mr. R. A. Eagleson (Lakeshore): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury is
not here, so perhaps we will not have any
embarrassing moments. In any event, as I
rise to speak on this resolution—
860
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): The big boss
is not here either, so you can say what you
think-
Mr. Eagleson: Has the hon. member
finished?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Are
you?
Mr. Eagleson: As my friend, the hon. mem-
ber for Scarborough West, pointed out, Mr.
Speaker, there is a rather technical and
legal problem involved in this matter. We
have the Criminal Code not spelling out
specifically whether or not abortions are legal
or illegal. We have section 209, subsection 1,
referring to the taking of a child's life before
it is born, and in subsection 2 of that section
there is reference to a "saving" clause that
allows this to be done if it is to save the
life of the mother. However, section 237
of the Criminal Code goes on to have a
general prohibition against procuring mis-
carriages, and there is no such "saving"
clause in it.
Section 303 of the Canadian Criminal
Code, before it was amended in 1955, con-
tained the word "unlawful." In the 1955
edition, and since that date, this word has
been removed. As such, some doctors— and
I think that they are justified in their thoughts
along these lines—feel that there is no such
thing as a legal abortion because there is a
general rule of law that specific legislation
will overrule general legislation. Therefore,
the law under section 237 might be con-
sidered to overrule the legislation covered
in section 209 (2).
Another problem is the exception referred
to in 209 (2). This has been discussed in the
case of Rex vs. Bourne, which was an English
case. In that case, Dr. Bourne, who was the
Queen's physician, did an abortion and had
the charge laid as a test case. In that particu-
lar case, a girl became pregnant after a brutal
rape. After a consultation with fellow doctors,
Dr. Bourne performed the abortion and the
jury found him not guilty. The trial judge
could not find, in that case, any distinction
between "danger to health" and "danger to
life." He stated that what was dangerous to
health may sooner or later be dangerous to
life and that the law should not condemn
that which is performed without evil in-
tention.
If we go on further in this same case, it
is apparent that Dr. Bourne did what he felt
was necessary in the circumstances because
of the incident of the rape, rather than the
concern as to the mental or physical welfare
of the 14-year-old -gkL
It seems to be the o^iy area in our law
on this particular point. There have been
several cases of people charged with com-
mitting abortion and, to my knowledge, there
is nothing in the Canadian law that reflects
directly the law of the Rex vs. Bourne
decision.
Also, in Canada under our Criminal .Code,
there is no distinction between the unskilled
abortion and an abortion performed in a
hospital. The general impression one obtains
from speaking to the members of our morality
squad here in the city of Toronto is that any
abortion carried out in a hospital is con-
sidered a legal abortion by them, and any
abortion that is carried out in any number
of other places is considered to be an illegal
abortion and should result in a charge being
laid.
The Criminal Code, at present, does not
cover this situation of the termination of
pregnancy to preserve the health of the
mother, although there is an unofficial recog-
nition of the need for such a provision. The
rationale behind the law is that it served
generally to protect against the unskilled
abortionist and to concern themselves with
the physical and mental health of any woman
who has to undergo an abortion in a hos-
pital. Abortion laws do not seem to be en-
forced to uphold the moral standard, but
rather they are upheld to protect pregnant
women against unskilled abortionists. In the
1949 case, Lord Chief Justice Goddard stated
and I quote:
It is because the unskilful attention of
ignorant people in cases of this kind often
result in death that attempts to produce
abortion are generally regarded by the
law as very serious offences.
If the rationale behind the law is to uphold a
certain moral standard, then, in the law, there
should be a definition of the moral standard
to be followed. Whether we should extend
the abortion laws to cover the physical and
mental health of the mother, would depend
on the definition used. Lord Devlin has
stated that every society must have an en-
forced standard of morals and the standard
enforced is that which is accepted by tie
great majority of the people in the country.
And he further states that no society can
solve the problem of how to teach morality
without religion. Therefore, to determine the
standard of morality with regard to abortion,
it is necessary to decide what standard is
accepted by those religions which represent
the great majority of Canadians.
Most Protestants, and I believe the mem-
bers of the Jewish faith, agree that abortion
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
861
should be allowed for therapeutic reasons.
I am led to believe that the Roman Catholic
Church is opposed to such laws. One solu-
tion then, would be to remove the matter of
abortions completely from the Criminal Code
and let each individual group determine its
moral conduct. The argument against this is
that you may corrupt society with such re-
moval of legislation, but really there is no
evidence to support these arguments against
abortion laws. There are substantial numbers
of abortions performed in our society and
there is no indication that our society is be-
coming less moral.
Trie second argument against this philoso-
phy of not having abortions recited in the
legislation is that abortions will increase.
This is quite natural, because people will
not mind saying that they have had an abor-
tion done upon them, and in Japan legislation
was enacted which permitted legal abortions,
and in fact the abortions did increase. But,
by the same token, there is no indication this
resulted in a lowering of the moral standards
in that country. There is no need to keep
these laws unless the increase in the number
of abortions has some detrimental effect on
the country involved, and I suggest that this
is not the case in any country that has less
restrictive laws on abortion. Legalizing abor-
tion will also do away with the crime of
abortion by the unskilled practitioner. Any
woman would be able to obtain an abortion
at any hospital, by a skilled physician, under
the best circumstances.
The number of deaths and injuries that
result from these unskilled abortionists would
then be removed from society. Another ob-
jection against legalizing abortion is that it
would lead to an increase in promiscuity.
As the hon. member for Scarborough West
pointed out, figures and records show that
the bulk of the women involved in abortions
are over the age of 30 and a substantial num-
ber are over the age of 35. In addition to
this, we also have contraceptives being sold
at every drug store anyway.
Mr. S. Lewis: And what business is it
of ours what they do with their private
lives?
Mr. Eagleson: There have been several
examples recently of a public outcry in favour
of less strict abortion laws. In one case, a
Colorado housewife became pregnant as a
result of a violence which resulted in rape.
Because there were no physical or mental
complications, in Colorado and in no state
of the United States or in Canada, could that
woman obtain an abortion. As such, she
was required— she did not feel she should
travel abroad as some have inclined them-
selves to do, going to Sweden, Denmark or
Japan— to have the abortion. There was quite
a series of articles in the press, as this
woman's pregnancy ended in a birth and the
headlines in several American papers indi-
cated it was a sad state of affairs when a
child should be born as a result of such a
rape relationship.
Another case that was given widespread
coverage involved Mrs. Sherry Finkbine,
from out in a western state; and she had
used thalidomide during her pregnancy and
was quite fearful of what might result from
the termination of the pregnancy in the
normal course of events. She saw fit— because
they would not allow her to have an abortion
in the United States— to travel to Denmark
and the abortion was done there and from
all reports we have on the matter, she
seems to be coming along well. Yet many
people indicated there would be fearful
physical and mental repercussions from such
an abortion in such circumstances.
When I met— with the hon. member for
Scarborough West— the gentlemen at the
Toronto psychiatric hospital, he advised us
of one situation in the city of Toronto that
struck me as being a major reason and if it
were the only reason it would be a sufficient
reason for a change in our laws on this sub-
ject. A 16-year-old, or 17-year-old, boy had
had an incestuous relationship with his 14-
year-old sister and a pregnancy had resulted.
Yet in Canada, there is no remedy in that
situation, from a legal point of view. From
a moral point of view, I would suggest that
something should happen, and I suggest to
this House that, in spite of the fact that the
laws state there is no such thing as a legal
abortion, in such a series of circumstances,
medical practitioners in Toronto and in
Canada, will find some reason to have an
abortion in that particular set of circum-
stances.
In a very illuminating study in California,
in the late 1950s, various doctors and hos-
pitals were provided with a hypothetical set
of facts concerning abortion. These doctors
and hospitals were of the highest reputation
and submitted to them was the following
set of facts: What would you as a doctor or
a hospital do in circumstances such as these?
A 15-year-old daughter of a local minister
is raped and pregnancy results. Would you
have an operation for abortion on this girl?
Sixty-eight per cent of the hospitals and 87
per cent of the doctors approved of an oper-
ation in such a set of circumstances, based
862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on the fact of the Tape alone, without resort-
ing at all to the proven need to preserve the
life or the health of the mother.
These two examples illustrate that not
only is there popular feeling against the
legal restraint as it is presently constituted
in our Criminal Code, or in the American
penal code, but also that the legal norm
does not comply with actual medical prac-
tices.
The fact remains, however, that neither in
Canada or in any of the 48 states is there a
privilege to abort in circumstances of rape.
In 42 of the states the law is the same as
it is in Canada, and in only five of them and
in the District of Columbia, has the statute
been extended to include the preservation
of health as well as the preservation of life.
No Anglo-American jurisdictions specific-
ally exempt rape abortions or incest abortions
from illegality, although such provisions are
spelled out specifically in Sweden and Den-
mark. Recently the framers of the model
penal code in the United States have pro-
vided for justification in the case of rape
abortions and the draft code has now been
approved by the memberships of the
American law institute. The draft which
might serve as an excellent model is as
follows:
Section 207, 11 subsection 2: A licensed
physician is justified in terminating a
pregnancy if (a) he believes there is a
substantial risk that continuance of the
pregnancy would gravely impair the
physical or mental health of the mother
or that the child would be born with
grave physical or mental defects or the
pregnancy resulted from rape by force or
from incest and (b) two physicians have
certified in writing their belief in the
justifying circumstances and have filed
such certificates prior to the abortion in
a licensed hospital where it was to be
performed.
The extension to incest abortion appears to
be equally legitimate. Denmark and Sweden
go even further and exempt abortion from
illegality in the case of carnal knowledge
involving a child or a girl under the age of
14. My own personal opinion is that there
should be an exemption in the case of rape
abortion and incest abortion, independent of
any risk for physical or mental harm to the
mother involved. Some would have it that
the practice of abortion, under any circum-
stances, even when the life of the mother is
at stake, offends morality. Those who hold
that view are, of course, entitled to do so,
and they can regulate their conduct in
accordance with it It does not follow, how-
ever, that this view should be imposed upon
others, and that those who do not share it
should be forced to accept it, on pain of be-
ing branded as felons. To say this is not to
say that the criminal law does not have a
degree of moral content. It is only to say
that the case for labelling conduct as
criminal is not made merely by the assertion
that it is contrary to morals. Particularly
this is true where the morality of conduct
is the subject of sharp dispute. The existing
legal practice in such moral and civilized
countries as Sweden and Denmark and
Japan would indicate that there has been
no such drop in those countries of the moral
standard. Existing medical practices and
statistics show, in any event, that the present
law is not being followed anyway. I would
add my support to the resolution proposed
by the previous speaker.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on a most contentious
subject, so contentious from a moral,
religious and legal aspect that our party
decided in its wisdom not to impose its
collective opinion on any of its members but
to permit a free discussion and a free vote
on this resolution.
I should add that it came to this con-
clusion without going into the merits of the
resolution. I rise, therefore, not as a spokes-
man for the party but in my own capacity
and as an individual member. Because, how-
ever, I will undoubtedly be the principal— I
suppose in fact the only speaker for our
party— I feel I owe a duty to my colleagues
to endeavour to be as impartial as possible
and try to present the viewpoints of the
different members so far as I am aware of
them and am possessed of sufficient knowl-
edge so to do.
Although I will be endeavouring to speak
even for those who will not be rising, and
who may have views contrary to mine, I
should not be considered by this honourable
House as being the official spokesman for
our party.
Religious beliefs, Mr. Speaker, ingrained
during a lifetime of practice, are hard to
dispel or to sway. Life would be intolerable
if we did not have religious beliefs or if we
practised none of them. Religious beliefs and
morality are the catalyst that bind us together
and make us a society. In the eyes of ob-
servers, some of our religious beliefs may
hold no truth, in substance or in fact, and
our society permits us to endeavour to sway
people from their beliefs, or to alter those
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
beliefs. I will endeavour to do neither,
though some of the remarks I will make may
possibly be interpreted as such.
I would also stress that a law, which
only permits a course of action, does not
compel a person to follow that course. A
law, permitting therapeutic abortions, will not
compel a person to have an abortion. That
no one would countenance.
In debating this motion, Mr. Speaker, we
are, in fact, debating children, and all of us
recognize that a child is enrichment of life,
that a child brings out the best human quali-
ties — devotion, understanding, tenderness,
self-sacrifice— in our technical and impersonal
society. A family's happiness will certainly
"be increased if children are born at the most
suitable time as regards the parents' age,
health, financial resources. Unfortunately,
however, Mr. Speaker, all children are not
born at the most suitable time as regards the
age of the parents, their health and finances.
In fact, we are debating this resolution be-
cause many children are born with complete
disregard for those points that I have men-
tioned.
Marriage entered into because of preg-
nancy, without real love, offers little prospect
for happiness. The best guarantees for fam-
ily happiness are children wanted by both
parents, but particularly by the woman, who,
after all, bears the main burden of their
upbringing.
We are debating this resolution because
many children are born completely unwanted,
unloved and in many cases unexpected. These
children are unwanted, unloved and unex-
pected for a variety of reasons. The ad-
vanced age of the parents; the fact that there
is an existing large family; the loss of a
husband; the invalidity of a husband; the
disruption of a family; the woman being un-
married; the woman being in very poor men-
tal or physical health; the woman being the
main breadwinner in a family; inadequate
housing; low income; hereditary diseases; or
the pregnancy being the result of an unlawful
act.
Some of these reasons are medical, some
are moral and some are religious. They are,
however, reasons— good, bad or indifferent.
Here we must weigh the arguments to decide
what lead we, as representatives of the
people, shall give in this matter.
One religious group takes the position that,
when at a birth, complications arise, under
which either the mother, or the child, must
be sacrificed to save the other, the mother
should be sacrificed to save the child. Another
religious group takes the position that, in the
same set of circumstances, the child should
be sacrificed to save the mother; and a num-
ber of religions frown on, to put it mildly,
the use of contraceptives.
But how many women die each year as
the result of hole-in-the wall attempts to re-
lieve them of unborn children, which they
did not want, or for which they could not
provide a home? How many others ended
up in hospital, with bleeding or sepsis, after
an induced or criminal abortion? How many
others suffered from hormonal or psychic dis-
turbances following an illegal termination of
a pregnancy? How many cannot have chil-
dren when they have homes for them, and
want them, because of infertility arising out
of an unauthorized abortion? In how many
instances did both the mother and the un-
born child perish because we could not make
up our minds whether to save the mother or
the child?
Remember, Mr. Speaker, in legal abortions,
the chances are overwhelming that only one
life will be lost, whereas with illegal abor-
tions the chances are just as overwhelming
that both could be lost.
We must, therefore, I submit, protect the
woman from the consequences of abortions
performed illegally, often by unauthorized or
ill-equipped persons and under unhygienic
conditions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to the present I have
been discussing more or less the medical and
religious aspects. I should now like to dwell,
for a few moments, on the moral aspects.
The woman, and the family, are of para-
mount importance and status in our society.
Women, who enjoy political and economic
equality with men, must be equally free in
the vital question of parenthood.
There is no equality where a man can
freely desert a single girl who is pregnant by
him, while she is obliged to bring his child
into the world with no father and little finan-
cial security. There is no equality when a
man can come home the worse for drink, and
irresponsibly force on his wife an unwanted
child.
There is no equality when a man can, to
satisfy his lust, force himself on his wife and
thereby force an unwanted child on her.
There is no equality or humanity in compel-
ling a woman, who is worn out with the
feeding and caring for a houseful of children,
to add another mouth to feed and personality
to her daily routine.
There is no humanity in forcing a fright-
ened adolescent, who lost her head after a
864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
party with a boy of short acquaintance, to
take on the responsibility of motherhood be-
fore finishing her education or training.
There is no humanity or equality that
makes a 40- or 45-year-old woman, widowed
or divorced, take on a child which she admits
she cannot bring up alone, simply because
she once succumbed to the magic of the
evening with a man she cannot marry.
But let us not fool ourselves into believing
that abortions will become something that
women will enter into lightly or with gaiety.
The pull of maternal instinct, social and
financial pressures are, and will be, inexorable.
Emotionally, whether it be legal or illegal,
abortion is a shock mentally, a most humili-
ating and degrading course of action. We, as
mere men, will never know or appreciate the
fear, anxiety, self-scorn, and guilt that must
plague the mind of a woman contemplating
such an act, especially if the act is illegal.
It is fraught with the risk of complications
and of sterility, when done under the most
sanitary conditions, by a most competent
physician or surgeon, for the risk of sterility
following an abortion cannot be entirely
eliminated.
The most that can be said is that sterility
is caused much less frequently by a legal
abortion than by illegal or induced abortions.
It has been shown that an abortion can
endanger future pregnancies. When there has
been a previous abortion, the number of
premature births is three times as great. The
cases necessitating abortions to avoid com-
plications, and the number of stillbirths and
infant deaths are twice as frequent as in a
normal situation. Hormonal disorders occur in
one per cent of all women who have not
suffered them before abortion, most fre-
quently in adolescence.
Abortions to my mind, Mr. Speaker, are not
something, as I said, that women will enter
into lightly. It is, however, my opinion, that,
were abortions legal, there would be a better
chance for women to receive proper advice,
counselling and guidance, and therefore a
better chance that the woman would become
mentally attuned to having a child, with per-
haps even the financial situation remedied.
I am certain that some of my hon. col-
leagues, were they standing in my place,
could offer other reasons and perhaps other
solutions, but I will not try to speak for them
in the short time I have left. What I believe
we need to do is take the initiative in sex edu-
cation. Sex education is part of the prepara-
tion for life and therefore should begin before
adolescence. Although properly the duty and
responsibility of parents, this duty and re-
sponsibility is not being performed or exer-
cised by parents, or not being performed or
exercised adequately in many cases, for
various misguided reasons, ignorance or sheer
embarrassment.
Children, therefore, in school, should be
taught sociology of sex life, the dangers of
premature sex, die meaning of monogamy,
the growth of the human embryo, child care,
love as an expression of sexual life, the
dangers of abortion, contraception, family
responsibility, and family law. These subjects
should, however, be presented in such a
manner as to avoid the slightest suggestion
that sex is something special and apart.
I believe we should also have family plan-
ning clinics to guide and give instructions
to parents contemplating having children. It
is true that sex education and planning clinics
would not solve the problem surrounding
rape, incest, mental illness, hereditary
diseases, and so on, but at least they would be
a step forward.
There is no getting away from the fact,
as the hon. member for Scarborough West
pointed out, that of the approximately 35,000
miscarriages last year in the province of On-
tario, about one quarter of them were crimi-
nally induced. This is only an estimate based
on those that were brought to the attention
of the police. There is also no getting away
from the fact that the criminally induced
abortions are the third most lucrative crime
in the Criminal Code according to the
police.
I would, at this point, like to mention
one of the remarks made by the previous
speaker, where there was an implication that,
because of the lawful abortions in Japan,
the number of abortions had increased. I
submit that only the known number of
abortions had increased; all that happened
was that, where, previously, the abortions
would have been illegal and not known
to the authorities, they now came in to the
open. I suggest there is no evidence that the
number of abortions, both legal and illegal,
have increased.
There is no getting away from the fact
that this problem is of the most serious
magnitude. Perhaps it can be best illustrated
by drawing to your attention page 31 of
today's Toronto Telegram. The Toronto
Telegram recently won an award for having
the best front page and perhaps it is entitled
to another award for this page.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that one article
is headed "Happiness home may be saved,"
and deals with the Bell family and their ten
adopted children. This article denotes what
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
865
family life should be like— full of love, tender-
ness and affection.
Another article is headed, "She combed
continent to get a legal abortion," and tells
of a Metro woman who feared she would
die if she had another child, but was unable
to get a legal abortion in Ontario or the
United States.
Between these two articles is one headed,
"CAS budgets 'no Metro deals,' Cecile." This
article deals with the children's aid society
which— just as this article is between the
article dealing with people who love children
and want children and an article dealing
with those who do not want children— stands
between those in our society who do not
want children, who do not love children, or
do not know how to raise children, and those
who cannot have children, or who have no
children, but do want children.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to present argu-
ments for both sides. I do not know whether
I have succeeded or failed, but I do want to
go on record personally as supporting the
motion of the hon. member for Scarborough
West.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took re-
cess.
No. 30
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
/£■■
■
'
C, '.':
r; ;
.on ■,'■<:■
, ; ,
'
.
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, February 24> 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 24, 1966
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 869
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 899
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The 24th order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. W. G.
Noden in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
( continued )
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman,
you will remember that yesterday, in speak-
ing upon the annual report of the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man), I dwelt in detail upon some of the
modern and developing concepts of penal
administration in an effort to lay the ground-
work for some remarks I plan to make at this
time upon how they relate to the record of
The Department of Reform Institutions of
this province.
It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that
the very few excerpts from a great wealth
of thought in a similar vein that is available
in this field show, or at least illustrate, the
extreme discrepancy between what is being
done by Ontario's reform institutions and
what is being said about the real needs and
purpose of the penal system by distinguished
experts, not only in this country but through-
out the world.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up
very much of the time of this House today.
I have not the slightest doubt that some hon.
members of this House had difficulty in
appreciating the meaning and the impor-
tance of some of the excerpts I read yester-
day, and at such great length. But this is a
rich field of contemporary thought and I
was convinced that at least some attempt
should be made to give you an appreciation
of the range, the variety, and the stimula-
tion of this thought if I were to have any
success in my declared objective of dealing
with this subject in a logical and progressive
way. I cannot say what degree of success I
have had so far in contributing something,
to the awareness of some hon. members not
acquainted with this field, of the great
problems and enormous challenges facing
Thursday, February 24, 1966
this province, facing the world, in the crucial
field of penal reform.
To those who are of the opinion that I
dwelt too heavily yesterday on the con-
ceptual aspect of penal reform, I would say
only that an understanding of some of the
concepts in this field is an absolute pre-
requisite to an appreciation of their practical
aspects. Much of what I read to you earlier
was in the academic and sometimes veiled
language of the theoretician and occasionally
it was, to put it simply, pretty heavy going.
But I would remind you again that often
there is to be found, in what seems to be the
most abstruse and academic theorizing, the
hard nub of a brilliant practical ideal.
It is not my intention at this time to relate
every one of those comparatively few ex-
cerpts to some of the bleak facts of practices
of The Department of Reform Institutions of
this province.
That would take too long. And, besides,
the inference of nearly every one of these
learned statements must be abundantly clear
to almost anyone who is willing to take the
time and study to relate them to the real
state of things in Ontario's penal institutions
and in the department charged with admin-
istering them. I hope, nevertheless, to make
clear the unmistakable and direct application
bf every one of them to the remarks I plan
to make here today. And I would ask you
to consider them as the pervading theme of
these remarks.
Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to address to you a few remarks about
the attending press. Mr. Chairman, I be-
lieve it is rarely suitable or appropriate for
a public figure to attempt to instruct the
press, which in my experience does its job
on the whole in sometimes the most trying
circumstances in a thoroughly competent
and admirable way. But in passing, I would
merely like to suggest to the members of the
press who are present in this House, to those
who were at one time and so memorably
called the "strangers" and who are today an
indispensable part of our system of govern-
ment, that they not dwell upon the more
vivid aspects of what I have said to the
870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exclusion of the important things I am trying
to say.
Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is
that what is needed is some clear, consistent
and progressive thinking in this field; what is
needed is not a perpetuation of outmoded
systems and concepts— a continual building
upon the same creaking, 20-year-old struc-
ture; but an intelligently contained departure
into new fields of thought and action; into
new areas of experiment and design.
This requires courage, Mr. Chairman, but
the stakes are high. At stake is the reclama-
tion of vital human material— the many
thousands who inhabit our penal institutions
today; and, even more important, the count-
less thousands now being recruited in un-
happy homes; in bad company; in miserable
and sordid circumstances beyond my power
to describe— for that endless, long, bleak and
miserable procession who will enter them at
some future time.
Mr. Chairman, the answer— at least a part
of the answer— to this great problem, is not
the sort of answer that is being provided by
The Department of Reform Institutions of
this province today. Let me re-emphasize
my conviction, already expressed, that
virtually the only truly worthwhile work
being done by that department with human
material is in that important but limited
field in which it strives to improve the out-
look and character of the promising young.
Those others— and I am speaking for the
moment only of the young— who do not
readily show this promise, are for all prac-
tical purposes abandoned to the often per-
manently damaging severity of a system that
so often so demonstrably serves only to re-
inforce their miserable views of society and
life.
As for the greatest, the currently most
unyielding, challenge of our present system—
the rehabilitation of at least a satisfying
proportion of the great mass of men and
women who inhabit our reformatories and
our jails— that challenge is evaded by that
department, if not altogether ignored.
Mr. Chairman, it would be altogether
false to suggest that that department is lack-
ing in men of goodwill, who are dedicated
to the discharge of their most vital work and
duty to our society, and I want to make it
abundantly clear that I wish no remark of
mine to reflect adversely on the many loyal
public servants, who are bending the utmost
effort to meet the challenge of their role.
Mr. Chairman, while I am quite prepared
to do my duty by criticizing men when I feel
it is in the interests of society, my main, my
overriding criticism is of the present system.
Mr. Chairman, I am no visionary, but I
have been genuinely perplexed by the failure
of the department to act upon some of the
excellent advice it has received. I am seri-
ously disturbed by what I am obliged to refer
to as the lack of initiative shown by many of
the department's senior personnel, by the
lack of thrust from the top and, Mr. Chair-
man, I am at an utter loss to explain the lack
of a well-rounded, coherent and imaginative
approach in this province to the many prob-
lems in this field.
To those who have been unable or unwill-
ing to perceive it, Mr. Chairman, let me
emphasize that I am not speaking in any
narrow or partisan sense, but with all the
earnestness and conviction I feel. There is a
most pressing need for far more imaginative
and practical departures in this field, than the
present department has shown or given prom-
ise of showing. Let us not be in the position
of saying that when bigger jails are built,
Ontario will build them. Let us not accept
the easy fatalism of one of the admirable
advisers of the department, Professor Grygier,
who declares in his recent essay on crime in
society and I quote:
To study the criminal's social back-
ground or his psychological makeup is not
only irrelevant, but positively dangerous;
for if we accept that social or psychological
forces may be the basis of criminal be-
haviour, we undermine the concept of free
will and of criminal intent, and we may be
accused of undermining the moral fibre of
society as well.
Let us instead take the more perceptive and
questioning approach of another of the ad-
visers of the hon. Minister, Mr. Joseph Mc-
Culley, who in a paper entitled "Some present
problems in correction" endorses a view
taken by the late Sir Alexander Paterson, for
many years prison commissioner in the United
Kingdom. Mr. McCulley points out and I
quote:
We cannot rehabilitate a man until we
know what made him a criminal, and to
find out we must establish an institute for
research into the roots of criminality.
He suggested that when we know how to
rehabilitate men, we will not put them in
prison to do it, but that the ultimate aim—
and I quote— "should be abolition of prisons."
Mr. Chairman, I would be failing in my
duty to this House if I did not commence to
make at this point, concrete recommendations
—as a direct and practical expression of some
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
871
of the general statements I have made, with
a view to bringing about the correction of
some of the many deficiencies I have found
in the Ontario system.
But first, I would present to you a number
of recommendations made by Mr. McCulley
himself, one of the hon. Minister's advisers,
writing almost eight years ago. His remarks
are as applicable as though they were made
today and I subscribe to them in full. Here
is what Mr. McCulley recommended:
An improved parole and probation
system— more and better paid parole and
probation supervisors. The building of
numerous prison farms and camps.
He is speaking, remember, of the adult
offender, not the child.
The building of institutions properly
equipped and staffed for the treatment of
the criminally insane. Improvement of the
classification staffs in the institution.
I believe that I have given you some idea of
the present state of things in that regard—
and finally:
More competent psychiatric advice for
parole and classification boards.
I would add the observation that this is the
sort of service that can no longer be done as
it is being done in Ontario institutions on a
part-time basis. Mr. McCulley also recom-
mended:
Improvement in salary and status of
prison guards and all professional persons
in the prison service; improved educa-
tional and vocational programmes in the
prisons.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with Mr. Mc-
Culley's points, I referred earlier in my
address, in general or specific terms, to
nearly all of them. I shall recapitulate at
least three:
1. Competent psychiatric help is still
desperately needed in our institutions. Pro-
fessional services are grossly inadequate to
the need.
2. In our institutions, educational or voca-
tional programmes of demonstrable value
virtually do not exist.
You will remember my remarks about
Guelph and Millbrook in this particular
regard.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make
certain recommendations of my own.
The hon. Minister alluded in his remarks
yesterday to the importance of research in
an intelligent and intelligible developing pro-
gramme. With this I am in complete accord,'
but I do not share the hon. Minister's
apparently content view of what is being
done now in this regard. ; ■ • -
I believe the research staff and the re-
search facilities of The Department of
Reform Institutions are extremely inadequate
to the present needs.
Consequently, as my first recommendation,
I would strongly urge the government to
concentrate much more of its resources and
much more of its talents in a coherent study
of penal reform. The formation of a re-
search department is a sound first step. Now,
let us give it the financing and facilities and
the manpower that are demanded if the
government is going to respond adequately,
to the many grave needs.
Hand in hand with this programme is
point two: Let us establish a research
library of penology that can one day stand
as a model to the world, a library to which
any student can refer with complete assur-
ance that he will find in it the latest word—
every worthwhile relevant word— on this
subject, from the books and periodicals be-
ing published every day on this subject
throughout the world.
Let us have a research staff that is differ-
entially qualified and "specialized"— a staff
that is adequate in expertise and numbers to
do a superlative research job and keep The
Department of Reform Institutions fully
cognizant of the going work and study in
this field.
I am not referring to the existence of the
central criminal library at the University
of Toronto. I suggest that The Department
of Reform Institutions should have its own
library.
3. It will follow almost naturally from the
establishment of such a staff and such a
facility that interest in enlightened concepts
of penal reform will be stimulated and given
a focus and an impetus. It is not too much
to expect that such a facility, fully compu-
terized, if necessary, to collate relevant data
in an instant, would stir such an interest and
informed and informing debate in this prov-
ince, that all of the various public and
private agencies concerned with, and active
in reform— all the newspapers and periodicals
—in fact, all men of goodwill would have
an enhanced appreciation of the enormous
problems and challenges to society in this
field.
4. Let us never lose sight of the day-to-day
need to finance the new research staff suffi-
ciently to permit them— and they must be
872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
exceptional men—to travel widely whenever
advisable or necessary— in studying on the
spot the kind of work that is being done in
this field.
5. Let us encourage more interest in the
universities in the field of penal reform by
providing larger research grants and bur-
saries that will return to this province a
body of valuable and original work.
To this point, Mr. Chairman, I have dealt
entirely with the one theme on which the
hon. Minister and I are in complete agree-
ment, the enormous value of sound research.
6. Let us let a little more air in the penal
institutions of this province. Let us not be
so timid and dubious about the job they are
doing as to talk of restraining members
who wish to visit them unannounced. Let
us make them, all of them, institutions of
which we can be proud. I will go on record
that I went into the institution unannounced
and I was not impeded, Mr. Minister.
7. Let us, to use the usual word, up-rate
the quality of our penal staffs, at least to
begin with to a point at which we are not
forced to the shameful admission, tacit or
implicit, that the inmates of our penal
system are better educated than our cus-
todial staffs.
8. Let us be realistic enough to accept the
fact that a professional staff of the quality
we are seeking must be paid salaries com-
mensurate with their work. To take a single
instance, it is shortsighted in the extreme for
The Department of Reform Institutions to
balk at hiring competent psychiatrists on
a full-time basis because the government
would have to pay $45,000 a year or more
for them.
Mr. Chairman, all the things I have talked
about so far will cost this government
money. What this government must do be-
fore anything else is accept the fact that
money must be spent. It is virtually worthless
to perpetuate the present stagnant, not to
say retrograde, system in effect to-day in this
province by merely providing sufficient in-
creased funds annually to meet the few needs
this government is willing to concede.
9. Let us concentrate the greater part of
our efforts, not on those who Professor
Grygier called the good— you remember the
observation, I quoted it to you yesterday in
that regard— but on those who are in direst
need of help. Those, for example, at Mill-
brook, those who Mr. Hackl, the Deputy
Minister, once referred to as "parasites— who
demonstrate by their conduct that they will
not lead disciplined lives."
Let us not be soft-handed or silly or senti-
mental, but— I adjure the hon. members of
this House, Mr. Chairman— let us remember
that we are dealing with men, men who,
however despicable the lowest of them may
appear to us in our present state of under-
standing, may be shown, in some more ideal
and enlightened age, to be not merely the
victims of what Poe called so unforgettably
"the giants of circumstance," but the victims
of their society; a society that does not under-
stand them.
10. Let us, in Professor Grygier's phrase
which I quoted to you yesterday, "ensure
that the sentence fits the offender and not
the offence." Our present system is far too
undiscriminating in the treatment it now
provides. Undiscriminating treatment, Mr.
Chairman, is hit-and-miss treatment. The
possibility suggests that such treatment too
often will do far more damage than good.
Mr. Chairman, I made some of my views
apparent about some of the specifics of my
charges about Ontario's penal system in my
speech yesterday and hope I have made
others apparent today. I will leave many
that remain for the period of consideration
clause by clause of the hon. Minister's report.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to
engage in dialectical ruses or the tricks of
controversy with the hon. Minister in dealing
with this vital subject. I do not question the
hon. Minister's goodwill, and I am sure he
does not question mine. But I have been
struck by the stark contrast between the
admirable principles enunciated by the Hon.
George Drew in this House 20 years ago
when he was the premier of this province. I
have been disconcerted by the great gap
all too dreadfully apparent, the great gap
between what seems to be the vision of those
early years in this province and the all-too-
dreadfully apparent fatalism of today.
We must devise a better system than that
employing tear gas, the boot, the truncheon,
the softening-up, the isolation cell, the re-
stricted diet, the unnumbered cases of
psychological cruelty as practised in our in-
stitutions today. Let us give ourselves a
better chance with the men and women
and let us give them a better chance with us.
Mr. Chairman, there was a Hindu philoso-
pher, Gautama, who refused to believe the
world ceased to exist when no one had taken
the precaution to perceive it. The Department
of Reform Institutions of this province admin-
isters a system largely out of the public eye,
a system that does not usually touch the
public for this reason, the responsibility upon
this hon. Minister and his staff is appreciably
FEBRUARY 24, 1968
873
greater than the responsibility of most hon.
Ministers of this government, in discharging
what I earlier called some of the most vital
work of our time.
I believe we must concern ourselves more
than we have in the past with this system. I
believe we must employ some pragmatic
as well as theoretical tools in reaching
demonstrably sound results. It is no accident
that the prison population of this province
is steadily increasing. No accident that the
department has been required to build three
new jails. These are all links in one chain,
Mr. Chairman, or spokes in one great wheel.
If we are to snap this chain, to halt this
inexorable grinding wheel, we must be more
concerned with reforms and less concerned
with punishment. If this sounds too visionary
for some who consider themselves to have a
rigorous grasp of reality and a profound
knowledge of men, I would recall to you
one of the simplest, most moving and most
beautiful concepts from which we draw
some of our greatest strength— the concept of
the brotherhood of man.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
we have been listening first of all to the
report of the hon. Minister about what has
been happening over the past year and what
he hopes to do. Then we have been treated
again, to a philosophical treatise of what
ought to be done, and listening to the hon.
member for Bracondale, I was struck by the
many bits of wisdom there and by the many
excerpts which many of us have used from
time to time in this House. Repetition is
always good and in a subject like this, all of
us will repeat ourselves from time to time,
there is no question.
I do want to emphasize what the hon.
member for Bracondale had to say about the
report being put upon the desks of the hon.
members, or at least the leaders of the parties
at 12 o'clock just before the hon. Minister's
estimates were to come before this House.
It seems to me it is rather inexcusable for
that kind of thing to happen. There may
have been extenuating circumstances, but
for the Minister of a responsible depart-
ment to expect any proper dealing with his
estimates when he only places reports of
this nature before the members in limited
quantity, so soon before his estimates, is
rather unthinkable.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Not the
estimates.
Mr. Young: Well, I am sorry; his report
for the last term then. We have the esti-
mates—agreed. All right, we have them and
are able to look them over. We will have a
chance to compare them with other esti-
mates, perhaps at a later time, for the
benefit of the Whip.
Now I do want to say, before I use that
significant word "but" which is always used,
that I feel that this Minister has been
doing a pretty good job over the past year
or two in the department. As the House
knows, I am critical of him and of the work
of his department in many ways. At the
same time, I have a feeling that he has dug
into his department, that he knows what is
going on, at least in large measure, and that
he has worked hard to build this department
and to build its staff.
I was impressed, as I saw this report of
the hon. Minister, to see the picture of the
appointments during the past year. People
were appointed in August, 1965; June, 1965;
July, 1965; July, 1965; September, 1965;
November, 1965. And as I look at these
pictures, and read the biographies and the
histories of the people who were appointed
last year, I am very much encouraged as to
the future of this department. And the fact
that emerges in my mind is just how right
the hon. Minister was a year ago, when he
painted his rosy picture of the good situa-
tion, staff-wise, in his department. There
seems to be a big improvement here.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Good; but it is better now.
Mr. Young: I congratulate the hon. Minis-
ter. How it could be good when all these
department heads were appointed within
the last twelve months—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are new posi-
tions.
Mr. Young: New positions, fine. All right,
and we may have a word to say about that
later. But in any case we are delighted to
see this. We congratulate the people who
have taken these posts, these very respon-
sible posts; we wish them well, and we
assure them of our interest and our co-opera-
tion in the days to come. Now that does not
mean to say that we are not going to criticize.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Young: But we are going to offer
whatever co-operation we can to these
people and hope that the department will
continue to build, and that this hon. Minister
will continue to show the energy that he has
been showing over the past period of time.
S74
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I have
come to the "but"— the hon. Minister ex-
pected that, he would not have expected me
'to , speak without it. I have to throw a few
bits of constructive criticism in here and I
am sure the hon. Minister will take it in the
way I express it.
Having said that I am impressed with the
progress that he is making, I will say
perhaps that the hon. Minister has been just
a little too touchy in some respects. When
we do criticize occasionally, the hon. Min-
ister has been prone to go into a long tirade
in defence of his staff, as if we were
criticizing his staff as such. We are criticiz-
ing shortcomings in his staff but he does not
have to rush to the defence of staff and
throw up this kind of a smokescreen simply
because we criticize.
Last week I was extremely interested and
fascinated as a matter of fact, to hear the
hon. member for St. Andrew (Mr. Gross-
man) singing a great paeon of praise to the
Minister of Reform Institutions. It was a
touching scene and it was one wherein I
felt that the new hon. member for Bracon-
dale had really been elevated to very high
status in this House, when a Minister of the
Crown would spend that much time in talk-
ing about the kind of things he talked about.
Certainly perhaps the hon. member for
Bracondale needed to be answered, but at
that length by a Minister of the Crown, I
am not sure. I would just offer a little bit
of advice to the hon. Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, that this kind of criticism perhaps is
not entirely called for.
But the thing that intrigued me about the
statement of the hon. Minister was that he
showed us in chapter and verse the tremen-
dous progress that has been made by his
department over the past year, or year and
a half, or two years. As I say, I was tre-
mendously impressed by that progress, and
I do not take a bit of credit away from the
hon. Minister for his energy and for his
wisdom and the wisdom of his advisers in
this respect.
But the thing that intrigued me was the
fact that while the hon. Minister was telling
us about the great progress that had been
made by him in his department, he was also
telling us, chapter and verse, of the terrible
failure of his predecessor.
- Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not so.
Mr. Young: Oh, yes, and so it was not sur-
prising that part way through that recital
one of the former Ministers got up and
walked out, because he could not take it any
longer.
An hon. member: You cannot have it both
ways, now.
Mr. Young: You cannot have it both ways.
In other words, what the Minister was telling
us, Mr. Chairman, is that this department
was so far behind when he became the Min-
ister that he had to run like fury in order to
catch up and bring in all these reforms.
Again I say it is a credit to him. I also
have heard, Mr. Chairman, that the former
Minister was a good guy. I have heard
this. And he worked hard but without too
much success. Now why that was, I do not
know. But in any case the present Minister
said that about him the other night, because
he said all these things had to be done when
he became Minister.
And so it seemed to me that night the hon.
Minister was again demonstrating how far
behind this government had dropped in the
whole matter of reform institutions. How far
it had dropped back in correction. This again
is par for the course, that this government is
now running hard to catch up in reform
institutions as well as education and a lot of
other things. By the time it is up to where it
ought to be in 1966, this government, by the
time it is caught up, by the time this Min-
ister has disappeared from the scene either
one way or the other, then perhaps he will
be at that point where he should have been
in 1966.
Then you will find that you are still a
decade behind— pardon me, I am waving my
arms a little too strenuously for my partner
from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick)— but by that
time this government will find it is at the
place where it should have been in 1966.
Then it is going to be up to the new Minister
to get the new vision and new staff to carry
on from that point into the future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this hon. Minister has
been prone, I think, to paint just too rosy a
picture in the past and to tell us things he is
hoping to do and planning to do as if they
were done.
An hon. member: Done!
Mr. Young: Yes, he checked off the word,
too! In any case, I think the hon. Minister
could just have a little dose of humility here
and realize that he is talking to people who
are at least fairly mature. He is talking to a
staff that knows its business; he is talking to
institutions and people in institutions who
know the job at least as well as he knows it;
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
875
he is talking to a public who knows of the
failure of correction over the years gone by
and the long distance we have to go.
In other words, I say, Mr. Chairman, that
this Minister should be just a little more
realistic. He makes good speeches, but those
speeches are too often a cover-up of a situa-
tion that exists.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: We were given yesterday a
chart and that chart is a beautiful thing— all
coloured, I loved it. It looks good, and it is
a nice chart and I congratulate the Minister
upon production of this chart. All I hope is
that the new stream of offenders now moving
into his institutions are going to follow these
circles and lines in the proper way at the
proper time.
In other words, while this chart may have,
as the hon. Minister has said, attracted almost
worldwide interest, the fact is he just has
not yet the staff or the specialized institutions
to make this chart realistic. I agree with
this chart. I say it is a good thing the hon.
Minister drew it and drew it to our attention.
I say to the Minister he should present
it to us as a guideline, a plan for the future,
a hope that is there, glimmering before us,
and a pattern that these men and women
who have now come into the institutions to
do a fundamental job at the executive level,
can follow— a target, if you will, that they
must measure their achievement against.
Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize in
spite of all the beautiful words we have
heard, that in this country— the figures do not
apply specifically to Ontario but Ontario is
after all the largest province in this country
—that Canadians have eight times the chance
of serving time in some of the institutions of
the hon. Minister as citizens of Britain, Scan-
dinavia or Holland.
It is time we took a serious look at what
is wrong here. We are obviously blundering
our way into prisons which are too often
geared to punishment, into reform institu-
tions which just do not reform. We find the
offender too late— and this is the stress I want
to make tonight— after antisocial attitudes are
set, and we spend far too little in scientifically
and patiently restoring the social misfit to a
useful role in society.
When we as a province start to pick up
the child— and the hon. Minister realizes this
as well as anyone— who has emotional prob-
lems and antisocial tendencies, he is already
past the time when he can most easily be
restored to socially healthy behaviour. Then,
of course, if there is room, we crowd him
into Smiths Falls or Thistletown and we hope
for the best.
If the situation in these overcrowded in-
stitutions does not avail, then there is the next
step and this is where the hon. Minister gets
them— into one of the training schools. Some
good and some not so good. Finally into the
reform institutions which all too often are
undertaking a hopeless task on young people
already well steeped in a life outside the
bounds of orderly society and without the
motivation to get back within those bounds.
And so, Mr. Chairman, the fundamental
problem we face is an interdepartmental re-
organization of our correction processes. The
hon. member for Bracondale yesterday made
the statement that The Department of Reform
Institutions should disappear. Now, last year
we gave the hon. Minister the solution how
not only the department could disappear but
he could disappear.
Mr. K. E. Butler (Waterloo North): On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): The hon. mem-
ber is not even in his seat, what is he raising
a fuss about?
Mr. Butler: I would just ask this question:
Did the hon. member say that the odds were
eight times as great that someone in this
country would wind up in a reform institu-
tion?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Young: That is a long piece back.
We did point out last year that with redistri-
bution, of course, the hon. Minister himself
could disappear and it may be the hon. mem-
ber for Bracondale is setting his sights
on that achievement, too, I do not know.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member may
disappear without redistribution.
Mr. Young: It could well be, who knows?
In any case, the matter of a total reorganiza-
tion of our approach to correction is one
which not only this hon. Minister but the
Cabinet and this government has to face up
to. Social machinery is needed which can
move in to assist the child at an early age,
as early as possible. This means supervision
and corrective schools for the under 6-year-
olds when needed. It means specialized treat-
ment for the very young, who are showing
tendencies toward emotional disturbance and
876
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
antisocial behaviour. It also means carrying
this process through with adequate treatment
facilities and staff for the younger children
of elementary school age.
If this were done, it would logically
reduce the need for training schools as we
know them today, as well as cut down on
the facilities for reform institutions which,
of course, should be small and specialized.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister in his
report yesterday said this:
In concluding this section, I would
emphasize to all hon. members that when
the youngsters originally arrive in our train-
ing schools, they are usually immature,
hostile, insecure or badly frightened boys
and girls. They believe that the world is
frightfully hostile since this is what their
experience has taught them.
Now, the hon. Minister, I think, should take
his confreres out back of the woodshed and
talk to them the way that small children
sometimes are talked to in early days. At
least he should sit around that conference
table and point out to them that he should
not have to deal with these young people
after their emotional patterns are set, that
more emphasis should be placed upon the
very small children who need that kind of
treatment long before they come into the
Minister's care.
This is the kind of reorganization which
is needed and which this government now
ought to undertake. The hon. Minister has a
group of specialists now in his own depart-
ment. We hope that that is going to bring
great results there, but why in the name of
common sense should we ask these specialists
to have to face up to a task which never
should be theirs, a task which should begin
long before? We should bring to the Minister
only the rather impossible cases so that his
results perhaps then should be even less than
we expect him to get today, because he only
gets the hard core cases.
Now, if the hon. Minister would really
talk turkey to his Cabinet brothers in this
field, it seems to me we would be making
progress.
I have in my riding a school, Powell
Brown school: the hon. Minister attended the
opening of that school a couple of years ago.
This school is dealing in a very limited way
with emotionally disturbed children, children
who may have brain injuries, who are
neurotic, who are schizophrenic, who have
behaviour disorders, who are just emotionally
upset, and who in their homes have emerged
as real problems.
Now this school is just underway, but it
takes the children at a very young age, the
pre-schoolers by the large. I want to read
just two cases here, one of Janice:
Janice was admitted to the school in Febru-
ary, 1965. She was a timid little girl who
looked as if she was released from a cage.
She was so withdrawn, shy, nervous, that
when she had a drink during snack time, she
bit out a piece of the cup.
She had no speech for three months. In
May she started to speak. She had come from
a very unfortunate home background. She
used only single words, "Things," "boy,"
"lady." Now she is speaking coherently, she
is very relaxed, plays well with the other
children, has been promoted to kindergarten
work.
Her behaviour, when she was admitted,
appeared autistic, and the psychologist de-
clared that she has a neurotic response to
hostility. She is making real progress and the
hope is that that little girl will be restored
to become a sane, normal child.
Now if it were not for this kind of work
beginning early she would be a ward of the
Minister before too many years pass.
Another case is Joseph, who was referred
from the children's aid society. He was very
disturbed, hostile, aggressive, subversive, and
his only security was in food. During play
therapy sessions he would grab the plastic
knife and stab the other children even with-
out provocation. In two months, he was
changed. A very pronounced improvement
has taken place. If there is no regression
he will be ready for normal nursery school
in September.
In speaking of this school, Dr. John Rich,
who is the consulting psychiatrist says this,
and I think these words are very significant:
I think the Powell Brown nursery school
is doing a surprisingly good job. Some of
the children there are particularly difficult
problems, that would tax the ingenuity and
devotion of any treatment centre. But
nevertheless every one that I have
watched over the last few months has
improved.
Given the nature of their difficulties, of
course, some of these improvements are
minimal but this is in no way the fault of
the school. I have seen several schools
like this begin and what surprised me most
about this one is the fact that it has got
off the ground so quickly. It usually takes
much longer than this for the staff and
programme to become sufficiently con-
solidated for the results to show up in
the children themselves.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
877
Nevertheless, the school is still handi-
capped by changing staff and a certain
lack of equipment, but I do not see how
this can be easily rectified. When it is, I
would expect even greater advances. In
short, I can wholeheartedly support the
continuation and expansion of this school.
The need is desperate and your board can
congratulate itself on performing a vital
public service in an extremely difficult
field.
Yours sincerely,
John Rich, MD, PhD.
I know that there is work being done among
children in pre-school years. But, Mr. Chair-
man, we are not systematically going after
this era of child life. We have not yet faced
up to this kind of responsibility and it is
time we did. I know that the children's aid
society is doing a good job in certain fields.
There are schools like the Powell Brown
nursery school picking up the bits and pieces
of the fragments of society, but this is not
in any way systematic, it is not being done
as a matter of public policy and by putting
public moneys into this field. And I say to
this House that in the long run society would
save itself large amounts of not only capital
investment but of current expenses if we
invested it in a place where the investment
would count most. My submission is in this
field of correction, the great investment
ought to come right there among the very,
very young.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I go on
to say that institutions without adequate
staff are useless. The hon. Minister huffs and
puffs his way across the province talking
about the great changes he is making in the
reform setup. Fine! But he admits to a
desperate shortage of staff, particularly at
the specialists' level. He knows this and has
taken some moves to correct it but even
then, that staff is desperately short. He told
us the other day that they had no full-time
psychiatrists and then he tells us that he is
making virtue out of necessity and indicates
.that he is doing the best he can under the
circumstances. He says:
We propose to use our psychiatrists
primarily as consultants with the aim of
enriching a total interaction between staff
and inmates, rather than using their serv-
ices directly with a small proportion of
the total inmate population.
Apart from considerations of necessity,
this department of professional staff is
more particularly suited to the type of in-
mate in our institutions. On the whole, we
find more of the impulse-ridden character-
disorder than we do the neurotic or
psychotic person. With these people, it is
found that a combination of environmental
and psychological treatment offers a
promising approach.
Now these are brave words for the hon.
Minister to utter and under the circum-
stances, perhaps they are the only words that
he can offer to us but it seems to me that
something more is needed. We must have an
admission from the hon. Minister that the
long-term goal is to build the kind of staff
needed— psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
workers, so that small institutions can be
adequately manned and so that those smaller
institutions can have the kind of personal
supervision and help for the inmates there.
So, if the hon. Minister does not need to
fcover up this way, he can tell us that over
the next five or ten years he hopes to have
so many people trained, so many changes
made in his institutions.
I know that he has to deal with the
Cabinet, and there is capital money in-
vested here, but at least he should do what
he has done on the pretty charts and lay
out that five- or ten-year programme— last
year I suggested a ten-year programme; it
would be a nine-year programme now, I
suppose— but lay it out on a chart and say
to his Cabinet colleagues, "This is what
should be done; you have lots of specialists
now to give you advice. This is what should
be done this year; and the next year, this;
and the next year, this; if we are going to
achieve the goal. It will cost so much money
and we want this much to achieve these
ends."
If the hon. Minister would lay this before
the Cabinet and before this House, and make
it a matter of public discussion among his
advisers and his staff, I think it would have
a very salutary influence.
The hon. Minister has told us in his report
—this is in the report for the year ending
1965-that:
The department is encouraging gradu-
ate and post-graduate students in psychi-
atry, psychology and social work to join
the department after graduation. This
encouragement comes in the form of
fellowships for students and close work-
ing relationships with universities and it
is expected to ease the shortage in- the
years to come.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that many extremely
able custodial staff members and other staff
members can be recruited from among the
878
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
general public— because I think it is funda-
mental that an attitude is important here—
and there are people with skills other than
those conveyed by university degrees or
university knowledge. Many people can be
recruited who have an outgoing and sym-
pathetic point of view, people who can
communicate with these young people who
need help and assistance. At the same time,
if the hon. Minister is really going to solve
this long-term problem of staff, he should
be looking right now in our high schools and
in our universities; in these places he should
be stepping up his recruitment drive.
The hon. member for Bracondale has
already stressed this tonight. If the hon. Min-
ister is going to find the psychiatrists, psy-
chologists and social workers so necessary to
a corrections programme, these people must
ultimately be found in the post-secondary
system. Because of this, the hon. Minister
should now be undertaking a strong pro-
motional campaign within the high schools
and the universities to persuade good students
to enter the corrections field as a life work.
The hon. Minister mentioned this, but the
very fact that he has not told us anything
of the scope of the bursaries being offered,
or anything of the scope of response being
elicited on the part of the university students,
my suspicion, again, is that the programme
so far has not been successful enough. He can
not put it out in bald terms and say, "this and
this and this has been accomplished." So, I
think that if we are going to face up to the
problem, it means first of all more financial
aid to the universities to strengthen those
departments' training personnel in the cor-
rections field. The hon. Minister has made a
start here, but the start is not adequate.
Then, of course, there is the stepping up of
a bursary programme, which has already
been mentioned tonight, in conjunction with
an intensified recruitment drive. Here again,
perhaps more inducement should be offered.
I understand, from what the hon. Minister
said last year, that he is already offering that
full tuition may well be paid, provided that
the student will, in return, serve a certain
number of years in the reform field. This,
perhaps, could be expanded.
Then, of course, there could be an expanded
in-service training to give present staff ample
opportunity to become fully qualified pro-
fessionals in this field. Again I was struck by
one of the statements in one of the reports of
the hon. Minister, that it is planned to have
this kind of in-service training and that a
manual is to be prepared.
I have in my hands here— for the informa-
tion of the hon. Minister, and he no doubt
has a copy of it, too— a manual which is being
used and has been used for many years in
the province of Saskatchewan. The date is
March 24, 1960, and this manual has been
used very successfully in that province. There
are manuals of this type available and surely
it does not take this long to get proper
manuals and a proper standard set for in-
service training— to allow the people, who are
now in service, the time they need to build
up the knowledge and the training that they
ought to have.
Certainly, it would pay this province to
release some of these people a year at a
time. Because they have had some experi-
ence, they are building on experience. It
would pay to release them a year at a time to
take further training at the university, or
at other levels.
There is one other problem that I think
the hon. Minister must face in his total
reorganization programme. In speaking to
specialists in this field, one of the problems
is this: Psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
workers do not like to be isolated. Perhaps
this is one of the reasons why the offices
of some of these people in Millbrook and
other institutions lie empty, except on the
half days when people come in from outside
to do the job. People in these fields like to
be in a group where they can consult with
each other, and I think this is something that
the hon. Minister ought to think about
seriously when he is revamping his institu-
tions.
As he rebuilds Guelph and Mercer, and
these other places where smaller institutions
and smaller groups are going to emerge,
perhaps larger groupings are needed so that
specialists can be used to the full. And, too,
these specialists can come together easily
and quickly for consultation, for the kind of
intellectual stimulation they need, and for
the kind of social life they like with each
other.
So it may be that we should think, not in
terms of spreading out these institutions
as we have in the past, wherever some hon.
member may want an institution in his own
riding, but that these should be more cen-
tralized, near the larger centres of popula-
tion, where specialists could be grouped
together and where those specialists could
then be utilized to their full ability. I think
this is very important, Mr. Chairman, and
I am sure the hon. Minister is aware of this;
and I stress it for his edification again tonight.
The other feature I want to bring to the
attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, is that
of rehabilitation. I am not going to spend too
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
879
long on this tonight, because it will be com-
ing up again in the estimates— and perhaps
that is the time to really discuss it more in
detail. But the estimates that were presented
to us show that about three per cent of the
budget is devoted to rehabilitation. This is in
the parole service, and the grants to John
Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and others.
I know that more rehabilitation work is
being carried on than this, by voluntary
agencies. But as far as the expenditures of
this government are concerned, it looks to
me, and I stand to be corrected if the hon.
Minister has other figures, that about three
per cent of the total budget is being spent
on rehabilitation. This is just not good
enough, even if the figure was several times
this. As a matter of fact, it again underlines
the fact that in this department, emphasis
is still on punishment rather than the restora-
tion of the offender to a self-respecting place
in society.
Last year I asked certain questions about
the rehabilitation staff attached to this depart-
ment and, as usual, I got the answer just
in the dying days of the session. Some
changes have taken place since a year ago,
and I hope those changes are for the better.
But on the basis of the figures given then,
and these are the only ones I can operate on
at the present time, an extremely unfortunate
and inexcusable situation exists.
This is not the fault of the staff— lest the
hon. Minister tries to throw up another smoke
screen and say we are blaming the staff and
he is coming to the defence of the staff—
I stress that. It is made up of dedicated and
hard-working people, for the most part; but
too many are being asked to undertake tasks
and workloads far beyond what they should
be facing. Of the 52 active parole officers
listed last year, only one is a university
graduate, and 44 have an academic achieve-
ment of grade 12 or less. It is encouraging
to note that most officers are now upgrading
their qualifications by specialized courses,
although the department at that time did not
offer an in-service training course and, I
understand, still does not.
The caseload carried by the staff is far
too high. They average 45, at least ten more
than it ought to be. In many cases it goes
up well over 50; and in two cases, 75 and 96
—an impossible situation, no matter how good
the officers concerned may be. Thirty-two
of the 52 have caseloads of 40 or more. This
is too high for effective work.
There is absolutely no evidence that the
department is setting higher standards for
new recruits for the rehabilitation stiff. per_
haps the hon. Minister can tell us if this is
wrong. Recent additions have grade 12 stand-
ing, except in the one case of a B.A. What
are needed then, in the rehabilitation service,
are four main things:
1. Increased salaries, so that higher stand-
ards can be demanded, and I know the prob-
lem here of civil service negotiations and all
this. But we did overcome this in this case
of the teachers last year; and certainly the
civil service, I am certain, is willing to nego-
tiate higher standards for many of these
people.
2. A rapidly stepped up training programme
for present staff, so that they can qualify
for higher pay scale. As I said before, this
may mean leave of absence with pay for
university training or specialized work, for
longer periods than now obtains.
3. The immediate setting of higher stand-
ards of admission to the service, with a
university degree or its equivalent as a basic
requirement.
Adding sufficient staff to reduce caseloads
to proper proportions.
With this done, Mr. Chairman, there is
still the whole problem of placing the
emphasis upon rehabilitation, the problem
of halfway houses, the problem of adequate
treatment within the institutions. I have a
case of which the hon. Minister is aware—
I do not want to use names, so I will change
some of the details so that no one is recog-
nized. But last year, a case came to my
attention of a young man, married with a
family, who had an abnormal sexual drive
and who one night assaulted a young lady.
He did not complete the assault, because he
came to his senses when the girl started to
scream. He went home, and he told his
wife what had happened.
In the meantime the girl had laid a com-
plaint with the police and a week later he
gave himself up, because of his guilt feelings,
and asked that he be given treatment. He
had already, as a matter of fact, arranged
for private treatment for his abnormal sex
drive. Here are a few excerpts I would like
to read to the House from his solicitor:
Mr. X was convicted on a charge of
indecent assault after he had given him-
self up and asked for treatment. He was
convicted, was sentenced to a year in jail.
He spent several weeks at the Don jail
in Toronto and was subsequently trans-
ferred to Guelph. Mrs. X was on relief
along with the children and, of course,
having a very difficult time. Two jobs, as
a matter of fact, were available for Mr. X
when he came out of Guelph or if he
could get parole. . ■.*
880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And the solicitor goes on to say:
I found Mr. X a very sensitive man, and
he feels that he would be susceptible to
treatment and that he is very much in
need of the same. Upon talking to his
wife, I find that he has received no psychi-
atric treatment whatever to date in
Guelph. I think it is important to note
that the particular offence was not accom-
panied by any physical violence whatso-
ever and, on the contrary, when the
accused realized what he was doing he
immediately went home and, to his credit,
told his wife.
He also gave himself up voluntarily to
the police after approximately one week,
as a result of his guilt feelings. In addi-
tion, he appears to have sufficient insight
to appreciate that he needs treatment and
is willing to take treatment. Appointments
had been made at the forensic clinic and
the family had arranged to pay for private
treatments until such time as this appoint-
ment had been obtained.
Now the unfortunate part of it was that, be-
fore the treatments were available to him,
he was sentenced and the treatments were
not given. The doctor, the director of
psychiatric services, Dr. Hughes, says this:
The logical way to control his behaviour
is not by punishing him as much as by
trying to treat him and remove the
excessive drive from which he suffers.
There are techniques presently available
for this kind of operation, which have at
least some chance of success.
These could be carried out either at
the forensic clinic or at the Toronto
psychiatric hospital, or could be arranged
to be set up on a private basis. It would
seem to me, at the moment, reasonable to
offer such evidence in court, and to
attempt to persuade the court perhaps to
deal with the patient by placing him on
probation, with his acceptance of some
treatment to try to change his behaviour
as a condition of that probation.
The only difficulty about the forensic
clinic is that there is a relatively large
demand for their services and it may be
that the waiting list for outpatient care
would be rather long.
Now I am not blaming the hon. Minister for
this. The matter of sentencing is not his
prerogative. But I think the whole matter
of sentencing has to be reviewed, in the
light of cases like this.
This man was paroled, and is receiving
treatment. It just seems that the whole
gambit, from the very young to the top limit
of age as far as that is concerned, of people
who need treatment, ought to be looked at
carefully. Emphasis not on punishment; I
think the emphasis of this department is
away from that now, as far as possible. The
emphasis must be upon the kind of treat-
ment the offender needs to restore him to
society, because all too often his condition is
a result of mistreatment within the society in
which he found himself.
So this kind of rehabilitation is the thing
which the hon. Minister is interested in,
which his staff is interested in, and this is
why it seems to me there has to be some
unity along the whole line of corrections,
and a change of emphasis. But that change
of emphasis just cannot come in the present
institutions as we find them except in some
that are now developing.
I would hope in Hagersville and Ingleside,
institutions like this, that there is real hope
and that this kind of pattern will emerge
and that this Minister will resolve that
within a given number of years. I would
hope that soon institutions, such as we have
known in the past and which still are there,
with hundreds of men or women in them,
will be rebuilt and that the old concepts will
go with them so that the emphasis of the
future will be on the need of the human
being.
I wish the hon. Minister well in his
endeavour. I hope he will level with this
House and that he will find real success in
the couple of years that he has left in this
post.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before we proceed
with the vote I would like to make some
comments on some questions which were
raised by the hon. members. In the first
place I might deal with some statements
made by the hon. member for Bracondale
yesterday. I will only deal with those which
I could make out as being the specific
matters which he had raised yesterday. It
was a rather long speech and, as the hon.
member knows, the transcripts are not yet
available; Hansard is not yet available, so
we could not go into it in detail.
There are a number of things which trou-
ble me and I think it would be important
to get them on the record. I would like first
to deal, right at the outset, with the charges
he made about the use of tear gas in Mill-
brook reformatory. I want to do this be-
cause, of all the points, Mr. Chairman,
brought up by the hon. member for Bracon-
dale yesterday, this is the one which con-
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
881
cerns me the most; because hon. members
of this House listening to the account as
presented by the hon. member would get
a completely wrong impression and certainly
must have been disturbed by the charge. I
would like to get the record straight right
now.
This was a completely exaggerated, albeit
colourful and moving, account, based on
something which happened, but in no way
giving any indication of exactly what hap-
ened.
The hon. member has stated that there
was no riot, although parenthetically I might
remind the hon. members that he asked a
question before the orders one day in which
he asked something about what happened as
a result of that riot. Yesterday he said there
was no riot; he found no evidence.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): On a point of order. I sat here for
that. The hon. Minister misrepresented what
took place. He tried to get the hon. member
for Bracondale to say that there was a
riot, and I think myself that he is still trying
to give that implication. As far as I was
concerned in listening, it was the hon. Min-
ister who wanted to get a suggestion that
there was a riot, and I want that in Hansard.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
think the hon. leader of the Opposition
might have been just a little more cautious,
because it is right in the record that the ques-
tion was asked "as a result of a riot," words
of that nature; but he did use the term
"the riot," and I was trying to elicit from
him at that time whether in fact he felt that
there was a riot. I did not get an answer.
So I was quite correct, Mr. Chairman; he did
ask that. Yesterday he said there was no
riot. I said there was no riot. And the
reason for that was the action taken by the
staff prevented a riot.
If I may quote from the hon. member,
he said, and I quote him:
Simply because the custodial staff felt
that they were going to lose control.
"Simply because"— now, Mr. Chairman, that
is a very important phrase— "Simply be-
cause."
Really, this is not a simple matter at all.
In an institution of hardened offenders, surely
the hon. member must appreciate what losing
control can mean? Action taken by the
staff over a period of five days caused annoy-
ance and discomfort to 28 inmates. What
untold injury and suffering they prevented
will never be known, because had there
been a riot obviously things would have been
much more terrible.
The institution is a maximum security insti-
tution, the only maximum security institution
we have in our system. It is built with many
precautions, some of which are only necessary
on rare occasions but are designed to reduce
the effect of mob violence.
There have been, in the past, riots in many
penal institutions across the world and in
Canada which invariably do untold physical
damage to inmates and staff alike, and often
enough result in death. The situation in
Millbrook, thanks and thanks only to the
action of the staff, was prevented from de-
veloping into uncontrollable violence.
Following the fires there were growing
disturbances in the institution. The super-
intended reported, and I quote:
To prevent the possibility of the situation
worsening, the officers were equipped with
gas billies and the inmates cautioned that
further disturbers would be subdued with
this gas.
The use of tear gas is never a pleasant oper-
ation but it is a relatively humane and effec-
tive way of quelling a disturbance.
I have already quoted in this House, I
think, in the past, the American correctional
association training guide which states, and I
quote:
The use of riot control gases is the
most effective way of achieving temporary
incapacitation of a riotous group with the
least permanent injury. It is much more
satisfactory than the use of direct force
in subduing a rioting prisoner. The use
of force can, of course, result in injury to
both prisoners and staff members who are
trying to subdue them.
Tear gas was used in small enough quanti-
ties to limit its effect to individual cells on
the following dates: July 6, 12 inmates;
July 7, two inmates; July 8, two inmates;
July 9, five inmates; and July 10, seven in-
mates.
I would like to make two points about
this, Mr. Chairman.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give the hon.
member an opportunity, if he lets me finish
this point.
Mr. Ben: This is apropos to what the hon.
Minister is now reading.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, I will quote
it again to the hon. member if he likes.
882
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to make two points about
this, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member gave
the impression that there was widespread,
indiscriminate, unnecessary use of the gas.
This is totally incorrect. This was the first
occasion that the present superintendent ever
ordered the use of tear gas and he did this
only because in his opinion it is a most neces-
sary precaution when the circumstances war-
rant it.
The second point is that the situation most
definitely did warrant it. The hon. member's
statement that it was used while men were
sleeping, innocently asking for lights and
so on, is completely ridiculous. It would
have been impossible for any inmate to sleep
through the noise that was being created
which caused the use of the tear gas.
It was never administered to anyone who
was not creating a disturbance. It was never
given to anyone except after a warning.
Every person to whom the tear gas was
administered was warned most definitely that
unless he ceased his unruly conduct gas
would be administered to him. The tear gas
was used only to quieten those inmates who
were shouting abuse, banging doors, damag-
ing property, and indulging in similar un-
controlled behaviour which could incite
others to a riot. I should add, Mr. Chairman,
this is generally the beginning of riots in
penal institutions; this is the way they be-
gin. And I would like to get that clear.
If the hon. member has a question.
Mr. Chairman: Do you want to ask a
question of the Minister?
Mr. Ben: Of the hon. Minister, yes. In
reading, Mr. Minister, you read as follows:
Tear gas was used in the recent dis-
turbance in small enough quantities to
limit its effect to individual cells-
Is that not so?
Mr. Chairman, is it not also so that in a
report made by Mr. James Marsland, the
superintendent, the words were: "riot gas
was used in the recent disturbances"?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
have said that here too—
Mr. Ben: The hon. Minister used the
words "tear gas," with all due respect.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I quoted, Mr. Chair-
man, from the American correctional associa-
tion—they call it "riot gas," but it is, in
effect, tear gas. There are other nauseous
gases which could be used and which are
much more uncomfortable than tear gas.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the
hon. Minister once more: Was not the word
used in the report of Mr. Marsland the word
"riot," rather than "tear," in the phrase
which was read to this honourable House?
And I quote the hon. Minister's phrase again:
Tear gas was used in the recent dis-
turbances in small enough quantities to
limit its effects to individual cells.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that the re-
port made by his superintendent to him said:
Riot gas was used in the recent distur-
bances in small enough quantities to limit
its effects to individual cells.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, if it
will make the hon. member happy, I will
tell him that this tear gas is a riot gas.
Mr. Bryden: That is not the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then what is the
question?
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister misread
the report.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not misread the
report at all. I was quoting from the Ameri-
can correctional association training guide.
Mr. Bryden: You were quoting from a
report—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that
one can make a point of anything here, Mr.
Chairman. It is riot gas and it is tear gas.
Mr. Ben: May I direct another question
to the hon. Minister, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: If he wants to accept it.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, was there not a
paragraph subsequent to the one describing
the quantities of gas used— or rather the dates
the gas was used and the inmates on whom
it was used? This paragraph from the report
of the superintendent, and I quote:
The situation was at all times well under
control and a great deal of credit is due
to the staff for the way they conducted
themselves. Staff morale was high through-
out and voluntary co-operation beyond
the normal hours of work was exemplary.
Was that contained in the report of Mr.
Marsland?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What report is the
hon. member talking about? The one dated
July 15?
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
883
Mr. Ben: I cannot swear as to the date,
Mr. Chairman, I am not the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have a report before
me; perhaps this might have better waited
until we went into the votes when my
specialists were here, but the one I have
here is a report from Mr. Marsland dated
July 15: "Attached are dated lists showing
the names of the inmates who were subdued
with tear gas."
Not that it really makes any difference, but
to be exact in the terminology, he has used
"tear gas" here. Perhaps the hon. member
might ask that when the vote comes and
maybe there is another report with which, at
the moment, I am not familiar.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about
the educational levels of the staff. This con-
cerns me a great deal, too. The hon. member
was advised that the average formal educa-
tional level of the correctional officers at
Guelph and Millbrook was 9^ grades of
schooling and then he was quick to make, as
he called it, his "humble submission" that
the inmates have a higher educational level
than the people who are there to correct.
I do not know where he got that informa-
tion.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): You
agreed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I did not say
that at all. I said that they were smarter than
the hon. member and myself in many in-
stances, and I will still say that.
I might add that these statements are
reported in the press this morning. Again, I
do not want the hon. member to feel that I
am lecturing him or anybody else, because
I have used this kind of an argument before
and I am most sincere in this particular
area— in this particular field you have to be
careful of the nature of your criticism. This
has already caused disruption in two of our
other institutions.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, no! We are sick of that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the truth-
Mr. Bryden: That is always your shelter
from criticism.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is the truth be-
cause they read in the papers, "Inmates Top
Staff in Education, Ben says"— it states here.
They listen to the radio, they read the news-
papers, and the inmates begin needling the
staff and make life very difficult.
Mr. Bryden: They are even more sensitive
than the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course they are
sensitive.
Now let us find out about the average
educational level. This morning I had a
survey made of 8,260 inmates who have come
into our institutions during this fiscal year,
up to the last weekend. The survey shows
that the grade they stated they had com-
pleted was as follows: "Grade 6 or less— 1,416,
grade 7-"
There is no use going into all the grades.
I will tell the hon. member that the average
education of the inmates comes out of just
over grade 8, and when this is the level-
Mr. Ben: May I ask a question of the hon.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me finish this,
please.
Mr. Chairman: I think that what we had
better do is to inform the member of the
procedure of the House. What has been the
procedure of this House when in committee
is to have the Minister speak and to allow
two spokesmen— from each of the other two
parties— and then allow the Minister to an-
swer questions before proceeding with the
vote.
Any question or any discussions the mem-
ber has I suggest he holds for the individual
vote.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is the level
claimed by the inmates— I say this advisedly,
because very often we find that their claims
are a little exaggerated when we check their
actual school records for particular purposes,
so it is probably even lower than this.
Simply aside from these facts, the hon.
member's submission is anything but humble
as he suggested. Really, it does bespeak some
contempt for honest, law-abiding citizens who
have not had the opportunity to have the
same kind of an education. There is an im-
plication here, because these people have a
grade 9 or grade 10 education, they are not
capable of doing this job.
I do not feel that there is any relationship
between school achievement and a sense of
responsibility to one's fellow man, or to one's
job. I believe that a correctional officer with
9Yz years of formal education can, through
his honesty and personal maturity, set a
good example for an anti-social youth placed
in his care.
The hon. member may wish to challenge
me in this regard and perhaps I am biased
because of my own limited formal educa-
tion, yet I must speak out for these people
884
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who are subjected to unfavourable comparison
with the inmates of Millbrook and Guelph
reformatories by a member who seems to
feel that education is an attribute to be
rated higher than maturity, honesty and
hard work and the attempt to do a difficult
job under trying circumstances.
However, everything else being equal, we
would, of course, certainly hire individuals
with higher educational standards. But let
us get this clear, Mr. Chairman. How far
should we go? Should we have university
graduates as correctional officers? This would
be highly desirable in some ways, but in
other ways it would be undesirable even if
attainable. The socio-economic gap between
staff directly associated with inmates and
the inmates themselves might be too great
in some instances for optimum communica-
tion. I think this is a self-evident statement.
Secondly, it is somewhat impractical.
Should we insist on a minimum of grade 12?
This would be 2% grades higher than the
existing average. What is there, however, in
the content of grades 10, 11 and 12, which
will enable an individual to form a better
relationship with inmates with a view to
modifying their attitudes in desirable direc-
tions?
Certainly, by and large, individuals who
have completed grade 12 have probably
indicated a higher level of initiative than
individuals who dropped out in a lower
grade, but so many other variables are im-
portant here that it is extremely difficult to
generalize.
Does formal educational level indicate
intelligence? Certainly if one measures the
intelligence of a representative group of
grade 12 graduates, and a representative
group of grade 9 graduates, the mean for
grade 12 will be higher. However, intel-
ligence tests are much better measures of
this in individual cases, and I think that is
self-evident. These, we use. People with
higher grade levels are, on the average, more
trainable and are better able to write a re-
port. However, there is so much overlap
here that one has to look at the individual
case rather than consider groups.
We are interested in obtaining the type of
person with some sensibility for other people,
with some understanding of other people,
and the ability to maintain a reasonable
level of objectivity. The only way to assess
this effectively is by on-the-job observation of
behaviour. An example of the danger of
generalizing in this area I think I mentioned
the other day— I think I used this in reference
to playing hockey on the basis of scoring
statistics— the Chicago Black Hawks are prob-
ably a better team than the New York
Rangers. However, some New York players
can play hockey better than some players for
Chicago, and I think that is self-evident, too.
Another point worth considering: even if
all the things the hon. member said are de-
sirable, are in fact desirable and we should
do something right away, would he suggest
we fire all staff members today whose formal
education was no higher than grade nine?
Mr. Bryden: No one said that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I mean, we are
doing whatever we can to upgrade the
training of those we have in our employ-
ment today. What shall we do? Fire all
those people who have been there for years
for no other reason than that they have not
got a higher academic education?
Further, Mr. Chairman, I resent the impli-
cation by the hon. member that the term
"correctional officer" is euphemistic. He made
some jokes about this the other night; he
kept saying "custodial officer, pardon me, I
mean correctional officer." I think this is
not worthy-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I do not think
this is worthy of the hon. member. The
reason for changing this name from custodial
officer in the first place was to emphasize to
the man himself the rehabilitative nature of
his job. This is part and parcel of the staff
training.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A rose by
any other name would smell as sweet.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well now, that is
ridiculous. If the hon. member knew anything
about the work and the problems you always
have in changing staff attitudes, he would
appreciate that this sort of thing is im-
portant.
Now I do not know, Mr. Chairman— the
hon. member has made some point about the
fact that I always use this argument about
the effect it has on tensions, creating tensions
in other institutions. This is a particular type
of work. It is not quite the same as work in
other departments. You have penal institu-
tions in which any kind of action can be
triggered off into a riot at any moment, at
any moment— and it does happen.
As a matter of fact, this is what is happen-
ing in some of the institutions today as a
result of all the publicity about Millbrook
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
885
and the suggestions now that the inmates
have a better educational standard than the
staff, because they get needled by the in-
mates who are always trying to prove that
they are somewhat better than the staff at
the institution.
An hon. member: Are you sure you have
got the best?
Mr. Bryden: I should think they are
mature enough to put up with it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, they are, but
a human being can stand only so much and
it is very difficult for them.
Mr. Charman: I might ask the member to
direct the question through the chair, please.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am very pleased
the hon. member also raised some questions
about the training, and I told the hon. mem-
ber yesterday that what he was reading was
in fact only the introductory training, and I
think he said that if I could point out to him
that this was only a small aspect of their
training he would apologize.
I have here quite a lengthy list of the
complete training. I will not trouble the
House with it at this time; if they would like
it, when we get to the staff training in the
estimates, I will be glad to read it to them,
but the introductory training which the hon.
member referred to the other day is only a
very small proportion of the training under-
taken by our staff.
I think some of the other items which I
was going to raise, Mr. Chairman, would be
just as well raised in the votes themselves
so far as the hon. member is concerned.
He did quote quite extensively from Mr.
Kirkpatrick of the John Howard society in
respect of giving inmates more responsibility,
and the main point concerning the quota-
tions which he read from Mr. Kirkpatrick
was the need for self-responsibility by in-
mates as training for them after release, and
we agree with this.
We do make very determined efforts to
increase responsibility wherever possible.
We obviously cannot give every man com-
plete freedom of choice but all men have
some area of personal responsibility.
Take the inmates in the Hillsdale forestry
camp where the only man on duty at night
is the night watchman. He has complete
responsibility and he responds to this respon-
sibility. I have been out there and I have
talked to the inmates and I would at this
time point out to the hon. member that
having met and talked with them I would not
describe them as he did the other day, the
dross of society and the common criminal. I
would never mention it.
Mr. Ben: I was quoting the Deputy Min-
ister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will go into that.
The hon. member was not quoting the
Deputy Minister— this was the same thing
that happened last year, Mr. Chairman-
somebody quoted the Deputy Minister who
was quoting Justice McRuer. Justice McRuer
made that statement.
Mr. Ben: It was quoted in the handbook
of the hon. Minister for last year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the Deputy Min-
ister's report to the Minister contained in
the annual report he quoted this as a state-
ment made by Justice McRuer. He talked
about the problems after release.
Mr. Chairman, the statements he made
about the problems of the releasee after he
gets out in society, are familiar to us. I
have mentioned this on numerous occasions.
We are very much concerned with them. We
do everything possible to help them. I have
on a number of occasions discussed this
problem in the House.
We have completely reorganized our re-
habilitation and after-care services. We
have increased our grants to the social
agencies, working in the after-care field. I
think the hon. member for Yorkview has
mentioned this, too. In fact, there is an
extremely strong programme at the moment.
I think the hon. member will appreciate this
when I say we gave assistance to 6,597 in-
mates. We contacted 1,930 employers and
made arrangements for employment in 1,712
cases. We arranged board and lodging for
1,144, provided clothing for 1,158 and pro-
vided other types of assistance to 2,507 in-
mates.
Now insofar as the amount of money
expended, I have this further on in some com-
ments made by the hon. member for York-
view, insofar as the percentage of the budget
that we spent on rehabilitation, this really
does not bear any relationship to the prob-
lem that we have.
As a matter of fact, in many instances the
money set aside to help buy clothing and
tools and things of that nature, the cash we
give to some of the inmates when they are
released, is not even always used up, for the
simple reason that you cannot give everyone
who comes out of the institution this help.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Many of them refuse it, they want to have
nothing to do with the people who have
kept them in an institution. Others, because
of their record, it is known, the minute you
give them $20 or $30 or $40 or $50, or buy
them new clothing, even sometimes, will go
out and hock the clothing to get some money
or use the cash for alcohol and they are back
in trouble again.
And I will say this flatly, without any hesi-
tation at all, no inmate goes out of our insti-
tutions who is properly motivated and is
prepared to accept our assistance, who does
not get every possible assistance that is
available. Money is no object, money is no
object.
Mr. Young: My point is your kind of insti-
tution cannot motivate them!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, we will get to
that later. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will not
go into some of the others. They will prob-
ably develop in the vote.
As far as the hon. member for Yorkview is
concerned, I want to thank him for the com-
pliments he has given me. I want to say
that this is the first time really, since this
started, that I have heard someone get down
to real cases where we can have a good,
intelligent debate on philosophy and the
manner of carrying out our programme, when
it appears to have gaps.
We may differ in some of our opinions,
but at least there was an intelligent discussion
and I appreciate it very much, particularly
the compliments.
Now I just want to point this out. Of
course, it is very obvious in a Legislature
that if a Minister gets up and points
out the advances, the progress that his de-
partment is making, there is only one an-
swer that the Opposition can give: "Well
it is about time," or, make the suggestion
that the hon. member has made, that this
implies criticism of my predecessors.
It does not imply criticism of my predeces-
sors at all. My predecessors made progress
in their day. And I am making, I hope, pro-
gress in mine. There is no criticism of them
at all and I am sure they did not take it that
way.
There was also a suggestion, and I think
with a certain amount of truth, that I have
not shown too much humility in this job of
mine. I agree with the hon. member, that
I might show more humility in this job. I will
be quite frank with the hon. members of
this House. I am not showing any humility
and for a very good reason. For too long
The Department of Reform Institutions has
been taking a shellacking from everyone in
this province who felt they needed a head-
line and I decided it was going to stop, so
long as I could help it. They have been do-
ing a good job. We have had thousands of
staff, year in and year out, being given
public abuse where it was not deserved.
They have, I think all hon. members will
agree, one of the most difficult jobs in this
province. The hon. member for Yorkview
admitted this in many instances. It is most
difficult. They are getting the most difficult
types in society to handle. And why should
not somebody start telling the story of this
department and the hard work that the
staff is doing, and why should we not tell
people-
Mr. Thompson: Did your predecessors tell
that story?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did they tell the
story? I presume they did.
Mr. Bryden: Why then were you implying
that they did not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I guess my predeces-
sors had more humility than I have. Let
us put it that way. I just decided, as I say,
that the department was hiding its light
under a bushel. Now the hon. members have
themselves said; "Open up your doors, let
us see what is going on." Well, this is what
I am trying to do. How do you do that,
unless you go out on the circuit and tell
people what you are doing and advertise
what you are doing, even though there are
many hazards attached to it? And this is what
I have been attempting to do.
Now the hon. member has pointed out
that we should not have to deal with those,
I think he said, who have already reached
age six and are in difficulty; they should
have been dealt with by other means. As I
say, I am glad that he appreciates the diffi-
culties we have with many of these young-
sters.
Mr. Young: Will you tell your Cabinet—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, let me say this.
He suggested I talk to my colleagues. We
have already set up two interdepartmental
committees to deal with this problem. We
have been meeting regularly this year. We
have already, in our department, set up
meetings with magistrates and judges. Our
staff is meeting with them regularly. We
attend their meetings and we discuss the
matter of sentencing, and so on, in an in-
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
887
formal way with the magistrates, only in an
effort to point out to them, to give them
an understanding of the kind of institutions
we have, so that when they sentence some-
body they will know in fact what kind of an
institution they are sentencing them to, and
some of the other problems involved.
We are having informal discussions with
them, I should say at their invitation, but
we have arranged it now on an organized
basis.
We have arranged for magistrates and
judges on an organized basis to visit our
institutions, so they will understand exactly
what happens to these people.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Will the hon.
Minister accept a question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: What is the question?
Mr. Sargent: This question is that this
hon. Minister has been telling us what a
great job he is doing in this department and
we have been talking about a reform pro-
gramme for county jails across the province,
and here we are three years later still
getting promises, but no action yet.
Mr. Chairman: What is the question?
Mr. Sargent: The county jails.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
question is: are there any new county jails?
Mr. Sargent: But this is getting pretty
ridiculous, so what are you doing about it,
have you stopped talking about it?
Mr. Chairman: I have to suggest to the
member for Grey North, we will deal with
any question he may have in the vote.
On vote 1901:
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I did not interrupt
the hon. Minister after he completed his
short address, I understood I would be
entitled to ask him a question.
Mr. Chairman: Is the question something
that cannot be asked in the vote?
Mr. Ben: Well, it arose out of his speech.
Mr. Chairman: I think under the circum-
stances I would prefer you to ask it in the
vote.
Mr. Ben: I have a number of questions,
the hon. Minister promised I could ask
later, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. S. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: State your point of order,
please.
Mr. S. Lewis: On a point of order,
although I know it is probably inadvertent,
perhaps the Chairman could indicate the
estimate procedure in the various areas so
that the members of the House are
acquainted with the way it is followed. Per-
haps you could just take a moment to
explain the procedure.
Mr. Chairman: Each member of the
House has a copy of the estimates and they
are in front of him. Each item is listed
there for the members.
Mr. Thompson: Following this point of
order, I understand that the hon. member
for Bracondale is asking a question under
1901, under the general estimates-
Mr. Chairman: Under 1901? Yes, I am
prepared now to hear the member for
Bracondale on vote 1901.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
direct a number of questions regarding in-
stitutions to the hon. Minister.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the general
estimates do not cover-
Mr. Ben: Oh no, the general estimates I
believe would cover institutions.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think in the
interests of the rest of the members, the
questions on institutions should come under
1903.
Mr. Chairman: I would suggest to the
member for Bracondale that if his questions
deal with institutions, they will come under
vote No. 1903.
Mr. Sargent: A question on 1901, Mr.
Chairman. We have 35 county jails in this
province and the answer we always get is that
this programme is underway. I would like
to ask the hon. Minister: what capital pro-
gramme has he set up in county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
really I guess I have not had the lack of
humility I attributed to myself, because I
have spoken so much on the regional deten-
tion plan I thought every hon. member really
was acquainted with its progress.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant) If you called them
jails, the hon. members would understand.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): You do not really believe that.
888
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: About a year and a
half ago, I should say this —
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: If you want to expedite the
work of the House—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, about
a year and a half ago I announced in King-
ston that this government was prepared to
assist financially groups of counties who
would get together to provide one combined
detention centre. At that time— I am giving
you the whole story— at that time I had not
had a firm commitment as to how much that
would be. I was feeling the question out as
it were.
We got some interest from the counties.
I then got from my government, my col-
leagues, the agreement that we would pro-
vide 50 per cent of the cost of construction
to any group of counties to replace their local
county jails with regional detention. We have
been very successful with this, because in this
period of time, we have already two agree-
ments completely signed, representing seven
counties, and their seven jails being replaced
by two regional detention centres. Let me
finish, please.
Mr. Sargent: I am with you, but will you
answer a question on this point?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey North
should let the Minister finish the question. If
you have other questions the Minister will
answer them of course.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And another agree-
ment has been announced between Hamilton
and Wentworth, an agreement which will be
formally signed shortly.
There are presently going on, discussions
with numerous other groups of counties. Now
I think this is a fair amount of success.
Obviously when you sign an agreement you
do not open up a regional detention centre
the next day. The hon. member, being a very
astute businessman, knows you have to draw
up plans, you have to have your architects
draw up detailed plans, you decide on a site
and then you send out for tenders. This
takes a considerable period of time.
So I think we can say we have really got
some real action in respect of this programme,
which is, we believe, the first of its kind in
North America.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, this is a tough
department to handle. We will acknowledge
that, but the thing is your policy is com-
pletely wrong insofar as the solving of this
very important part of penology in this prov-
ince because we have 35 glaring abscesses
on our society here and the hon. Minister
knows this. If every hon. member in the 35
areas would spend a weekend in one of those
jails, we would change our policy entirely.
And I would suggest the hon. Minister should
spend a weekend in one of those jails, just
to actually see the situation. The point is
that you say you are going to share 50 per
cent of the cost and I suggest that that is the
reason why you are not getting any success
with the programme.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are having suc-
Mr. Sargent: That is not success, two
agreements in three years. There are no
buildings up. At this point, the hon. Minis-
ter is just talking. The reason, Mr. Chairman,
that you cannot get any co-operation from
the counties and cities involved is because of
your financing and this is not just because of
real estate, it is the cost of jails, county jails.
It is the full responsibility of this govern-
ment to look after this entirely and until you
change your policy you will never eradicate
35 of these jails. So I think you must take
some steps towards changing your policy, it
is completely wrong.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, last week the
hon. Minister gave us a list of the people
who are on the planning committee for
regional detention centres and in his report
for 1965 he has pictures of these people and
it is a panel which is impressive. Again, I
call to the attention of the hon. Minister the
problem that he faces, a problem which has
been discussed time after time in this House,
that he is—
Mr. Chairman: We are on No. 5, the ad-
visory committee.
Mr. Young: I am dealing with the advisory
committee. Time after time in this House
it has been pointed out that each department
seems to be going off on its own and not
relating to the other departments.
We are facing a situation in Ontario where
regional municipal governments are be-
ginning to emerge. If we are to have genuine
regional governments, these must take over
the work relating to jails, education, health
and all the other facets of municipal govern-
ments.
But I would have thought, Mr. Chairman,
that when the hon. Minister set up his com-
mittee that he would have included on this
committee a representative from The Depart-
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
merit of Municipal Affairs so that that de-
partment would have a voice in saying where
these regional detention centres are going
to be. Because there is no question that if
three or four counties at this point decide to
get together, those may not be the logical
counties which may come together in a
regional government at a later time.
Now we do know that regional govern-
ments must be centred around perhaps some
of the bigger cities and bigger centres in the
province, and certainly the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner) must have
some ideas in this regard. The regional jail
or detention centre, call it what you will,
should be built in relationship to what seems
to be a logical emerging regional municipal
unit.
So I would like to ask the hon. Minister if
be has given any thought to an additional
member on this committee, a member who
would represent the thinking of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs. It seems to me
essential and very important that this be
done.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
in the first place there are no agreements
signed which are not signed with the con-
sideration and advice of The Department of
Municipal Affairs. Although I must tell the
Tion. member also, Mr. Chairman, that really
if we were going to wait in The Department
of Reform Institutions for any other kinds
■of plans which are in existence, discussion
about perhaps an advance system of proba-
tion and bail and all this sort of thing, we
would never get anything done. We just go
ahead and do our job.
Secondly, the groupings which are
approved now by the department are such
that they would be viable any other way. I
mean, you have to concern yourself with
distances travelled by lawyers and this sort
of thing and visits by families. All of these
things are taken into consideration by the
planning committee in deciding on a viable
group, so really even outside of the matter
of regional governments, these would be the
natural groupings for this sort of a pro-
gramme.
Mr. Young: So you are determining in fact
the regional boundaries.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are determining
the regional boundaries for this work, for
regional detention centres.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I think both
the hon. member for Grey North and the
hon. member for Yorkview opened up a most
important field here.
Dealing first with the remarks of the hon.
member for Yorkview, which I think are
most pertinent: The hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Davis) has his ideas of regions for
educational purposes, the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
has his ideas of regions for economic pur-
poses, the hon. Minister of Highways has
his ideas for regions for his purposes, and
we can run through about ten colleagues of
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions and
each one has a different idea of what regions
are for their own particular purpose.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
on a point of order; the whole matter of
regional organization of this province should
not come up under the estimates of the
Minister of Reform Institutions. I think it
is completely out of order, Mr. Chairman,
and I think you should so rule. Reference to
The Department of Highways on the esti-
mates of the Minister of Reform Institutions
in terms of the broad area of regionalization
of course is completely out of order, and I
suggest you rule it so.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, this hon. Minister is talking about The
Department of Highways, we are not inter-
ested in highways yet.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I have heard the
point of order by the Minister and I rule
the member for Downsview in order.
Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
must protest your ruling. Just briefly, if I
may-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order, can you, Mr. Chairman, vouchsafe to
me the extent to which the regionalization
of jails has anything to do with The Depart-
ment of Highways as proposed by the hon.
member for Downsview? Can you tell me
that that is in order, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. I think the member
for Downsview has been pointing out that
there are different regions through different
departments and he was correlating them
altogether.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
if I may, in pursuance to my point of order-
Interjections by hon. members.
890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, if
I may?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Are you asking
me to resume my seat, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: I have made my ruling and
I would ask the Minister to resume his seat,
please.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, obviously
we need more reform institutions.
Mr. Chairman: Sit down, please. The mem-
ber for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I was say-
ing, I would like to know from the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions the basis on
which he determines the regions for these
agreements that he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, on
a point of order-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would like
the member for Downsview—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Will the Minister state his
point of order?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I still submit to
you, sir, and to the hon. members of this
House that what is being proposed by the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions in terms
of certain regional concepts has no relation-
ship to any reference to The Department of
Highways. That, Mr. Chairman, is my point
of order.
Mr. Chairman: I am suggesting to the
Minister of Highways that the member
for Downsview is making a comparison
and I have ruled him in order and I have
asked him to be relevant.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if I was not
constantly interrupted by points of order, that
is exactly the point I am trying to make. My
last question was directed to the hon. Min-
ister of Reform Institutions. I say how can the
hon. Minister, without taking into considera-
tion the regional considerations of all of his
colleagues, including the hon. Minister of
Highways, determine regions by himself?
I say how can he do that, and I would like
to know what mental processes go through
the decision-making in his department in
determining these regions?
Does he meet with his other colleagues,
does he meet with the Ministers of highways,
economics, education, municipal affairs and
all these other people in determining these
regions? Now, that is point No. 1.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
thought I made my point clear. We do discuss
it with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
I think I forgot, or I might have mentioned
that we discussed this with the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development. We do not
discuss it, as far as I can recall, with other
hon. Ministers.
I tried to make the point at least anyway
that there was nothing in the regional deten-
tion centre plans which would mitigate against
regional governments because you have to
take into consideration other considerations
such as the proximity to highways and,
if possible, proximity to areas from which
you can draw treatment staff, and so on.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the point I am
trying to make is, I can understand the con-
siderations the hon. Minister does take into
mind, but he is omitting the very important
consideration because of the peculiarities of
his plan, of the finances and economics of the
local area.
He is calling on each of these regions that
he determines, or his department determines
—I use the "he" collectively— for contribution
of 50 per cent of the cost of the particular
institution.
What advice does he have that this is an
economic possibility? What advice does he
have that his various groupings are going to
be able to levy the sort of taxes that are
going to pay for the 50 per cent of the cost?
What advice, what reports, does get from
the hon. Minister of Economics? What assess-
ment reports? What taxation revenues? What
debt statements does he get from the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affars?
The point, I think, is crystal clear and I
have not yet heard the answer. Perhaps the
hon. Minister has a better answer than the
one he gave us. What economic analysis does
he do before he gets to these regional de-
cisions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have been very
successful in talking to the counties. They
consider their own financial position, they
discuss this with us, and I say to the hon.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
891
member that generally they are very happy
with the 50 per cent contribution and—
Mr. Sargent: Oh, that is not true.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —and the arrangements
we have made with them.
Mr. Chairman: The member-
Mr. Singer: No, I am not through yet.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister said that
he has two such agreements that involve
seven counties, involve, as I understand it,
the placement of seven institutions. How
many institutions are there all told, is it—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thirty-five.
Mr. Singer: Thirty-five. And the hon. Min-
ister has only emerged with two signed
agreements. What is the total of the provin-
cial contribution for those agreements, and
when is that going to be made?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As soon as the plans
are made and the budgets drawn up for
their particular institution. Because each
grouping requires a different size, depending
upon the traffic, if I might use that expression,
in that area and the accommodation you have
to provide for minimum security, the kind
of work the minimum security inmates will
do— for instance if it is near a forestry area
and that sort of thing.
We have drawn up estimates for each one
of these groups and it is on these estimates
that they base their decisions. And as I say
to the hon. member, it has been very suc-
cessful, it is progressing much more rapidly
than we had hoped. I presume by the end
of this year we will probably have two or
three more agreements at least involving two,
three or four groups of three or four counties.
Now, I think we have as humbly as I can
suggest a pretty good grouping.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
figure which the hon. Minister has in his
estimates for county and city jails is the mag-
nificent total of $520,000. Now, I would
imagine that these two agreements would
contemplate buildings, what, in the vicinity
of a million dollars? How much would each
one of these buildings be?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member has that confused. The figure
he is talking about is our maintenance grants,
which have been in existence, are still in
existence, 10 per cent.
Mr. Singer: Where do I find the figure?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no figure.
Mr. Singer: There is no figure?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we do not need
any figure. There is no figure for it. Just
assume as an agreement is signed, the tenders
are put out, the money is required, then the
money will come from The Department of
Public Works for this purpose.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, if there
is no figure in here and there are two agree-
ments signed, surely the hon. Minister should
be able to stand here and tell us that a cer-
tain amount of government money is set
aside for this purpose. Now, how much is
it? Are you setting aside $100,000, half a
million dollars, $10 million, for this pro-
gamme that the hon. Minister tells us is so
successful?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Neither of the two
groups which has already signed agreements
—and it was just a short while ago, if the
hon. member has the report in front of him,
he will find it was only a very short while
ago that these two agreements were signed—
they are not ready yet for a definite figure
on what the cost is going to be. Because an
architect has to draw a plan and then bring
in an estimate of what the specific costs are
going to be or a pretty close estimate as
to what the cost is going to be. It does not
make any difference; whatever is approved
by the government we will pay 50 per cent
of the cost of construction. And the money
will be there, coming from The Department
of Public Works.
I can presume that there will not be any
required between now and the end of the
year for that purpose. Obviously, when we
have just had two agreements signed. It takes
some time for this as the hon. member knows.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. Minister has confirmed my concern
about this. A year ago he stood up and said,
"Don't ask me about these things because
you are going to rock the boat, you might
disturb some of our agreements." That was
for the year 1965-66.
Now we have the estimates for the year
1966-67, which will take us up to March 31
of 1967. There was not a penny spent a
year ago, there is not a penny going to be
spent this year and the hon. Minister is un-
able to point to a penny that he set aside in
these estimates to build any of these county
or regional jails that he is telling us he has
been so successful about.
892
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this
whole plan really does not mean anything,
because if the hon. Minister was sincere in
his approach and if his approach really meant
anything he would be able to point with great
pride to the fact that the government had set
aside "X" dollars for these purposes. He can-
not do that.
Now, if he is going to suggest that after a
while, when the architects have drawn their
plans and when the tenders come in, then the
government is going to allocate moneys, then
he is doing another thing that we take very
serious objection to. He is spending money
without the authority of this House.
Surely this is the time, Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. Minister contemplates spending any
money for these purposes that he should be
able to tell us. It should be in his estimates,
and he should get the approval of the House
to do that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, surely
the hon. member is not questioning my
sincerity when he said if I were sincere.
An hon. member: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because I do not think
any member's sincerity should be ques-
tioned. However, surely the hon. member
does not suggest, too, that we have signed
agreements with the counties and promise
them 50 per cent of the cost of construction
and then when the time comes we will not
give it to them? Surely he would not suggest
that.
Incidentally, on page 111 in The Depart-
ment of Public Works, he will find: "Vote
No. 3, to provide for grants towards the cost
of construction of new jail accommodation as
may be directed by the Lieutenant-Governor
in council, $250,000."
Mr. Singer: All right, Mr. Chairman. I
thank the hon. Minister and I gather the
hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Connell)
is rising to point that figure out as well.
$250,000 for two apparently large and ex-
pensive institutions.
Is the hon. Minister trying to tell us, is this
what he means now, that these two jails that
are going to replace seven, are going to be
built for a cost of no more than $500,000?
Is that what the hon. Minister is trying to
tell us?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am telling the
hon. member that you put a token figure in
the estimates because you do not know what
the costs are going to be and the chances are
we may not even have to spend that $250,000
this year. I think he would agree that the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan) should
not be putting in, say, five or six or seven or
ten million dollars in the estimates when
there is little likelihood of it being used in
this particular-
Mr. Singer: Ah, that is what I wanted. If
there is little likelihood, that is fine. Now the
hon. Minister had made his admission.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a fact that build-
ing these institutions takes time and when-
ever the money is needed it will be there.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, then to
summarize: The hon. Minister has now
admitted there is little likelihood of these
buildings being built in the fiscal year end-
ng on March 31, 1967? Am I correct on that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a great pos-
sibility that they will not be advanced to the
extent they will be needing government
money at that stage.
Mr. Sargent: That is four or five years-
Mr. Singer: All right. That is fine. So we
have lost last year, because it was not nice
to talk about these things—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We did not lose last
year.
Mr. Singer: Oh no, the hon. Minister was
warning us. He warned us.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were out selling
the programme to the counties-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view has the floor.
Mr. Singer: There is nothing being built
this year and there is very little likelihood
that there is any one of them going to be
built next year, unless you are not going to
do it in accordance with the estimates you
bring before us, unless you are going to do
it by order-in-council, or by Lieutenant-
Governor's warrant and you are trying to
conceal the figures from the House.
This is the point, Mr. Chairman. If this
programme means anything, then I would
hope that the hon. Minister would say: "This
is my programme, that we are not going to
spend any money until the end of the fiscal
year 1967." It must mean, it obviously means,
that there is not even going to be a brick
erected in either one of those institutions
until the end of that year. So the hon. Min-
ister is dragging a red herring across the trail.
He tells us what a great hero he is.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are dragging the
red herring.
Mr. Singer: He has got a new system that
is unique in North America and we are
making great progress. But there is not even
going to be a building, a brick, a wall, a
window or even a cell built as a result of this
great plan for another year and a half, or two
years. That is point number one.
Now point number two that I wanted to
make is this, Mr. Chairman: The hon. Min-
ister was patting himself on the back in his
humble manner, and saying that this plan
that we have— this great plan that we have
just been talking about— is the greatest in
North America. I wonder if he has bothered
to read what is being done in New Bruns-
wick, for instance? That is part of North
America. New Brunswick has taken over the
whole cost of the administration of justice;
the whole cost of erecting jails.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): A very for-
ward government.
Mr. Singer: Yes. And I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that there are many, many juris-
dictions where there has been an acceptance
by the provincial or state government of the
responsibility for erecting jails. I suggest to
you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister
again should have a look at the Stewart
committee report. It was made in 1954 and
it sat on the shelves and gathered dust for
all those years; but one of the most important
recommendations in that committee report—
and it was a good strong committee and
several hon. members of this House, several
of the hon. Minister's colleagues in the
Cabinet were on the committee— was that the
government take over the whole cost of
erecting jails. I am suggesting, Mr. Chair-
man, that these jails are really not going to
be built— notwithstanding the speeches we
have heard, notwithstanding all of the great
path-blazing that we are doing in North
America— unless and until the government
of the province of Ontario is prepared to
finance them.
The burden on municipalities is such—
whether they are counties, or cities or any-
thing else— that they just cannot afford, at
this stage, to put in 50 per cent of the cost
of these buildings. These are not going to
be cheap buildings. They are not going to
be $100,000 buildings. I would contemplate
that they will run into many millions of
dollars. The municipalities just cannot afford
it. I would think that the hon. Minister
recognizes this because there is nothing
really in his estimates that commits him to
any planned programme of expenditure.
The third point I want to make is this: Can
the hon. Minister tell us what, if anything,
is going to be done for the municipality of
Metropoliton Toronto in connection with
improving and rehabilitating the Don jail?
I have not heard him mention that at all.
Is that under your maintenance grants, or is
that in the estimates of the hon. Minister of
Public Works? Are you going to do any-
thing about the Don jail up to March 31,
1967?
Mr. Chairman: Does this come in vote
1901?
Mr. Singer: Yes, county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in the
first place, talking about New Brunswick and
taking something out of context from the
New Brunswick scheme is a fruitless sort of
discussion. They have taken over everything.
They have not just taken over jails. They
have taken over everything.
Mr. Singer: Well, what is wrong with
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if your party
wants to get up and suggest that we take
over the municipalities and everything else,
go ahead and do it, but there is no use
taking out of context; it is rather ridiculous.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Give the Minister the floor,
please.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As far as the muni-
cipalities being in a position to do this; ap-
parently they feel they are, because they have
signed some of these agreements and they
are prepared to do it, and others are discuss-
ing it at the present time. As a matter of
fact, there are two counties who have built
their own jails within the last seven or eight
years. Now the suggestion that we are go-
ing out and telling them to pay 50 per cent
of the cost is putting a completely reverse
picture on it. We are telling them that we
are going to help them, so they will not
have to pay 100 per cent of the cost, as in
this case of building seven jails. We pro-
vided an economical way of building two
instead of seven, and will even then share
half the cost. And we are having success.
There are 35 counties in the province and
we have already looked after nine. Seven
already signed the agreement—
894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: You have not looked after a
thing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. If the hon.
member will find some way of first building
buildings and giving the money, and then
signing the agreements, perhaps we will get
it done a little faster.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracon-
dale.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, in order that I
will not be accused of getting out of order,
I would draw your attention that under item
1901 there is a little item marked "Minister—
RSO 1960, chapter 127, section 3, $12,000,"
which I believe should give me a pretty
wide field.
Mr. Chairman, before I put a number of
questions to the hon. Minister, I have to
have a short preamble to all these questions
so he will know what I am leading up to.
Mr. Chairman, last year when these esti-
mates were up, the hon. Minister made
certain statements which I find rather in-
consistent with an answer he gave to my
friend, the hon. member for Yorkview. The
statement made by the hon. Minister, I
believe, was that the department or the
Minister is not waiting for reports of plans
from others jurisdictions, but is proceeding
on his own. I found it rather inconsistent
with a statement made by the hon. Minister
in April of last year, when his estimates were
before this House.
At that time, the hon. Minister was quoted
as saying that Canada is not going to forge
ahead on penal reform until the federal
government creates a separate department to
handle reform institutions. He also said
several times during the debate on his de-
partment's estimates that the department
could not form a long-term plan until the
federal government decides what it is going
to do about the Fauteux report.
Today he states that the department is
going ahead. Now, immediately prior to the
April 1965 estimates, the advisory committee
reporting on conditions in Millbrook also
made a statement, stating that:
Under these circumstances we think it
doubtful that any provincial government
would have been justified in spending
public moneys on building projects until
it was able to assess its future accommo-
modation requirements.
We understand that this, and this alone, is
the reason why the old Mercer building is
still in use. That was the statement made,
although mind you, the very next paragraph
contradicts this. It says:
However having reviewed the present
day Mercer complex we are satisfied that
The Department of Reform Institutions
while awaiting federal action has not
remained indifferent to the need to de-
velop a progressive programme for women
offenders in Ontario in keeping with the
thinking of the select committee of the
Legislature.
Now, Mr. Minister, although the Fauteux
report has not been implemented, a new
penitentiaries Act did result and one of the
provisions in the new penitentaries Act au-
thorized the Minister of Justice, with approval
of the Governor in council, to enter into an
agreement with the government of any prov-
ince for the confinement in federal institutions
of persons who are sentenced under the crim-
inal law to less than two years.
Mr. Minister, why has this government not
made any overtures to the federal govern-
ment to implement this particular— Oh, he
said they made overtures but I checked in
Ottawa thoroughly and no overtures—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would first like to
understand the hon. member's question. Is
he suggesting that because of the Fauteux re-
port that the hon. Minister of Justice is
prepared to make arrangements with the
province of Ontario to take over some of
our institutions and some of our responsibili-
ties? If so, he is completely wrong.
Mr. Ben: I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that
the new penitentiaries Act, 1961, author-
ized the Minister of Justice, with the approval
of the Governor in council, to enter into an
agreement with the government of any prov-
ince where the confinement in federal institu-
tions of persons who are sentenced under the
criminal law is less than two years. Does the
hon. Minister deny that the penitentiaries
Act, 1961, contains such a provision, or does
the hon. Minister deny that he has any
knowledge that the Act contains such a pro-
vision?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am denying that
the Minister of Justice has failed to take
advantage of that and offers us this proposi-
tion. That is all I am telling you.
Mr. Ben: Is the hon. Minister saying that
he should continue to wail about having
prisoners for short terms and they should
come and relieve him of this burden rather
than that he go to them saying: "Let us
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
895
filter into a contract"? Is that what the
hon. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In 1961, I think it
was, we passed a bill here, an Act to amend
the Fauteux report, and we are waiting for
co-operation from the federal government.
All the Minister of Justice did, I think, was
use that to relieve one of the Maritime
provinces of a situation which they could
not handle there. We would be quite pleased
—and I have spoken to the Minister of Jus-
tice—to two Ministers of Justice— to imple-
ment the Fauteux report— by mail and I have
seen them personally, and they will not do it.
Mr. Ben: I am not speaking about the
implementation of the Fauteux report, I am
asking the hon. Minister whether he has
any record that either he or any of his
predecessors in office made overtures to the
federal government to implement the provi-
sion in the penitentiaries Act which would
enable this government and the federal gov-
ernment to enter into a contract whereby
the federal government would take over re-
sponsibility for prisoners serving less than
two years.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, per-
haps this will answer the hon. member. On
June 8, 1964 I sent the Hon. Guy Favreau,
the Minister of Justice at the time, a letter.
I asked when we could expect implementa-
tion of three of the recommendations made
in the Fauteux report. The recommendations
were:
No. 12— The provisions of The Prisons
and Reformatories Act that authorize the
imposition of determinate plus indetermi-
nate sentences, should be abolished, and
the parole boards of Ontario and British
Columbia should be abolished.
No. 31— The provincial government should
be responsible for the care and treatment
in penal institutions of persons sentenced to
imprisonment for maximum terms of six
months or less; persons sentenced to imprison-
ment longer than six months, should be con-
fined to penal institutions operated by the
federal government.
Does that answer the hon. member's ques-
tion?
Mr. Ben: The hon. Minister did not touch
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did not touch what?
Mr. Ben: My question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question was
whether we asked the Minister of Justice
to take over these responsibilities. This is
what we asked him to do.
Mr. Ben: I did no such thing. I asked
the hon. Minister if this government had
made any endeavours to enter into a contract
—the word is "contract".
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Yes, six months.
Mr. Ben: Would the hon. Minister who is
sitting in the back seat and putting his two
cents worth in— we still want the necessary
information because I say that the hon.
Minister is misinforming this House, and I
challenge the hon. Minister in the second
row to produce one letter that was written—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I sub-
mit that the answer I have given and the
correspondence and the interviews I have
had with the Ministers of Justice along the
lines I have quoted here, answer that ques-
tion.
Mr. Ben: I submit that they do not.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: We know what we are talking
about. You are trying to hide your own in-
efficiency.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, may
I just add this: Out of courtesy to the hon.
member for Bracondale, if he would formu-
late a letter that he thinks would ask it
better than I have, I will be glad to take
that letter, sign it and send it to the Minister
of Justice.
Interjections from hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for
Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, we are obviously
still waiting for word from Ottawa as to
whether or not we are going to co-operate
in this six months limit or not, so perhaps
the hon. member for Bracondale could speak
with friends.
Interjections from hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order. We cannot hear the
member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask
a short question of the hon. Minister. He
indicated tonight in this matter of rehabili-
tation that he had increased grants to the
organizations who are dealing with rehabili-
tation. As I look at this vote, the Salvation
896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Army, the John Howard society, Toronto, the
John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies,
Thunder Bay, the Elizabeth Fry society,
Toronto and Ottawa sanatoria, and so on, I
find no increase in the estimates between
last year and this year. The figures are the
same. Now the hon. Minister indicated that
there had been increases and I fail to see
where they are. Perhaps he could explain
this. I think it is important if we are going
to tackle this problem of rehabilitation. If
the government is not going to set up half-
way houses and do an expanded job here,
the organizations which are concerned with
this job should have every possible encour-
agement and every possible bit of financial
help.
The hon. Minister has said that that
financial help has been increased. I find no
record of it. Would the hon. Minister tell us
about it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
asking me whether we have given them an
increase this year, or provided for it in these
estimates?
Mr. Young: I understood that an increase
was provided for this year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. I said we had
increased their grants; we increased the
grants last year. They get a supplementary
grant-I think it was for $3,000 to the John
Howard society last year, and $5,000, I
think it was, to the Salvation Army. They
have not asked for any more.
Does the hon. member suggest that we
just go out and give money even though
they do not ask for it?
Mr. Bryden: That is not what he is sug-
gesting. Why do you not answer the ques-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just trying to
get the question clear.
Mr. Bryden: You are just making trouble
for yourself.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to get the
question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I think the
answer is here. The hon. Minister has given
me the answer that the reason these esti-
mates are not increased is because the or-
ganizations in question have not asked for
increased moneys. I do not know why they
have not; perhaps they are not expanding
their work—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have increased
them over the years.
Mr. Young: But there is no increase be-
tween last year's estimate and this year's
estimate?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Young: The reason is that these or-
ganizations have not asked for—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Apparently they feel
that the amount they are getting is sufficient.
Mr. Young: Thank you.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the grant set
up for city and county— what is the basis for
grants? Is it on a per-inmate basis or is it on
the cell basis— city jails and county jails? I
notice that in Metropolitan Toronto the
grant is $150,000, and in the county of Grey
it is $4,000. What is the basis for a grant?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Ten per cent of the
actual cost of maintenance.
Mr. Sargent: I would suggest to the hon.
Minister that he has made his offer to the
municipalities in 35 areas as far as county
jails are concerned.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a general offer
across the whole of the province.
Mr. Sargent: But have you a policy? Is it
going to be area jails or county jails? If you
are going to group counties, how are you
going to do it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are going to
group county jails.
Mr. Sargent: What are the capital costs
involved per jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Each one is different.
Mr. Sargent: How much money? A million
dollars, two million dollars?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It could be either, one
might be a million and the other might be
two million.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. Minister should have
an idea.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I say one might
be a million and another may be two million.
Mr. Thompson: It is not what it might be.
FEBRUARY 24, 1966
897
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, are you asking Interjections by hon. members,
for— if the hon. member will ask—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the point I am
Mr. Sargent: There are two agreements making on this—
signed. What are the amounts involved in
each of the two? Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was going to say
that if the hon. member would like to know
the estimated costs of the two which have
already signed agreements, I would be glad
to give those to him.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister told us a
little while ago he could not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: About a million each
in total.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, my point is
this-
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minsiter told us a
little while ago that he could not tell us.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say that at
all, I told the hon. member that there is no
use putting a figure in here until we know
specifically. This is a rough estimate. As a
matter of fact, the hon. member must know
that even in the last three or four months
costs have gone up considerably. These are
estimates, rough estimates. You do not lay
aside money for that until you need it. Now,
did I answer the hon. member's question?
Mr. Sargent: No, the hon. Minister has not,
Mr. Chairman. The point I am trying to make
is that if we have a cost of $2 million for
a jail in an area, sir, this is going to cost
the taxpayers out of their real estate taxes,
$1 million. Now I suggest to this House— and
every one of us here knows— this fact involved,
insofar as the municipalities are concerned,
the load on real estate taxes. And I suggest
to this House, and the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs will know I am right, that any
municipality in this province which signs
that agreement is— I hate to use the word
"crazy"— but it is away off base. Anybody who
signs a deal on this is away off base.
Hori. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Can the hon. member show us a fairy god-
mother who will do the—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the county that I represent
happened to sign one of these contracts and
I do not think they are crazy.
Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: I would ask the hon. Min-
ister to tell this House the target date for
the hon. Minister to eliminate the county jail
system in Ontario. Is it five years or ten
years? How long is it going to take to do it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In answer to the first
question, Mr. Chairman, we are helping the
municipal taxpayer in the counties, because of
having to build, say, in three counties, three
different new jails, as some of them have been
contemplating, on their own. We have devised
a plan where they will build one, which
reduces the cost tremendously and then we
will pay half of the cost of that construction.
So we are not adding costs to the municipal
taxpayers in those areas; we are reducing it
considerably for them.
Insofar as a target date is concerned, we
have no target date. As a matter of fact, the
way the agreements are being signed today,
we will have our hands full getting all those
built which are coming in. I think, as I say,
we are advancing very quickly.
Mr. Sargent: May I suggest that the hon.
Minister is selling this House a bill of goods,
because he knows his plan is to group areas,
not 35. Maybe it is contemplated to group
these jails, but the hon. Minister is not
telling us the truth. There are not 35 jails
they are going to build, they are going to be
area jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I said
there were 35 county jails today and we are
going to reduce those 35 by the fact that we
are combining so many of them. There will
not be anywhere near 35; of course there
will not. If they all go into the plan even-
tually I presume we may have 12 or 13
regional detention centres.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): On item
4 in vote 1901, I notice that the cost of
travelling and other expenses of bailiff and
prisoners is $31,000. The cost of railway
fares, and so on, of discharged prisoners is
$34,000. What I am wondering, Mr. Chair-
man, is this: We have heard and we have
read many times of prisoners who have been
released from jails and who have had a mere
pittance to keep them going until they have
been able to pick up the threads of civilian life
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
again. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. Minister could tell us first of all how
much of that $34,000 is made up of grants
to the prisoners to allow them to rehabilitate
themselves and what on the average does a
prisoner have when he leaves prison?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that this is
not included in this item, it comes in another
item. It comes under the next figure.
Mr. Braithwaite: Well, in that case would
the hon. Minister explain what the $34,000,
and so on, is in that item?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Transportation back
to their homes.
Mr. Braithwaite: And that is all?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is all this item
includes. The figure the hon. member asked
for, he will find in vote 1902.
Mr. Braithwaite: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Oppo-
sition. The member for Windsor-Walkerville
(Mr. Newman) if the other member is not
ready.
Mr. Thompson: I was, sir.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
A little slow tonight.
Mr. Thompson: No, I am not slow at all.
It is because of so many questions and the
confusion that has taken place—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. leader of the
Opposition was away all afternoon.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. leader of
the Opposition is not consistent, that is the
problem.
Mr. Thompson: No, because when you
have inconsistency from the other side it is
hard for us to have consistency.
As I have listened to this discussion, I
heard on the one hand the hon. Minister
talking about his long-range plans for re-
gional jails. I assume that it is the money of
the taxpayer that the hon. Minister is putting
into these long-range plans. They are long-
range plans in the sense that you are think-
ing of grouping 35 municipalities together
and building one regional jail. I want to
emphasize what the hon. member for Downs-
view said. It struck me as extremely ironical
that this department is doing this on its own,
without any consultation with the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer—
An hon. member: Wrong, dead wrong.
Mr. Thompson: Surely we recognize that
The Department of Public Works is im-
portant from the point of view that when
there is a decline or a depression taking
place, those are the times that we should
be developing and building these, and it
should have been done many years ago, Mr.
Chairman.
But apart from that, my concern is this,
the hon. Minister says he has regional plan-
ning to bring regional jails in. Then on the
one hand, where he has a long-term plan,
we hear because of the Fauteux report and
the fact that he cannot implement it, the
fact that he says the Ministers of Justice,
two of them, are not permitting him to make
implementation here, he is saying he is
stymied. Therefore he has short-term plans.
I remember the hon. Minister, sir, a couple
of years ago claiming that, I presume through
the hon. Prime Minister of this province
(Mr. Robarts), he was going to see that this
whole Fauteux report and a study of the co-
operation and co-ordination between the
federal government and the province on
prison reform was going to be brought up in
a Dominion-provincial conference—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We tried.
Mr. Thompson: When did you try? Have
you got correspondence that you have not
tabled before this House? We would like
to see the correspondence in answer to the
question of the hon. member for Bracondale
about the penitentiary Act and the imple-
mentation of the province on this.
We would like to see that, sir, and we
would like to see your correspondence with
respect to the Dominion-provincial confer-
ence having on its agenda the co-operation
and the implementation of the Fauteux re-
port.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in
the first place the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion should understand that the Fauteux
report only conceives or presupposes that the
federal government will look after all those
who are sentenced to a year or more, so this
has no effect on the county jail system at all.
These are all short-term prisoners, they are
people awaiting trial and people who are
sentenced to very short terms.
That is why we know in this area we can
proceed with a certain amount of certainty.
Now as to the correspondence, if the hon.
leader of the Opposition wants it we can
have it all tabled, we will gather it together
FEBRUARY 24, 1966 899
and table it. Even the correspondence does Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
not tell the whole story, because I made tee of supply begs to report progress and
personal visits to discuss the matter. We have asks for leave to sit again,
answers here and we will table them all. Report agreed tQ
Mr. Thompson: May I say in following Hon H L Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
up the answer of the hon. Mmister- Mr Speaker, before making a further motion,
x_ , , „ T . tomorrow we will proceed with the estimates
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I was gomg to sug- r^, ^ . . r t, r t ,u.«*. *•
* , L , . . . , ., *Y At- m. r of The Department of Reform Institutions,
gest that having in mmd the hour that I
move the committee rise and report progress Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
and ask for leave to sit again. ment of the House.
Motion agreed to. Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the The House adjourned at 10:40 o'clock,
chair. p.m.
No. 31
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, February 25, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, February 25, 1966
Statement re new mining developments in northern Ontario, Mr. Wardrope 903
Tabling report, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman 905
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, continued, Mr. Grossman 905
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 931
903
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as guests to the Legislature this morning, in
the east gallery, John Ross Robertson public
school, Toronto ; and in the west gallery,
McKillop public school, Richmond Hill.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: Sorry, I recognized the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs first.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of personal privilege with reference to
an editorial which appeared in yesterday's
Toronto Daily Star.
—that a letter from the Metro chairman
goes unanswered for weeks.
The reference is to myself.
I have communicated this morning with
the office of the Metro chairman. He made
no such statement and such is not the fact.
Letters from the Metro chairman are
answered as expeditiously as possible, in the
same way as correspondence from any other
municipality in this province.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I feel the hon. mem-
bers will be pleased to know that the Steel
Company of Canada Limited has decided to
go ahead with the Griffith mine project at
Bruce lake in northwestern Ontario. This
project will cost over $60 million, and 400 or
more persons will be employed when the
project is in operation.
Friday, February 25, 1966
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): What has
that got to do with the hon. Minister?
Mr. Speaker: Order! The Minister is quite
in order. He is making a statement before
the orders of the day as Minister of Mines.
Will the Minister proceed?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Speaker, I was so
pleased with the very kind remark of that
class.
Stelco officials have confirmed that a de-
tailed survey of the site has commenced and
that arrangements are being made to build a
spur line from the main line of the Canadian
National Railways near Amesdale to the site
at Bruce lake, a distance of approximately
68 miles.
The contract for dredging a portion of
Bruce lake has been awarded to the Sceptre
Dredging Company and actual dredging will
begin almost immediately. The contract for
the engineering and construction of the bene-
ficiation and pelletizing plants has been let to
Canadian Bechtel Company. Workforces are
now being assembled and it is expected, the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) said, that
the Griffith mine will be in operation by the
second quarter of 1968.
The project will have an annual capacity of
1.5 million tons of high-grade ore pellets and
will be the largest single source of iron ore
for Stelco's blast furnaces in Hamilton. The
Griffith mine will be developed and operated
for Stelco by Picklands Mather & Co., which
manages Stelco's other mining properties.
This means that there is a whole new min-
ing complex developing in northwestern On-
tario. Here is what has happened in the last
month: A recently completed agreement be-
tween Algoma Steel and Steep Rock iron
mines will result in the immediate construc-
tion of a $27-million pelletizing plant which
will produce 1.1 million tons of iron pellets
annually from Algoma Steel.
When market conditions warrant it, devel-
opment of the Lake St. Joseph property of
Steep Rock will be brought into production.
904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is thought to be one of the biggest de-
posits of taconite ore, suitable for pelletizing,
in Ontario. It would require a complete
mining, concentrating and pelletizing plant on
the spot.
Algoma Steel has taken up its option on
the Can-Fer property, near Nakina, also in
northwestern Ontario, and presumably plans
to develop it when the company's require-
ments dictate.
Recent announcements by the Anaconda
Company indicate that new and concentrated
efforts are to be made to find a market for
the product of the very big iron deposit in
the Nakina area which the company owns.
Considerable development work has already
been- done on this property and production
should be attained speedily once the decision
to proceed is taken.
The Caland Ore Company has completed
construction of a multi-million-dollar pelletiz-
ing plant at its mine at Steep Rock Lake.
Production of 2.5 million tons of ore and
pellets annually is planned. In northeastern
Ontario at Timagami, the Sherman mine is
being developed to produce one million tons
of pellets each year. The Jones and Laughlin
Adams mine near Kirkland Lake began pro-
duction of pellets last year at the rate of
one million tons annually.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to bring
this most optimistic picture of mining in
northwestern Ontario to the hon. members
of this House, knowing how interested they
all are.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs, notice of which was given
a few days ago. He was absent from the
House and could not answer it.
Could the hon. Minister inform the House
whether his department received an applica-
tion for an amendment to The Territorial
Divisions Act which would make illegal "fill,"
in that part of the village of Long Branch
fronting on Lake Ontario, part of the village
of Long Branch?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, I wish to
advise him that the department has not re-
ceived any correspondence respecting illegal
fill.
Mr. Ben: Will the hon. Minister answer a
supplementary question? Has any applica-
tion been made to amend The Territorial
Divisions Act to increase the boundaries of
the present village of Long Branch?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, this
second question has no relevance to the first.
I am sorry; I cannot give the hon. member
that advice. I would like him to repeat the
question; perhaps I did not understand the
hon. gentleman.
Mr. Ben: Could the hon. Minister inform
this House whether his department received
an application for an amendment to The
Territorial Divisions Act which would in-
crease the size of the village of Long Branch?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, I have no
knowledge of any such application. I think
that the hon. member has to remember that
there are some involvements in this particular
case that involve what is known as The
Navigable Waters Protection Act— which, of
course, is a statute of Canada, not of the
province of Ontario.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald) asked a question yesterday which I
undertook to answer today. The question
was: In view of the information which the
Minister's department has received from the
federal government concerning the extremely
dangerous levels of pesticides in milk supplies,
particularly in the Newcastle, Hamilton,
London and Chatham areas:
(a) Would the Minister inform the House
with regard to this situation?
(b) What action does he intend to take
concerning it?
(c) What research or inspection staff has
the Minister to cope with this growing
danger?
Earlier this month the departments of
agriculture and health were both informed
by the federal authorities that several milk
samples from the areas mentioned had been
found to contain traces of chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticides. The amounts found were
well below levels which would be injurious
to health.
Action was taken. The Department of
Agriculture investigated at the local level;
The Department of Health is presently
analyzing samples of crops used as cattle
food, so that any which may be contamin-
ated can be eliminated from the diet of the
livestock.
A continuous watch for residues is main-
tained by federal and provincial authorities,
and any instances of possible contamination
are investigated. The Department of
Agriculture conducts an active educational
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
905
programme with respect to the safe use of
pesticides on agricultural crops. The De-
partment of Health maintains toxicological
consultant services which are concerned with
studies and investigations of pesticides as
they may affect health.
I would add, sir, that the research as a
rule is not done within the department.
Rather it is sponsored by the department.
It is usually undertaken by authorities in
connection with universities and I have not
been able to find out what projects are going
on, if there are any.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Minister has
a copy of the statement that I might have?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day, I take pleasure in tabling the report
of The Department of Reform Institutions
for the year ending March 31, 1965.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
several days ago I asked the hon. Prime
Minister about salaries and expense accounts
of certain commissioners. The hon. Prime
Minister said he would give an answer later.
I am wondering if we could have that infor-
mation within the next day or so?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Yes,
I really felt I would have the information
prior to this, but in the rush of other business
I have not followed it up. I will check on
it and see that it is here first thing next
week.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 25th order:
House in committee of supply; Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(continued)
On vote 1901:
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Last night the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben) pulled out a little
known section of The Penitentiaries Act,
quoted it to me, and asked for my comments
on it. I must admit that I was somewhat con-
fused and it must have been apparent to the
House that I was not familiar with this sec-
tion of the Act— for a very good reason which,
I think, Mr. Chairman, will soon become ob-
vious. I have never had to deal with this
and I will explain why.
Section 16 of The Penitentiaries Act reads
as follows:
1. The Minister-
referring to the Minister of Justice for
Canada, of course:
—The Minister, with a general or special
approval of the Governor in council, may
on behalf of the government of Canada
enter into an agreement with the govern-
ment of any province for the confinement
in penitentiaries or any other institution
under the direction or supervision of the
service, of persons sentenced or committed
under the criminal law of Canada to im-
prisonment for more than six months but
less than two years, but any such agree-
ment shall include provisions whereby such
persons shall be confined at the expense
of the provincial government concerned.
2. A person who is confined in a peni-
tentiary or other institution pursuant to an
agreement made under subsection 1 shall
during the term of his sentence or period
of committal be deemed to be lawfully
confined.
Mr. Chairman, this section was designed by
the federal government as a stopgap pending
implementation of the Fauteux commission
report. Hon. members may not realize that
in some provinces reformatories as such
simply do not exist. In some of the Maritime
provinces the entire system of penal institu-
tions consists simply of old county jails, which
house men with sentences up to two years,
less a day.
This, of course, is a deplorable situation and
as a result the provincial authorities in those
jurisdictions made representation to the fed-
eral government to bring about legislation in
order to make it possible for the federal gov-
ernment to look after prisoners sentenced to
provincial institutions with a proviso, of
course, that a per diem rate would be paid
by the province to the federal government.
As the hon. member stated last night, this
section of the Act has been in force for
almost five years and yet on checking this
morning we find that not one province in
Canada has been able to take advantage of it.
This is due to the fact that the federal
government simply does not have facilities
to accommodate any more prisoners than
they now have. In speaking to the federal
commissioner of penitentiaries this morning,
we were advised that the new institution in
Springhill, Nova Scotia, will be completed in
approximately six months time. Only then
906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will the federal government be in a position
to negotiate an agreement with the province
of Nova Scotia in order to alleviate the critical
situation which exists in that province.
In summary then, I would emphasize the
following points:
1. This section was, as I say, designed as
a stopgap pending implementation of the
Fauteux commission report.
2. Not one province, even those without
reformatories, for which this section was de-
signed, has been able to enter into an agree-
ment with the federal government since
federal facilities do not exist.
3. Until the federal government has ade-
quate facilities to adopt a suitable classifica-
tion system in order to ensure that young
unsophisticated offenders with comparatively
short sentences are not housed together with
the hardened long-term offenders, I am cer-
tain that the hon. members of this House
would agree that there is no point in even
considering such action.
Even if the time should come when the
federal government has adequate facilities,
this particular section 16 of The Penitentiaries
Act has other implications which would have
to be considered at that time.
Presumably, according to the statements
made recently by the Minister of Justice, if
and when the federal government does have
these facilities, then the Fauteux report will
be implemented, which would make this sc-
tion of The Penitentiaries Act obsolete.
However, as I say, our discussion with
the commissioner of penitentiaries this morn-
ing again confirmed that the federal govern-
ment simply does not have the facilities and
is therefore unable to enter into such an
agreement even with the smallest province in
Canada.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, for years in a row now I have been
bringing up the situation of St. Leonard's
house, a halfway house for released prisoners
in the community of Windsor, which has
made a request of the hon. Minister for
some type of assistance seeing that the hon.
Minister is really concerned with the rehabili-
tation of the inmate. First I would like to
ask: has the report or the research conducted
by Dr. Grygier been completed; the research
concerning halfway houses?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
answer to that is "no."
Mr. Newman: What size of grant is St.
Leonard's house receiving from this depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The grants for half-
way houses are not handled by this depart-
ment; they are handled by The Department
of Public Welfare under The Charitable In-
stitutions Act.
Mr. Newman: Does not the hon. Minister
then consider the work carried out by
St. Leonard's house worthy of financial as-
sistance from this department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I suppose it does not really make any differ-
ence to an organization, whether it receives
its grants from one department or another.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, it does make
a lot of difference because St. Leonard's
house is attempting to carry on work with
inmates who have been released after they
have left the custody of the St. Leonard's
house. These former inmates come back for
counselling. The St. Leonard's association
have conducted well over 300 interviews
with the group, and it is getting to the point
where they find it financially impossible to
operate unless some assistance is obtained by
them from The Department of Reform In-
stitutions.
They have pressed their case now for
well over six months, asking for this help
on the out-client group and to date have
received no favourable reply from the de-
partment. Surely it is time, sir, if the hon.
Minister talks so highly of rehabilitation, that
an organization such as this, which is doing
everything it can to help his department,
would receive some type of help from the
department.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
whole purpose of setting up a department of
research is to make certain that the moneys
expended are expended in the best possible
manner. We are not only anxious to do
what we can to bring in new programmes and
new policies, but to make sure that the money
that is being expended at the present time is
producing the results commensurate with the
amount of the taxpayers' money which is
being spent.
There is a tendency on the part of groups
throughout the province, in fact all over the
world, who seem to feel that they have some-
thing to offer in this field. Actually all of them
are very sincere people and they are desirous
of doing a good job. Some of them, in fact,
are apparently doing a good job.
But a number of groups are springing up
without any experience at all. As a matter
of fact — and I want to assure the hon.
member I am not referring to St. Leonard's
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
907
house — there has been in the last year
a tendency on the part of a very small
number to get into what they call some sort
of after-care work which are in fact doing a
great deal of harm. Because of this it was
decided we had better do some research on
the two existing private ones, that is the
Harold King farm and St. Leonard's house,
which are presently receiving per diem grants
from The Department of Public Welfare—
that research had better be done before we
give our approval to expansion of their
facilities to make sure that as far as is
possible to ascertain they are doing the kind
of job that will justify the expenditure of more
of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Newman: The federal department con-
siders that they are doing a job by giving
them a substantial grant.
Surely, if the federal department considers
such, then this department should look just
as favourably upon the association. It is all
well and good to say that there are numerous
similar organizations cropping up throughout
the province.
Mr. Chairman, this organization has already
proven its merits. It simply asks for addi-
tional financial assistance, so that it can do
a continuing and a better job, and it is only
a matter of money.
The amount of money that has been re-
quested is not substantial whatsoever and
their prime interest is in the out-client por-
tion of their work. They do get assistance
from The Department of Public Welfare, but
we are asking The Department of Reform
Institutions, we are asking for the reform of
these people, for the rehabilitation of these
people, and I certainly think it behooves the
hon. Minister to move with all haste to see
that St. Leonard's house does get this
financial assistance. And I hope that the
hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr.
Thrasher) will get up on his feet and support
me in this request.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
would be very pleased to consider this re-
quest, but I would like, if at all possible, to
have the hon. member provide me with the
information on the so-called substantial grants
they are getting from the federal government.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up
my question from last night. May I say that
I appreciate that there was considerable ex-
citement perhaps generating in the late hours
last night, and we are taking it in a calm and
collected manner.
I would like, sir, just to comment on one
remark the hon. Minister made last night,
that he felt that we were being critical of—
I do not think he said this— of personalities
of his staff. In no way were we doing this.
We are not critical of the staff. We admire
the dedication of your staff and our concern
is in trying to encourage you to give every
consideration to raising standards of staff and
recognition of staff. I am sure you would be
in sympathy with the approach which we are
taking. Your staff not only has dedication
and intelligence, but it has charm and beauty,
as I look across there.
I may say, sir — in following with the
Fauteux report— I have been interested in
your talk of regional jails. Perhaps you did
not mean this, but last night— if I caught it
correctly— you said that you can go ahead
with regional jails because they are not con-
nected with the Fauteux report. Well, I am
surprised you say that, sir, because in the
Fauteux report, if I could read it, one of the
clauses says:
Classification and segregation form the
fundamental basis of all reformatory treat-
ment. A sound and wise system of classifi-
cation makes it easier to deal with the
individual problems of the prisoners.
The hon. Minister himself— let me first of all
go back. I would say that he had made
some progress in recognition of this. In 1960,
I am referring to classification, the same hon.
Minister said:
Only after careful study is made of the
prisoner's case history and he is personally
interviewed by the classification committee
is a final decision made.
Then when we started to look into who was
on the classification committee, we found that
there were three. We found there was the
superintendent from the—
Mr. Chairman: I assume the leader of the
Opposition is talking on item No. 5, advisory
committees, on vote 1901?
Mr. Thompson: That is right, vote 1901.
The superintendents from the centres at
Burtch and at Brampton, plus the psychologist
at Guelph, made up the classification commit-
tee; and yet we found that there were 9,000
men who had gone into the institutions. It
seemed to us at that point that the classifica-
tion committee, no matter how dedicated
they were, could not possibly be doing a
thorough job of classification.
Well now, coming on— as I understand it,
908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and I could quote you on this where you are
saying in these regional centres there will be
classification officers— this is the most impor-
tant aspect with respect to the rehabilitation
of the prisoners.
Perhaps I can quote from your speech. By
the way, I congratulate you on this speech
of April 1, 1965. You sounded as though you
were really going to be moving ahead. May
I quote what you said?
I said earlier that all offenders must be
evaluated indicating the most effective pro-
gramme for them at all times and I empha-
size the phrase, at all times, because we
firmly believe that the period immediately
after arrest or sentencing, the first time a
man is in jail, the time he spends in the
local jail, has a great effect on his future
conduct. Those who can be helped should
be evaluated and receive that help at that
time and this is the area insofar as the local
jail is concerned, that has at least at this
moment, been completely overlooked.
To me, sir, the regional jail is going to be a
very important part in the whole integrated
programme of reform. It is going to be tied
very much to recommendations of the Fau-
teux report. You may find, I would think,
that your regional jails may be the area in
which you have complete responsibility, if the
Fauteux report is over six months.
They may take over the other, so that your
plans of the regional jails hinge very much
with the implications of the Fauteux report;
and that is why it is surprising that you said
that we can go ahead on the regional jails
because, as I say— if I caught you correctly—
you said this really had nothing to do with
the recommendations of the Fauteux report.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
this is really a play on words. Perhaps the hon.
leader of the Opposition misunderstood me.
The question was raised. "Now you cannot
keep using the excuse that you are awaiting
the implementation of the Fauteux report
and that is why you cannot get on with cer-
tain things."
I was pointing out that because the responsi-
bility—even if the Fauteux report is imple-
mented—of those who serve less than six
months or a year— although we presume there
will not be any sentences between six months
and a year— will remain with the province;
that we could proceed with a regional deten-
tion centre programme, without concerning
ourselves that it will be affected insofar as
responsibility is concerned.
In other words, I would not think— at the
present time— of recommending that my gov-
ernment allow me to have funds to build an
adult institution, not knowing whether this
was going to be our responsibility or whether
it was going to be taken away from us. I
should say an adult reformatory. So we are
concentrating, insofar as capital investment is
concerned, in those areas which, even if the
Fauteux report is implemented, will still
remain with us; i.e., the regional detention
centres, training schools. This is the area
where we are making capital expenditures. Of
course, everything having to do with cor-
rections will have some implications insofar
as the Fauteux report is concerned.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for
the clarification. One of the questions I asked
yesterday was: Has the hon. Prime Minister
of Ontario (Mr. Robarts) gone to the Prime
Minister of Canada on any occasion and told
him he wants prison reform to be on the
Dominion-provincial agenda?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if my memory
serves me correctly, I do not know whether
it was the Minister of Justice or the new
solicitor-general who has already announced
that, within the near future, there will be a
Dominion-provincial conference of those in-
volved in the various provinces in correctional
work, so we can discuss this. However, there
was such a meeting; I think it was in 1958.
Now, whether the hon. Prime Minister dis-
cussed it, at his level, with the Prime
Minister of Canada, I am not too sure. I
presume the Prime Minister of Canada, the
same as the hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince, feels he has capable Ministers to do
this sort of thing, and it should be their
responsibility. But the answer to the question
specifically is: I do not know whether the
hon. Prime Minister has discussed this with
the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Thompson: Let me get this straight.
I am not referring to the capability of any
Minister at either the federal or provincial
level. I am simply suggesting that we under-
stand that the hon. Prime Minister of On-
tario is looking after the Dominion-provincial
relations from the point of view of Ontario
and, in view of the obvious need to get some
implementation on the Fauteux report for
both Ontario as well as for Canada, my
question has been: Have you gone to the hon.
Prime Minister of Ontario to ask him to put
that on a priority of agenda, to be discussed
at the Dominion-provincial conference?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, Mr.
Chairman, again the answer is no different,
except that the hon. leader of the Opposition
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
909
will recall that I did say yesterday that I had
made personal representation to the two
Ministers of Justice.
It has always been handled in this fashion,
that the heads of the jurisdictions— various
provinces who have within their jurisdictions
correctional work— have met and presumably
made recommendations to their respective
governments.
Mr. Thompson: Could I just add, sir, and
this is in connection with the Dominion-
provincial conferences: It seems to me that,
with the priority and its connection with
prison reform that the hon. Minister feels
about this and that we in this House feel,
there needs to be more liaison and con-
sultation with the hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario concerning what he is being urged to
put on the agenda as top priority for dis-
cussion.
Mr. Chairman: Where does the leader of
the Opposition think that this fits into vote
1901?
Mr. Thompson: Because I feel very strongly
that the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
should have gone to the Prime Minister of
Canada and said: "Look, we have been
forced to use as an excuse delay about
the Fauteux report and the delay of imple-
mentation. We want to see this on the
agenda of Dominion-provincial conferences
because the Opposition is pressing us hard
to get on with some of the reforms and we
cannot continue using this as an excuse."
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
I wonder if the hon. Minister would indicate
to us something of the interrelationship be-
tween the department of criminology at the
University of Toronto and his own depart-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in the
first place— as the hon. member knows— we
started this centre of criminology off with a
grant of $30,000 from this government, which
is now an annual grant. We have a very close
connection with the centre of criminology. We
have, I think, some of our people lecturing,
and there is close relationship. They use our
facilities for study and we use theirs. It is
working out very well. I do not know
what else I can add to that.
Mr. Young: Following that, Mr. Chairman,
I think all of us are very keenly interested in
this department and its success and growth.
Last night I asked a question regarding the
grants to other institutions such as the John
Howard society. The hon. Minister told me
that no further grants were asked for and
therefore he presumed no further grants
were needed. Would this also be true of
the department of criminology? It seems to
me that this is a vital department vis-a-vis
the future growth of the whole correction
systems in Ontario, it is important for the
training of leadership and in research and
in the whole field, and so it seems to me that
the grant's remaining at $30,000 seems to be
just a bit of "stand-pat-ism." I am wonder-
ing if that department is growing as rapidly
as it ought to grow and whether the depart-
ment has other sources of funds so that it
does not need any further grant from this
Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
think that first it should be pointed out that
the centre of criminology is a Canadian in-
stitution and it gets some support, presum-
ably, from the federal government. As far
as we are concerned, I have had no request,
that I can recall, for further moneys, which
does not mean that if we did get a request,
it would soon be forthcoming. We get re-
quests from various areas in this work; it is
a matter of priority, but the answer to this
specific question is that I have had no further
request for any additional grants.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman, it
is to be hoped that some time in the future,
all the old jails will be replaced by regional
detention centres. I was interested to see in
the report that was made available to us
today the plan of a possible detention centre
with the facilities for segregation. What
would be the longest time during which a
prisoner would be detained in one of these
ideal situations?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the respon-
sibility of the county jail presently is up to
90 days and this would still remain the
responsibility of the regional detention
centre. Our plan is that, at this stage, we
would be able to pluck from this institution
many who should be pulled out of the
regional detention centre, presently a county
jail— those who appear that something can
be done with them— bring them into a refor-
matory system such as ours, put them into
our classification system and help them in that
way.
As a matter of fact, this is what we are
doing. We generally take out of the county
jails anyone who is sentenced to more than a
month or two, because we do not think that
the county jails, as they exist today, are a
healthy place for anyone to remain in for
910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
more than a very few weeks. So this would
be extended and—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is, of course,
another problem. The hon. member is re-
ferring to those people who are on remand
or who are awaiting appeal.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, there are
other members listed here to speak and I
would rather they would direct their ques-
tions through the chair.
Mr. Nixon: Further to this, Mr. Chairman,
it appears that if we are going to have the
facilities for segregation and for meaningful
rehabilitation, the hon. Minister might con-
sider keeping certain classes of prisoners in
these regional institutions for the full three
months, or even longer, if they are built
according to the plan that is proposed here.
It seems that the facilities would be of a
nature that would give some meaningful
rehabilitation. Has the hon. Minister any
thought that there would be more inmates
kept at the local level for a longer time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This may very well
be what might develop out of this, but if
this did happen, it would be done with
agreement between the counties themselves
and our department, vis-a-vis financial re-
sponsibility and so on. We have to develop
this gradually and see what appears to be
the best possible way to operate.
Mr. Nixon: Last night we went very
thoroughly into how slow the programme is
progressing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you agree with
that, Mr.-
Mr. Nixon: I think it is going very slowly—
too slowly, because I notice in the hon. Min-
ister's report that he has checked certain
counties that would indicate that their com-
munities are actively considering the possi-
bility of coming into an agreement with the
hon. Minister's department.
I do not know what he calls "active con-
sideration," because in some of these areas,
active consideration has been going on a full
two years.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Nixon: Well, more than one, then—
a year and a half.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, that is—
Mr. Nixon: Can the hon. Minister tell me
when active consideration first began in the
counties around Brant county?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not give-
Mr. Nixon: I might say, Mr. Chairman,
that I discussed it with members of the
active consideration committee a year ago
last summer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On this I think I said
that I started discussing this plan in
February, 1964. It took almost a year,
travelling around to the counties and speak-
ing to the county councils to sell them on
this idea and to explain it in detail. There
was a great deal of interest shown six or
seven months after the plan was first pro-
posed. Now this takes a considerable amount
of time, as I am sure the hon. member will
appreciate.
When we talk about active consideration,
we are talking about those counties which
now are involved in discussions with our
department, in detail, as to the amount of
the estimates required for the kind of an
institution suitable for their particular area,
and those who are now, among themselves,
discussing an agreement. In other words,
those who have not just asked for informa-
tion and let it sit, even though we have
prodded them in many ways. Surely, the hon.
member would not suggest— he is a fair man
—he would not suggest that a programme of
this nature, a county jail system which has
existed well over 100 years and which people
have been talking about changing for at least
half a century, that having proposed this plan
less than two years ago, that out of 35 coun-
ties, the plan has come to fruition in the past
few months? We have, out of the 35, seven
counties which have signed agreements.
There is a city and another county jail ready
to sign an agreement. Mayor Copps is
arranging for an official signing. This is fairly
good progress.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, we are talking
about "active consideration," and whether or
not this would include simply an inquiry
from a county.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Nixon: I believe it is true, that in the
summer of 1964, an active consideration com-
mittee involving the county of Brant, met
with the officials of the hon. Minister's de-
partment, during which it was talked over in
some detail. Now, what I want to know is:
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
911
What sort of leadership does the hon. Min-
ister and his department give these active
consideration committees? Do they in fact
just present a proposal and leave them for
some months, or do they augment these pro-
posals with other thoughts as to the location
of the new institution; what possible plan
might there be?
I would say to the hon. Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that the thing that is holding this
up more than anything else is the requirement
to meet 50 per cent of the costs of these
elaborate buildings at the local level. If he
wants to get on with the process of replacing
these antiquated century-old jails with what
he calls the regional detention centres then
he is certainly going to have to pay more of
the cost than he presently proposes. The
municipal taxpayers and the farmers in the
communities of the counties simply cannot
afford to build these extensive and expensive
buildings, which are in fact going to carry
out rehabilitation just as we would all hope
they would. This is not a regional responsi-
bility any more, it is the responsibility of the
government of the province of Ontario.
Very specifically, then, I would like to
know what methods are used by the govern-
ment under the hon. Minister's direction to
urge these groups towards making a deci-
sion? How long does he allow the plan to
simmer at the local level where all of the
difficulties are present, as far as selecting a
site among three or four competing counties?
Does the hon. Minister and his advisory group
actually go out and indicate where they feel
the best site would be so that at least there
is a definite point around which debate and
argument might take place?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
have two of our top-echelon staff in constant
contact with the counties. We always go out
and meet with them; or they come and meet
with us; we have had various discussions.
As I said earlier, we have discussed it with
them at open county council meetings. And
we try to develop an interest in our plan;
some show more interest than others.
We do not even go into a county and say,
"This is what the estimate for your regional
detention centre is going to be as far as cost
is concerned," until they are prepared to say,
"Well now, we are ready to talk about the
cost of this project." They know what the
grant is going to be. Because, as I said in
this House last year, we are not putting our-
selves in the position of giving the counties
any impression that we are forcing them into
anything. We said we were going to do this
by persuasion; we have been successful so
far in doing it, and there is no reason, in our
view, why we should push ourselves.
We give leadership; we give guidance; we
give advice; we meet with them; we draw up
plans for them; we have a planning commit-
tee to discuss a proposed plan with them,
and with their architects, when they get to
that stage. As far as a site is concerned, they
get together themselves to decide on a site
which is suitable to them; they present this
to the department. If it is suitable to the
department, then they proceed from there.
Mr. Nixon: Just one or two more questions
on this, Mr. Chairman, because I do not feel
the leadership has been effective. Is there no
proposal, to begin with, that a certain group
of counties might take part?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, there is.
Mr. Nixon: There is a definite proposal?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: Is there a definite proposal as
to what a suitable site may be, or what three
sites might be suitable?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: There is a definite—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber want to know the one for Brant?
Mr. Nixon: No, I do not want to know
that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the answer is
"yes"; we do suggest a viable unit for each
group. Is the hon. member asking about a
site?
Mr. Nixon: No, I do not want to know
what site you propose; only if there are
definite proposals.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, there are.
Mr. Nixon: When they intend to build the
building, do they employ the architect and
do all of this planning under the guidance
and suggestion of this department? Is that
so?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: With the help of this
department, yes.
Mr. Nixon: I think they should be pre-
sented with a plan of buildings which they
can then discuss and modify. You people
— the Minister himself and his advisors —
have the responsibility for detention and re-
habilitation. You cannot shift this off onto
these regional—
912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say that we do pre-
sent them with a prototype; we do present
them with a plan. Unless the hon. member
suggests that we, who are only paying half
the cost of construction, should appoint the
architects— but I am sure he would not sug-
gest that. They appoint their own architect.
That architect discusses these plans with our
planning committee, on which there is an
architect, and we draw up for them, for dis-
cussion with their architect, a proposal of
the kind of a building we think suitable for
that particular area.
Mr. Nixon: Then they have the final choice
of the site in the group of counties con-
cerned?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: With our approval.
Mr. Nixon: So you have the final choice of
the site?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: When the hon. Minister is talk-
about reasonableness in this matter, I feel
the reasonable approach is that you should
pay all of the cost after consultation with the
people concerned. You should select the site,
certainly with their consideration; but, as you
do, you should have the final decision. You
should then pay all the costs and all the
architects' fees, and all that goes with it, and
erect that particular institution in the region.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, I have three questions under item
10, grants. I would be interested in knowing:
Is there any grant allowed to any group in
Hamilton at the present time; and also, have
any groups in Hamilton applied for grants
and been refused? My other question is:
Could the hon. Minister tell us when they
expect to start on the new jail in the
Hamilton-Wentworth area?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The last question I
will answer first because it is a lot easier.
Just recently, a matter of two or three weeks
ago as the hon. member will recall, they
arranged with the department to be approved
as a regional detention centre; so obviously
we are not at the stage of saying when we
are going to get started to build. We have
to go through all the motions the same as
anybody does when they are going to build
a building. They have not signed their agree-
ment yet, as a matter of fact, and this is ex-
pected to be done very shortly.
As to the first question— there was some
group in Hamilton, I cannot recall it offhand.
I know the hon. member may have it in
mind, we had some discussions with them,
but I seem to recollect that a suitable ar-
rangement was made for them, though not
through this department. Yes, I think this
was a group which came to us; I cannot re-
call the name of it, perhaps the hon. member
could help me—
Mr. Davidson: Could the hon. Minister
tell me this? Does the John Howard society
in Hamilton get a grant of any kind for this
work?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to that is,
"Not specifically." They are dealt with
through the provincial grants of the Ontario
John Howard society. Incidentally, provinci-
ally, that group was given a very substantial
grant by The Department of Health, through
its drug and alcoholism research foundation.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, just to commence, I want to get into
this question of regional jails at much more
length. I want to ask the hon. Minister a
couple of questions. Am I correct in my
understanding that the 50 per cent sharing
proposal has nothing to do with the acquisi-
tion of land?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is correct.
Mr. Singer: That is correct.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is 50 per cent of
the cost of construction.
Mr. Singer: I see. Well, it seems to me to
be a very strange anomaly that where the
municipal authority pays 100 per cent of
the cost of the land, and all of the cost of the
servicing of the land, the final choice of the
site lies with the Minister. Could he explain
the logic in that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very simply. Mr.
Chairman, we have been told here time and
again that locations should not be chosen
because of political considerations; and this
department, in giving its final approval, makes
sure that the location chosen is suitable for
the requirements of this kind of work.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): That is how
you give the approval?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course. The re-
gional detention centre planning committee
makes its recommendation— there will be no
political considerations in this at all. We have
to make sure that the location chosen is
suitable. For example, it may have to serve
three or four different areas, so we have to
make sure it is, perhaps, on a main highway.
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
913
We have to make sure it is not so far removed
that it is going to be impossible for treatment
staff to visit.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I just cannot
understand the logic in the hon. Minister's
suggestion that there are less politics in his
department than there are at the county
council level, or the municipal council level.
There is no logic at all. Is he better than the
people in the county councils? Is he less in-
fluenced by political considerations than they
are? It just does not make any sense to me.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
should point out to the hon. member that,
without the 50 per cent grant, every county
had to have the approval of this department
for its site and for its building of a county
jail anyway. The only difference now is that
we are going to pay half the cost of con-
struction, which is of great assistance to the
municipal taxpayer.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, now that we
have sort of cleared the ground, my hon.
friend from Grey South tells me that you pay
50 per cent of the cost of the houses of
refuge, and they choose their own site. Is
there any logic in letting the houses of refuge
choose their own site, when you pay 50 per
cent of the cost, and county jails and not do
the same?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand that the
site chosen for a house of refuge is subject
to the approval of the Minister of Public
Welfare.
Mr. Singer: In southern Ontario?
Mr. Chairman: Has the member finished?
Mr. Singer: No, no, I am only starting, Mr.
Chairman. In my frank opinion, this whole
plan of county and regional jails is producing
absolutely nothing. It is surrounded with a
great fanfare of publicity, numerous news-
paper announcements; big speeches are de-
livered; but really we are getting very few
jails built.
There is a distinction in Ontario between
the southern portion and the northern por-
tion. All of the northern portion is dealt with,
completely and entirely, at the expense of
the government of Ontario. Jails in districts
are paid for and are the responsibility of the
government of Ontario; but in southern On-
tario, no. There is no logic or sense in this
at all and I would like an explanation for
that.
I propose, Mr. Chairman, for just a few
moments, to try to analyze some of the suc-
cess of this programme. A year ago, the hon.
Minister was saying, "Do not talk about it
because you may rock the boat." In between
his rocking-the-boat speeches and now, he
tells us with great pride and pleasure that he
has evolved two agreements. Those agree-
ments have not been tabled. I am sure the
hon. Minister, being the fair man that he is,
will provide copies for us before these
estimates are over. Am I fair in saying that?
Can we have a look at these agreements and
see what they actually say?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can see no objection
to that.
Mr. Singer: Thank you. Because, having
looked at the agreements, perhaps I will have
some more remarks. But the shocking thing,
to my mind, Mr. Chairman, is that, going
through these estimates last night, and going
through the press clippings dealing with these
things, I find that we are talking about two
buildings worth very roughly $2.5 million;
that is the combined cost. In the hon. Minis-
ter's own estimates, and in the estimates of
the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Cecile), there is $200,000 set aside.
It would seem to me, subject to my reading
these agreements, that there is no really firm
commitment to get on with these things at all.
This is a plan that might happen some time
in the future. The hon. Minister has really
failed to come to grips with some of the very
important county jails where there is no
action being produced. The hon. Minister
is aware of the situation in London. The
Minister is aware that the county of Middle-
sex is apparently prepared to enter into some
sort of an agreement with somebody, to build
a courthouse and city and county jail. The
city of London says "no." I am interested to
see that the London jail was built in 1843.
That is 123 years ago, if my arithmetic is
correct. There is a crisis in London. Obvi-
ously there is a crisis in London. The council
of the city of London feel apparently that it
should not be their responsibility, that their
municipal taxpayers cannot afford the 50 per
cent of the cost. How are you going to
resolve the problem in the city of London?
Surely this is a very important problem.
And if London is bucking the blandishments
of the hon. Minister, is there any reason why
the people in Cornwall, or the riding of the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement (Mr. Simonett), should pay 50 per
cent, if London is not going to do it? We do
not have to travel as far as London. In the
area that the hon. Minister and I represent,
the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, we
914
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have this building, the Don jail. I asked the
hon. Minister about the Don jail last night,
and he did not answer me and I am sure it
was an oversight in the welter of questions
that we threw at him, but the original part of
the Don jail was built in 1862. There was an
addition to it opened about eight or ten years
ago, but the hon. Minister certainly must be
as aware as I am of the constant reports of
grand juries and investigators and inspectors
and societies, on the horrible conditions that
exist in the Don jail. Is there anything going
to be done about having a proper jail in the
province's largest municipality? Is there any-
ing going to be done about having a proper
jail in the city of London?
The hon. Minister talks about an agree-
ment that may be signed in the Hamilton
region. I notice from these clippings that
there has been great concern about what
groupings there should be.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All have been
resolved.
Mr. Singer: Well, it may all have been re-
solved, but I would like to know how it is
resolved. Should Halton have been in; the
north part of Halton or the south part of
Halton? Should Peel have been in? Should
Wentworth be in, and so on? How do these
decisions come to be made, Mr. Chairman?
This is the point I was trying to get at last
night. How can the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions, on his own, establish regional
boundaries, establish regional costs, without
knowing what the views of the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development are, without
knowing what the views of the hon. Minister
of Education (Mr. Davis) are, without know-
ing what the views of the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. Spooner) are, without
knowing what the views of the hon. Minister
of Highways (Mr. MacNaughton) are? How
can you have a region just for jail purposes?
It just does not make sense if the province is
prepared to really go at the whole question
of regional government. You are not going
to be successful. You are doomed to failure
if you are going to have a region just for jail
purposes and different regions for other pur-
poses. Surely that makes sense.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, we have been
asking the government, year after year, to
establish some sort of a system for bringing
about regional government, to have some sort
of co-ordination. This is why we urged the
hon. Prime Minister to take charge of it, but
it is obvious as we listen to the explanations
from this Minister today, that he is going
off on his own. It is obvious, in just dealing
with the Hamilton-Wentworth situation. It is
obvious that bargaining went on, as between
the various municipal authorities in the
Hamilton-Wentworth area, to determine who
should share the cost.
There is no mention here of a joint com-
mittee going down to see them. There is no
mention here that when you have almost
resolved it, or you say you have re-
solved it — this fits in with the thinking of
the studies that are being sponsored and
conducted by the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs. There is no mention here at all, Mr.
Chairman, that this fits in with the sort of
thinking that must be going on in The
Department of Economics and Development.
The hon. Minister there (Mr. Randall) has
certain views on the economic feasibility of
these things.
There is no mention at all, Mr. Chair-
man, that it is going to fit in with the taxing
report that we are waiting for. And this is
another question we are going to have to get
into, when and if we get the taxing report
of the Smith committee— if we ever get the
one from Ottawa— so that they can read it,
and then comment on what Ottawa is going to
say about what should happen; then the
Smith committee will comment on what
Ottawa is going to say. There is no sug-
gestion of this at all. Rut I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that this whole thing is just a
big propaganda effort which really is not
designed to build any regional jails at all.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are not
going to get down to this until the province
is prepared to meet the question of cost
realistically.
A few minutes ago when this question
was being talked about, the hon. Prime
Minister was in this seat and he said "What
about taxes"? Certainly the suggestion that is
being made has to deal with taxes and if the
province is going to pay 100 per cent of the
cost of regional jails, the province is going
to have to provide more money. Mr. Chair-
man, in contrast with the burden that is
going to have to be placed on local govern-
ment and on homeowners, who can better
afford it? In which way is it more equitable?
Surely the province attempts to collect
taxes across the whole area of Ontario,
somewhat related to the basis of ability to
pay. The fact that we have all these hundred-
year-old jails— and look at them, the list of
county court jails in Ontario: Rarrie, 1843;
Relleville, 1838; Rrampton, 1867; Rrantford,
1852, and on and on and on; the reason that
those buildings are that old, that inefficient,
that unsatisfactory, is because, Mr. Chairman,
the local municipalities have not felt that it
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
915
is their responsibility to look after this serious
problem. That is number one.
And secondly, even where they have felt
some responsibility for it, they have not had
the financial ability to do anything about it.
What logic can there be, Mr. Chairman, in
suggesting that jails or the administration
of justice generally is a local community
responsibility? Surely it is a province-wide
responsibility. If a crime takes place in
Ontario and someone has to be punished for
it, surely it is the responsibility of all of the
people in Ontario.
The hon. member for Simcoe Centre (Mr.
Evans) tells a story of an event in his riding
which, I think, highlights the real problem
that the hon. Minister has to face and this
government has to face. He tells the story of
a man who came from Toronto, went up to
Barrie, committed a murder, was tried, con-
victed and eventually executed in the county
of Simcoe. By mere happenstance, by the
accident of the fact that he travelled from
Toronto to Barrie to commit the crime, the
county of Simcoe had to pay some $40,000
in legal costs, jail costs, execution costs and
all these other things. What sense does that
make, Mr. Chairman? What sense does that
make at all? Surely the responsibility for
the enforcement of law and all of the costs
attached to it, punishment, rehabilitation,
surely that is a responsibility that should be
the responsibility of all the people of Ontario
on the basis of ability to pay?
Mr. Chairman, until the hon. Minister is
able to tell us how he is going to cope with
the big problems in the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, city of London, St.
Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula there,
until he is going to tell us why it is fair to
do something in the north that he is not do-
ing in the south, until he is prepared to tell
us why he expects that local councils are
going to put an additional burden on the
homeowners, to pay for this sort of thing, I
do not think that he has given us any reason-
able explanation as to how he hopes this
plan is going to work.
An editorial in the St. Catharines Standard
on July 19, 1965, says this, and I think it is
worthy of real attention:
Regional jails have been strongly advo-
cated by Reform Minister Allan Grossman
of Ontario, but present indications are
that unless the government offers a greater
inducement at present the proposal will
fall through.
The first announcement was the prov-
ince would pay half the cost of the con-
struction of regional jails. Now it is
learned it will pay nothing towards the
cost of land acquisition, and service in-
stallation, nor will the government pay
any part of the operating costs of regional
jails.
Another factor concerning regional jails
is the whole problem of transportation of
prisoners. Wherever located some county
forming part of the regional jail complex
will face heavy transportation costs. In
this area both the Welland county and
Lincoln county jails have outlived their
usefulness. They need to be replaced by
modern structures.
The Welland county jail was built in 1856
and the Lincoln county jail was built in— I
cannot find that one, but I would not imagine
it was much more modern than the Welland
county jail.
A regional jail on the surface would be
a good move but not if the costs of the
land, for services, for operation and trans-
portation added up to a sum which would
make such a move too costly. Required
from the provincial government is a new
look at what they are offering to promote
the construction of regional jails.
The province should pay its share of the
land and services costs, it should aid in
meeting the cost of operation and trans-
portation as well as paying half the con-
struction cost of the new building.
Otherwise, there is a growing doubt of the
advantage to be reaped by regional jails.
Very simply, Mr. Chairman, in summary, un-
less the province is prepared to take a
realistic look at how this horrendous prob-
lem of cost is going to be handled; unless the
province is prepared to assume that the ad-
ministration of justice, the provision of
regional jails and so on is truly really logic-
ally and sensibly a provincial responsibility,
this plan of the hon. Minister— notwithstand-
ing the propaganda, notwithstanding the
speeches, notwithstanding the so-called
agreement— is doomed to failure.
I do not know whether these things have
been put before the Cabinet. I would
suspect that the hon. Minister in all his
studies of this thing has come to the realiza-
tion that he is probably now being put in
the very invidious position of having to de-
fend a decision made by the Cabinet which
perhaps he does not agree with, and I do not
envy him that task.
But I say, Mr. Chairman, there is only one
way that we are going to get these old
ancient, decrepit, shameful buildings re-
moved from the scene of the administration
916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of justice, the treatment of prisoners and the
rehabilitation, in the province of Ontario.
That is if the government of Ontario assumes
its proper role and recognizes that this is a
responsibility of all the people of Ontario;
and all the people of Ontario— not just the
homeowners in particular regions— are going
to pay the cost.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I fully concur
with the hon. member for Downsview. I
feel that regardless of how sincere this very
charming man is— in this picture here he
looks like a very sincere, honest man-
Mr. Chairman: What—
Mr. Sargent: I am speaking on county
jails, Mr. Chairman. Regardless of the hon.
Minister's sincerity, in the three years that
we have been talking about this I think he
recognizes that our present system in county
jails is a punitive system. Does the hon.
Minister agree with that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not our system.
Mr. Sargent: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not our system;
it is the county jail system. The one that
the hon. member was mayor of and did not
do anything about.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. Minister agrees it
is a punitive system we have and yet he
allows this thing to continue. In three years
he has not built a single jail bed under this
programme. Regardless of how he may have
these plans— the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs is sitting there and I would ask him
if he speaks for government insofar as muni-
cipalities are concerned: Is this a just tax
against real estate— jails?
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Well, of course, that is the sys-
tem under which we operate. If the hon.
member wants that answered, that is the
answer he gets. Remember that we are pay-
ing grants for these expenditures-
Mr. Sargent: You have changed your spots,
down in the front row there.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: No, they do not pay
any different from what they pay in Grey
county or Huron, or whatever county he
comes from.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, why this
formula will not work for county jails is be-
cause the municipalities cannot afford to pay
50 per cent, or five per cent, or one per cent
towards jails under their real estate taxes.
This is factual. And that is why the formula
is not working. I think the government should
make a stand on this and tell the people
that they have to spend $50 million this year
on this programme, out of their real estate
taxes.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Where?
Mr. Sargent: Well, you ask them to pay
half the costs.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: No, where does the
hon. member get the $50 million?
Mr. Sargent: Well, if you had an intelli-
gent programme it would cost you $50 mil-
lion. If you are going to do these things it
will cost you that. So let us face facts; if
the programme is going to work, you have
to have the co-operation of the municipalities.
And they are not going to come in, I can
tell you that. Now, we asked the hon. Min-
ister last night: "You have two agreements
signed, how much money is involved?" He
does not know. He has no idea. I think it
is a sad commentary when we have a great
idea, this great area of our people who are
involved, their first impression on breaking
the law. They go into a system that was
punitive 100 years ago and here in this
dynamic Ontario we have a government
which brags about progress and they are only
kidding the troops; they are not kidding any-
body. We have here the lowest paid group
of people in the province in these jails and
here we have a budget on this first vote,
1901, which has jumped 66 per cent in
salaries.
An hon. member: A nice increase.
Mr. Sargent: It is all right if the right
people are getting it. $502,000 to $837,000,
that is correct. Fifty-six per cent. Now, Mr.
Minister, I would like to ask you, do you
plan to increase the schedule for the lower
grades in your department in the county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that
is quite a list of questions to be thrown at
me. I will do the best I can.
Actually, the hon. member for Downsview
made quite a pitch about how this will not
work until we take over the jails completely.
It is the old story about arguing about the
Ontario government taking over the complete
cost of the administration of justice. Now if
he wants to make that argument, that is the
argument he should make, not just pick on
the county jails.
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
917
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Where do you
stand on that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I stand with the gov-
ernment.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will say this: The
hon. member has suggested that this is all
propaganda. In the first place I do not think
this will be appreciated by the many— and I
do not want to sound melodramatic on this—
hard-working county councils who went to
work on this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it is the truth.
These people spent countless hours in dis-
cussions and negotiations and they will not
like to be told that they were only engaging
in a propaganda pitch. They are quite happy
with the 50 per cent.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I list-
ened quite attentively. Mr. Chairman, I will
sit down and not bother answering the
questions.
Mr. Chairman: Will the members now
listen to the Minister, please?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. members
want the answers I will give them to them,
as far as I can give them, if they will only
listen.
The fact is they did spend a considerable
amount of time— a tremendous amount of time
—they put a tremendous amount of work in
this, and it was in areas where they found
great difficulty. But it was the 50-per-cent
grant that encouraged them, and it is being
successful. It is being successful. On the one
hand the argument is that we are not being
successful fast enough, and on the other hand
they argue, "You should not go ahead with
this," which is in fact what the hon. member
said: "Do not go ahead with it, until you
have settled the matter of the cost of the
administration of justice across the whole
spectrum of Ontario; do not go ahead with it
until you get the complete plan for regional
development in the whole of the province."
There was another reason for the delay— I
just cannot remember what it was. Yes—
"Let us wait for the Ontario taxing report
and for the federal tax report."
Well, I could imagine the hon. member
getting up if I said, "We cannot do anything
about the county jails because we have to
wait for a decision on this, we will wait for a
decision on that, we will wait for a decision
on so and so." And I can just imagine the
hon. member getting up and saying, "No
wonder you have got nothing done, you keep
waiting." We are forging ahead in this plan,
and it is working.
Actually, the hon. member is suggesting
that we either take over the complete cost of
the administration of justice or, as an alter-
native, go into these areas and force the
counties to build new jails. This is what he
is saying. Well, we are very successful by
conferring with these people, showing them
the need, discussing it with them. And they
are voluntarily coming in on the plan. Why
should we force people to do it, when they
are voluntarily coming into the plan?
Mr. Sargent: They are not coming in.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are coming in.
Now, let us talk about Owen Sound. I think
the hon. member runs a newspaper there. I
take it that it is not the Owen Sound Herald?
Mr. Sargent: It is the Owen Sound Herald.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is it, or is it not?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, it is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You run the Owen
Sound Herald? Well, let us find out what
the Owen Sound Herald says: "If we are not
getting any place—"
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, speaking for
the record, it is not a controlled press.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
how much of a staff the hon. member has on
this great newspaper, but if he had nothing
to do with it, and he does not agree with it,
we can only say he has staff in whom he has
very little confidence, or he disagrees with
their judgment. Here is what they said:
The Beginning of the End for
Old Jails Like Owen Sound
An agreement signed last week between
the Ontario government and officials from
four counties in eastern Ontario marked
the beginning of the end of Ontario's
dungeon jails. Owen Sound's old jail which
has been a disgrace to the city for a long
time, and which was the centre of an
inquiry last year, will be in line for demol-
ishment, one of the 37 jails marked in
Ontario. Just how soon it will happen is
918
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up in the air. Reforms Minister Allan
Grossman took the occasion last week to
pledge his government to a pervasive re-
vamping of the entire archaic county-jail
system, and referred to the multi-county
deal in first-ever superlatives. In fact other
provinces, such as Alberta, have never had
county jails to get rid of. Nevertheless, the
Ontario move is a forward step in pe-
nology.
And let us listen to this:
With the province paying 50 per cent of
the cost and ten per cent of the mainte-
nance of the regional centres built to its
master plan, it will be hard for local
authorities of Ontario to refuse replace-
ments for disgraceful jails. Mr. Grossman
is pushing rebuilding and expects three or
four new regional centres to be agreed to
in the next year.
I will not plague the hon. member with the
balance of it, except the last paragraph, which
his very able staff wrote in this editorial:
In fact it seems that the movie-set
dungeon is at last on its way out and it
will not be missed.
So, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member in his
own newspaper has said that we are moving
ahead, and I would hope the hon. members
would help me in this and not give, as they
say they did, encouragement to those who will
say, let us wait for all these other things and
never do anything about it. That would
actually be the effect of what the hon. mem-
ber is saying.
Now, he had some specific questions. He
said "What about London?" I was out at
London last week. London is a difficult situ-
ation, because it has a very, shall we say,
independent mayor, who has some of his own
ideas. He is attempting to make, as the hon.
member for Downsview is attempting to
make, the county jail system a focal point for
the need, as he calls it, for the Ontario gov-
ernment to take over the complete cost of
the administration of justice.
Mr. Singer: It is not a question of waiting,
but of action.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are a lot of
other things that could make a good argu-
ment for the Ontario government's taking
over. On the one hand, hon. members will
argue for the autonomy of the local councils.
I could, and the hon. member, I am sure,
could— he is a very able man— I am sure he
could put up a good argument for taking
over practically everything, except garbage
collection, and there would not be any muni-
cipalities. As a matter of fact, as I did men-
tion in London, the provincial government
could take over the garbage collection too, by
the mere process of having a regional board
do this, or a regional group.
Mr. Chairman, he also mentioned in his
argument, "Why should a particular county
pay if a criminal comes into its county and
has to be incarcerated there; why should
they keep him?" This is a good theoretical
argument. But the argument can also be
employed in this respect: Why should the
province of Ontario pay $50 a week to keep
criminals when they have come from another
province? Why should not the federal gov-
ernment take that over? Some man com-
mitted a crime some place else, he has ten
or 15 crimes against him, they are waiting
for him there, he comes into the province of
Ontario, he commits a crime here, he
happens to be caught here and he is incar-
cerated in our jail. Why should he, because
he got one day less in his sentence, be a
cost to the province of Ontario? Shall we
tell the federal government to take over
the whole of the cost of this system?
Mr. Singer: Yes, but in the meantime we
should do our job fairly.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
wants to help us in this argument, we would
welcome his assistance. In the meantime, let
us get back to rebuilding regional detention
centres, and that is what we are doing.
There are other facts he brought out about
selling the land, and this sort of thing.
Actually, most counties will be able to re-
coup the cost of their share of buying the
new land by selling the land on which the
present old county jail sits. In many cases,
that jail is sitting on very valuable land and,
in many instances, they will be ahead of
the game insofar as that is concerned.
Anyway, all I can finish with is that, in
spite of the fact that there are arguments
that it will not work, it is working and at
least Ontario is doing something about it-
two in the last few months; seven jails, nine
jails, being replaced by three. That is not
bad for a few months, for jails you have
waited for more than 150 years. Give us a
hand, and by the end of the year we will
have a much bigger job done.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for
Downsview asked me about the Don jail. It
is in no different position from any other.
The Don jail is a combined city and county
jail. They had the same offer as any other
county and if some of those eastern counties
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
919
—some of the other counties and the city
of Hamilton— see fit to come into this new
plan with the same arrangements— a 50 per
cent grant— there is no reason for the city
of Toronto not doing the same thing.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, I feel I must say that I concur
with the remarks of the hon. member for
Downsview in connection with the Don jail,
in spite of what the hon. Minister has said
just now. It does not matter how you look
at it— when you have circumstances as de-
plorable as you find in places like the Don
jail, I think the government should take
over the cost, the complete cost, of justice in
cases such as this.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Braithwaite: And I must say that as
I sit here and listen while the hon. Minister
tries his best to drag a red herring across it,
I become more certain that this is the re-
sponsibility of the government.
I want to get on to the Harold King farm.
Earlier the hon. Minister mentioned that
some of these associations that were trying
to do a good job, were thought by him to be
doing harm.
I notice on page 45 of his report, that the
Harold King farm is mentioned; I notice
that he is paying tribute to it and other
foundations. What I want to ask, Mr. Chair-
man-
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member
if that comes under the grants— No. 10?
Mr. Braithwaite: It comes under the
grants.
What I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, is this:
I do not see under No. 10, any provision for
the Harold King farm and I would like to
know if the farm has made any requests for
money and has been turned down. If it has,
then how much money has the hon. Minister
in mind for the year 1967 for the Harold
King farm? If I remember correctly, this
institution was trying to raise money by
public subscription not long ago. I wonder
if the hon. Minister can bring us up to date
in that regard?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, let
say without any hesitation that I think the
Harold King farm is doing a wonderful job.
I have been out there a couple of times, I
think, and I have watched their operations.
They are doing a wonderful job and are
getting grants. They are getting their grants
from The Department of Public Welfare
under The Charitable Institutions Act. They
get a per diem grant.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the hon. Minister if he has seen fit to
pay tribute to them in his report, would they
not be entitled to money under his depart-
ment? I should think that the work they are
doing is directly related to the hon. Minis-
ter's department.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the differ-
ence to the Harold King farm, whether they
get it from The Department of Public Wel-
fare or from this department? They are not
going to get it from both departments, I can
tell the hon. member that. This is something
that the government has decided as a matter
of policy and these things are going to be
reviewed— whether it should be under The
Department of Public Welfare institution
grants system or whether it should be ours,
is a matter of opinion, but it really would
not make any difference.
Now, so far as any further grants or any
further assistance is concerned, all this is
going to be subject to the result of the re-
search that is being done in this whole field
of half-way houses.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I must
say that I disagree with the hon. Minister as
far as he says that it makes no difference. He
has not said how much money the farm is
getting— this I would like to know.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Ask Public Welfare
when the estimates come up.
Mr. Braithwaite: I should think that this
is the responsibility of the hon. Minister. He
should be able to answer that question.
The other thing is that if they are getting
enough money and getting along well, why is
it that they have to have public subscriptions?
I think this is the responsibility of the hon.
Minister's department.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has indicated
that you can ask The Department of Public
Welfare in their estimates, regarding those
circumstances.
Mr. Braithwaite: I just wanted to point
out, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing
The Department of Reform Institutions and
we are discussing grants and we are dis-
cussing—
Mr. Chairman: In the circumstances then,
I must ask the member to stay with The
Department of Reform Institutions.
920
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Braithwaite: With respect, sir.
Mr. Bryden: I just want to make a com-
ment on this particular point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracon-
dale is listed next. Is there something in this
particular point-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I am trying to take them
as I see them and I am going to ask that the
member for Bracondale be now recognized.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman,
first of all I should state that I regret that it
was necessary for our hon. leader, (Mr.
Thompson) to get up and more or less have
to-
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901.
Mr. Ben: We are on vote 1901-and apolo-
gize lest there be some thought that the at-
tacks being made by the Opposition were
in any way directed personally at members
of the staff. To me it was falling for an old
ploy of the hon. Minister. First, he accused
me of making a personal attack on him, then
that I was making a personal attack on his
department.
Mr. Chairman: Please, vote 1901; this a
statute for a salary, under 1901.
Mr. Ben: All the Opposition members
here were again accused of demoralizing the
staff; that we were responsible for demoraliz-
ing them.
In the— I do not know the date of the
newspaper— but the Reverend West was ac-
cused of making a personal attack, you might
say, on—
Mr. Chairman: Come back to 1901. I in-
sist that the member stay with vote 1901.
Mr. Ben: I am staying with vote 1901.
Can we then deal with "Staff training and
development"? All right?
Mr. Chairman: There is nothing to prevent
you from doing so.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, a great deal has
been said by the hon. Minister about what
wonderful training the staff of reform institu-
tions get and I could not help noticing, Mr.
Chairman, that in the public accounts-
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me, the member
for Bracondale, this has nothing to do with
the staff, as I understand it, for the reforma-
tories. This is the staff for the main office.
Is that what you want to talk about?
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, as I started to say,
I was going to refer to public accounts in
the province of Ontario for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1965. I would refer you,
Mr. Chairman, to page F-6 which deals with
"Main office staff training and develop-
ment." Captions: "Staff training school,
Guelph"; "Salaries"; "Training expenses,"
and so on. How can you say, Mr. Chairman,
that this does not deal with staff training?
Mr. Chairman: I think the member will
find— is this right, Mr. Minister? I think the
member will find under 1903 that the salaries
will come under Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think this is quite
in order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, in the public accounts to which I was
referring, I note that the amount appropri-
ated for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1965, was $56,000. As I pointed out on an
earlier occasion, of that amount only $21,000
was spent for staff training. As a matter of
fact, only half the amount appropriated;
$28,000 was spent. I am sorry, $22,000 was
spent for what you might call "training
courses." There were training fellowships
of $6,000, which would make it $28,000.
In the estimates before us, $75,000 is being
asked. I asked the hon. Minister— he can make
a note and answer it on a later occasion-
why for the fiscal year ending 1965, did he
only spend $22,000 for staff training, and
why this year they are asking for $75,000?
Why the sudden increase when they were not
spending in previous years what was ap-
propriated?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, would
the hon. member like an answer to that now?
Mr. Ben: I had suggested that the hon.
Minister make a note of it and give it all at
once but I will yield the floor to the hon.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will do it the way
the hon. member wishes.
Mr. Chairman: Candidly, Mr. Minister, I
would just as soon have the member have
his questions answered all at once.
Mr. Ben: I yield the floor, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is all right; go
ahead. I am guided by the Chairman.
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
921
Mr. Ben: Then there is another item that
comes under main office, Mr. Chairman. It
can be confirmed by looking at page F-6 in
the public accounts— training fellowships for
students in psychology and social work.
What I cannot understand are the amounts
allocated in this regard, such picayune
amounts when there is such a crying need
for trained psychologists and psychiatrists and
social workers in the reform institutions.
When Millbrook was opened, Mr. Chairman,
they had a supervising psychologist, two full-
time psychologists, two full-time social work-
ers, one part-time psychiatrist who gave eight
consecutive days a month, one part-time
psychiatrist who gave a half a day a week.
The last time they had a comparable staff
was three years ago. They now only have one
full-time psychologist who was hired, I be-
lieve, a year ago September; one part time
on the average of three times a month, giving
one to one and a half days at a time; and
they recently appointed a new psychiatrist,
but at the time I made inquiries they did not
know how much time that he would be
devoting.
Incidentally, I might point out that this is
the progress that is being made. Three years
ago— rather, when the prison opened about
ten years ago, they had one supervising psy-
chologist, two full-time psychologists, two
full-time social workers, and two part-time
psychiatrists; now they are down to one full-
time psychologist and two part-time psychia-
trists. That is progress in the reform
institutions.
I ask, if there is such a shortage of these
people, why are not the grants larger to get
more trained personnel into these prisons?
The hon. Minister last night started to give
some figures to rebut some statements made
by this side of the House to the effect that it
is our opinion that the inmates in Millbrook
and Guelph have a higher educational level
than his correctional staff. He started to deny
that it was so. He got up and he started
to read figures saying that they had checked
8,000 people who had passed through the
institution but he never finished, because he
knew we were going to get the point out that
that was not the question we asked. We
wanted to know the educational levels of the
people who were in Millbrook and Guelph at
the time he got the statistics on the educa-
tional level of the correctional officers in
those two institutions, and he started men-
tioning a figure of 8,000 inmates.
Now one of the things we did applaud the
hon. Minister for was the effort he was mak-
ing with the child-training centres. I would
suggest to the hon. Minister, if he has got all
these experts here, let them take the educa-
tional level of all the inmates but subtract
those that are in child-training institutes be-
cause they are all minors.
Mr. Chairman: The member is getting
away from the vote now.
Mr. Ben; They are all-I should not say
minors— juveniles; most of them are under the
age of 16. Take away their educational level
from the figures and I am willing to wager,
with the hon. Minister, $100 payable to the
Red Cross that the inmates in Millbrook and
Guelph have attained higher educational
level than the correctional officers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that to me or to a
charitable institution? Is the hon. member
offering to give $100 to a charitable institu-
tion?
Mr. Ben: A charitable institution; the hon.
Minister has too much money now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
going to be $100 poorer.
Mr. Ben: I am new in the House, Mr.
Chairman, and I cannot understand why the
hon. Minister was talking about things that
I did not think of as being in the main office
vote, and I cannot rebut, but perhaps I will
have to wait. He may-
Mr. Chairman: I should explain to the
member; it is a general statement that the
Minister makes in advance and then we deal
vote by vote.
Mr. Ben: Well, there has been a lot said
here about these district or county jails and
I cannot help thinking to myself what won-
derful progress has been made when I look
through my notes here and I find out that
in March of 1947, the then Minister of
Reform Institutions, Mr. Dunbar, replied to
a question that was asked; that when the
government's long-term programme — and I
have in my note how long— is completed
there will be no such institutions as the Don
jail but in their place would be county indus-
trial farms. This is in 1947. In 1948, on
April 1-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I question if this is on the
vote.
Mr. Ben: County jails.
922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: I know, but in 1947 and
1948. We have had considerable discussion
in connection with county jails and the cost
of the county jails. Now if you want to deal
with the cost of the county in repetition, you
may do so; 50 per cent of its share.
Mr. Ben: I am discussing it with your—
Mr. Chairman: I think it has been covered.
Mr. Ben: I would just point out that it has
certainly been covered because on April 1,
1949, the then member for York East, the
late Agnes Macphail, discussed not only the
—sorry, it is with reference to Mercer. I will
have to go over to 1949, July the 16th, the
then member for Wellington South, Mr.
Hamilton, sworn in as the Minister of Re-
form Institutions succeeding Mr. Dunbar,
and the Premier at that time, hon. Mr. Frost,
stated under the previous Minister, Mr.
Dunbar, an entirely new concept of reform
had been brought into effect— known as the
Ontario plan. He went on to say that it was
Dunbar who had initiated the plan which
would eventually replace the outmoded
county jail with industrial farms where
prisoners could be kept busy and taught
work that would be of use to them upon
their discharge.
I mention this because the hon. member
for Grey North, Mr. Chairman, had been
accusing the hon. Minister of making no
progress. This idea is not new. It has been
in existence since at least 1947. Now the
government brags about what progress it
has made and to this day it cannot show one
existing district or regional detention centre
and it is almost 20 years— and that is
progress. Sorry progress, I should say; yes,
it is a sorry, sorry progress.
I will now resume my seat, Mr. Chair-
man, but I am looking to the hon. Minister
for an answer to that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, first I
would like to table a copy of the agreements
which the hon. member asked for regarding
the agreements with respect to the regional
detention centres. Those two which have
already been signed. I think there are three
or four copies of each.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in respect to the
matter raised by the hon. member for
Bracondale regarding staff training, he has
pointed out that we have not expended the
money we had allotted to us for this purpose,
and attempts to make the point that appar-
ently we are not doing in staff training what
we should because we have not used the
money. I think the figure he used was
$22,915. Actually $28,915 was spent out of
a figure of $58,000 shown in the estimates
for that year. The figure of $28,915.16 is a
net figure after deducting $9,250.95, which
was recovered from the government of
Canada. Our actual expenditures therefore
were $38,166.
During 1964-65 we were without a
director of staff development. Thus his salary
was unexpended. If this had been included,
our expenditures two years ago would have
been $47,166.01. The balance of this appro-
priation was unused training fellowships and
provision for the second and third years of
the course in corrections to be conducted by
Queen's University, but which was discon-
tinued. Apparently Queen's University did
not have a sufficient number of students
for this course and discontinued it. Since
then we, of course, have arranged this with
McMaster University, and it is a very ex-
panded programme.
As far as the $100 that the hon. member
was going to donate to a charitable organiza-
tion, I hope he will allow me to name the
organization. He said that he would donate
this $100 if I established that the academic
education of the inmates in Millbrook was
in fact lower than the staff. I tell him now
that it is lower than the staff; it is lower than
grade 8.
Mr. Ben: Millbrook and Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have already given
you the figures, which included Guelph. And
incidentally, they did not include training
schools at all. These are only for adult insti-
tutions. The hon. member had better go out
and make that $100 fast.
Mr. Ben: Send the figures over and I will
make a cheque out.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth East was going to get the floor.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like the hon. Minister to
just briefly outline items 7 and 8 under 1901,
the workmen's compensation board awards,
and also number 8, which sets out com-
passionate allowances to permanently handi-
capped inmates or wards.
What is the relationship, first, with the
workmen's compensation? Does this refer to
staff coverage, or the inmate coverage? And
is it paid on the same basis as industrial
assessment is paid, or is there a special
arrangement covering your compensation
problems?
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
923
Also, could we have some idea of what
the experience is in the various institutions
in regard to injury while they are perform-
ing an occupational work?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, item
No. 7 has to do with staff. In item No. 8,
under the heading "compassionate allow-
ances," there is an arrangement made
whereby when an inmate is injured doing
work in the institution, we put it in the
hands of the workmen's compensation board
and have them process it on the same basis
as they would if the inmate were out of the
institution. According to their decision, we
provide a compassionate allowance to the in-
mate.
Mr. Gisborn: Just one little point further
on that: the amount for workmen's compen-
sation board. Is the department assessed on
the same basis as any other industry for
payroll?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told, yes, ex-
actly the same.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would like
just for a moment to bring us back to the
regional detention centres. I think that the
discussion we have had so far has been
centred on the financial problem, based upon
the small municipalities that we have today.
I would like to bring this matter into an-
other focus. Last night I talked and tried
to discuss with this House, the division of
authority in this whole correctional field.
One of the problems we face is because of
that division of authority. We do not have
the same Minister when it comes to pro-
bation and parole. We do not have the
same supervision when it comes to the matter
of younger people, children and their cor-
rection.
Now we come to the same problem here.
The hon. Minister is going to get his people
coming into his institutions from these re-
gional detention centres, but he does not have
control of the regional detention centres
under the setup proposed. This is going to
be done by the regional boards. He is
going to give some grants for the expenses.
But there is no co-ordination here. It seems
to me that the fundamental problem in this
whole matter is the problem of genuine co-
ordination, of unification of the whole system
of correction. Whether that unification can
be brought about by one department, right
through the whole gambit, or whether it can
be done by greater co-ordination, I do not
know at this point. It seems to me that this
whole field must be assessed and studied very
carefully. We are dealing here with human
beings. We are dealing here with corrections.
When boys and girls go wrong and become
emotionally disturbed, that is the place where
we ought to start the correction procedure.
When a young person is brought into the
county jail or into the correction centre, as
he will be later on, then that is the place
where the rehabilitative procedure ought to
begin.
And yet, sir, we are going to have a prob-
lem of staff, different standards in different
areas, unless the hon. Minister is going to set
those standards and make sure that proper
salaries are paid. Different standards of train-
ing cannot possibly be unified, except under
one authority.
So it seems to me that while the financial
problem might be solved to some extent, if
we had regional government of the kind that
we have long been advocating, this would
then pale into greater insignificance than it
does today, but the fundamental thing is uni-
fication in the corrections programme and the
corrections procedure. This is why, it seems
to me, that the province ought to be now
assuming responsibility for these regional
classification and detention centres. Finance
is important, yes, but it is the wellbeing of
the young people that are going to be brought
in there, the correction procedure that should
start at that moment, a correction procedure
which should be unified from that moment
until that person is restored to a self-respect-
ing place in society.
I think the hon. Minister ought to look at
this carefully not so much from the financial
point of view, as from a human point of
view. There is no question, Mr. Chairman,
that if there was real urgency in the mind of
the hon. Minister and the government of this
province, regarding these new centres, they
would be built. We would have them much
faster than the process is producing them to-
day. I think it is a matter of real urgency.
In a wartime situation, it is amazing what
we can do. This is a war on crime, Mr.
Chairman, a war on the kind of emotional dis-
turbance which results in later criminal acts
and in this kind of liability to society. So if
we regarded it this way, if the hon. Min-
ister and his Cabinet would think of it in
these terms, and think of the human values
at stake, then I think we would have not only
speed, but we would have a real attempt to
unify the whole correction procedure in this
province.
924
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you should have some side-view mir-
rors set up on that table there, so that you
can see this end of the House.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the
morning I brought up the position of
St. Leonard's house. I had hoped to be able
to follow through with it and was interrupted
by other speakers and never had a chance to
get back on it. I would like to follow through
at this time.
Less than one half hour ago, the hon. Min-
ister had mentioned the fact that he was not
going to wait for the Ontario tax report nor
the federal tax report, in dealing with the
building of the regional jails. Now, when it
comes to assistance for the halfway houses,
he is waiting for the report.
Why is he waiting for this one report and
refuses to wait for another report? The
Grygier report may not be down for six
months, a year, maybe two years, who knows?
It depends on the amount of effort and time
that Dr. Grygier has to give to the report.
In the meantime, St. Leonard's house
which is being assisted by The Department
of Public Welfare, is receiving only $1,400
a year in assistance. In a budget of well over
$25,000, $1,400 is very, very minor, when
you consider that of all the men being re-
leased from prison this year, four out of five
are going to find trouble; they are going to
be right back in prison.
And when you look at the fact that it costs
ten times more to keep a man in prison than
to administer some type of probation, we find
that St. Leonard's house is now reversing
that trend— has reversed the trend, so that
rather than four out of five returning to an
institution, we have only one out of five per-
sons who use St. Leonard's house return to
an institution. Despite this, and the fact
that the federal government in 1965 gave
the house a grant of $4,500, the grant from
this department was nil. The grant received
by St. Leonard's house was $1,436.41 from
the provincial Department of Public Welfare.
If this hon. Minister is going to talk about
rehabilitating, I think he should put up. He
has an opportunity to show that he is in-
terested in the work of this association by
giving them, or assisting them, in the grant
that they have requested.
This talking and waiting for a report is not
good enough for the people back in my com-
munity. They have waited long enough for
this assistance and they are deserving of this
assistance.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, we have com-
pleted another of the many circles we have
been describing in discussing these estimates
and it happens to bring us back to a point on
which I want to make a brief comment.
Before I do so, sir, I would like to make
an observation for your consideration as to
the method with which we are dealing with
the estimates. It is always an extremely diffi-
cult matter to deal with an estimate covering
a wide subject matter in a coherent and
rational way, but it would seem to me that
the sensible and logical way, when we are
dealing with a vote such as 1901, is to take
a point at a time and as far as possible, com-
plete it before going on to another point.
I know that this is by no means entirely in
your hands. It requires a lot of co-operation
from the members but I can assure any hon.
member who wants to go on to a new point
that he does not have to worry. If he waits
a few minutes, he will get his chance. On the
other hand, if we work on the principle that
we are going to develop lists, I would suggest,
sir, that it is going to create a rigidity in the
discussion of estimates which is quite undesir-
able.
We will be jumping all over the lot from
one point to another, because the person who
happens to get your eye and get on your list
as next in line, may have a totally different
point. Things would be much more satis-
factory for the Minister, for the House
and for everybody, if by reasonable forbear-
ance on the part of everybody, we could work
out a system where we deal with a point at
a time.
With that preamble, I want to make one
observation on a point that was before the
committee a little while ago: the question of
grants to certain halfway houses. The hon.
Minister said that those grants were paid out
of the estimates of The Department of Public
Welfare and you quite properly ruled that,
that being so, we could not go into a dis-
cussion of a specific grant at this time. I do
not believe that you had any option but to
rule that.
I would, however, like to say to the hon.
Minister that this is rather an undesirable way
of doing it. It seems to me, from my knowl-
edge of the matter, that these halfway houses
relate directly to his rehabilitation pro-
gramme, yet the members who are inter-
ested get an opportunity to ask questions
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
925
about them only in a totally different context
where they do not fit.
This is the time when they should be dis-
cussed because this is the time when we are
discussing the total programme to which they
relate. I suggest to the hon. Minister that he
might have a discussion with his colleague in
Public Welfare with a view to developing a
more rational procedure under which subjects
can be discussed when it is most appropriate
to discuss them.
Mr. Chairman: Just before I call on the
next one, I would like to say to the member
for Woodbine that I concur with his view-
point and I understand that at one time this
was the practice of the House— to call them
item by item under the vote— and if it is the
wish of the House, I would prefer to do it
this way.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to speak on this. I think it would be
most helpful to concentrate on one item at a
time. I think it must cause confusion to the
hon. Minister as well as to the members of
the Opposition, who perhaps feel that they
are arriving at a clarification and then sud-
denly find themselves off in another area.
Mr. Chairman: We are practically finished,
I assume, with vote 1901, but on our next
vote we can consider it.
Mr. Nixon: I have one short question.
When we were discussing regional detention
centres a few moments ago, the hon. Minis-
ter offered to give me some information as
to the location of a proposed detention
centre in the Brant area. I wonder if he
could now give me that information?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman, if I gave that impression. I had
no intention of doing that. We will not give
any opinion as to where a location should be
until it has been discussed with the coun-
ties concerned and a decision made, because
we do not want to enter into any public con-
troversy, if we possibly can in conferences
with—
Mr. Nixon: I was under the impression
that a decision had been made and the hon.
Minister was ready to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. I was referring
to the grouping.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, I do not know where to start here be-
cause you have narrowed down the rules of
the game from time to time on different
individuals. Yet I think, perhaps, I should
speak on behalf of these hard-working
county councillors to whom the hon. Minister
made reference. I sat on county council
for some ten years as the member for
Welland, trying to maintain an obsolete old
jail and spent many, many thousands of
dollars in taxpayers' money on these old
county buildings. And we still have an old
county building right in the heart of the city.
I do believe that it is time that this gov-
ernment paid some attention to the requests
of its mayors and reeves and Ontario muni-
cipal associations. I am very sorry that the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has left.
For a moment he showed a spark of life
this morning when he interjected in the
comments of my good friend, the hon.
member for Grey North.
In 1950 or 1951 there was a convention in
that city of his, to discuss these very prob-
lems and I would like to say to you, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs of the present day is the past
president of this great organization of the
mayors and reeves. At that time we worked
on problems together, trying to persuade this
government to concede to us at least one
fact, and that is that to bear the cost of
administration of justice in the municipali-
ties was not a fair burden on the shoulders
of a man who owns a bit of property. So
we sat together on many occasions trying to
persuade your executive body here to give
us this concession— to give us more grants.
I know that money does not grow on trees
and I also know that the mayors and reeves
association represents—
An hon. member: What does not grow on
trees?
Mr. Bukator: I sometimes would like to
find out. I would go and pick some-
Mr. Young: Gooseberry bushes, George.
Mr. Bukator: And that comes from a
reverend gentleman of the cloth. A very
fitting comment.
The mayors and reeves association repre-
sents 522 municipalities. They speak on be-
half of more than five million people in the
province of Ontario and they have come to
this government annually with their brief
asking them to pick up the added burden
that they must pick up from year to year as
the taxes go up, and put the cost in the
right area. I do believe that it is from the
926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
provincial and federal governments that they
should find these dollars. I know that the
same people will pay the money but it would
be a lot more equitable if they would do
that.
I was amazed when I read the resolution
to find exactly what the municipalities had to
pay for. And I found two— and I would like
to be corrected if I am wrong at this point,
by the hon. Minister, if he will.
He said last night, if I recall rightly, that
only ten per cent of the maintenance costs
of these county jails is borne by the province.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say "only";
I said ten per cent.
Mr. Bukator: Well, we will delete the
word "only." Ten per cent of the mainte-
nance cost is paid for by the province, is that
right? Then it is only ten per cent in my
book. Is there nothing paid to the cities or
the counties for the construction costs of
their buildings as at the present date? The
capital costs of new construction? The only
portion of administration of justice that is
borne by this province, then, is ten per cent
of the maintenance costs.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. Do you want me
to interject here, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, I would.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The cost of adminis-
tration of justice covers a multiplicity of
things, not just county jails. This is just one
aspect of it-
Mr. Bukator: I will read through this
resolution what they actually add their ten
per cent to.
Whereas under existing legislation, local
municipalities are required to provide the
jails and lock-up facilities and to pay the
salaries of the jail guards; to pay for court-
houses for the county and the supreme
court; to pay coroners, pathologists, post-
mortem and inquest fees; to pay for wit-
nesses and jurors, to provide accommoda-
tions for division courts, magistrates'
courts; to pay for magistrates and for their
staff; to provide accommodation to the
legal law library for lawyers; to provide
for transportation of prisoners and ad-
ministration and accommodation for
juvenile and family courts, and other ex-
penses related to the administration of
justice.
Now, all of these things the county pays for,
for the county buildings and the city build-
ings. You bear ten per cent of these?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. No, Mr. Chair-
man, let us get that clear. There is a gen-
eral grant for the administration of justice to
all municipalities. This is an additional ten
per cent by this department to help towards
the cost of the administration of county jails.
Mr. Bukator: Then, not to belabour this
point, I would like very much for the hon.
Minister to send me at his convenience the
breakdown of exactly what is paid for by the
province and how the percentages work out.
I suppose he has this in his records and he
can send it to me rather than take the time
of the House at this time.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): A good idea.
Mr. Bukator: The hon. member represent-
ing the Hydro commission says it is a good
idea. Did I get the hon. Minister's nod that
he will send me this information?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why, precisely, does
the hon. member want the information of
what we pay the ten per cent on?
Mr. Bukator: I would like to know how
much the hon. Minister bears of the admin-
istration of justice costs for any municipality
in the province.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We pay ten per cent
of the cost of the maintenance of the county
jails. That seems to cover everything the
hon. member needs to know in answer to that
question.
Mr. Bukator: Well, that is what I said at
the very beginning.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But I was trying to
point out, the hon. member was giving the
impression that this ten per cent is all that
a municipality gets towards the cost of
administration of justice generally, and that
is not the case. This is only insofar as the
county jail is concerned. It is an additional
grant by our department, ten per cent of the
cost of the administration of that particular
jail, over and above the government's regular
grants to the municipalities for the admin-
istration of justice.
Mr. Bukator: And that comes from The
Department of the Attorney-General, does it?
I am asking, I do not know. This would be a
very good place to get some information;
someone surely could give it to us. You have
Ministers in every department of government,
all I am asking is the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have given the hon.
member the answer to the question so far as
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
927
it relates to my department. If he wants to
find out how much his particular municipality
gets as far as grants for the administration of
justice generally, obviously I would not have
these figures here.
Mr. Bukator: Then my next question, Mr.
Chairman, is: What particular department
will provide these figures for us?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I imagine Municipal
Affairs, either Municipal Affairs or The De-
partment of the Attorney-General; I am not
sure.
Mr. Bukator: Then when these estimates
come before the House, we will inquire again.
I would like to clear up this particular point.
But let me follow up with the end of the
resolution of the mayors and reeves of this
particular province of ours who, I said before,
represent over five million of your taxpayers.
They wind up by saying:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Ontario
government be urged to carefully note the
inequalities in this situation and to take
whatever steps it considers necessary to
assist the municipalities by removing these
costs from the list of municipal financial
obligations and to assume the entire cost of
the administration of justice, including the
cost of buildings, maintaining courthouses
and jails.
It is as simple as that. Now this request has
been made on many occasions by people who
are elected to these county councils, elected
to municipalities, who have sat with the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs, who at one
time was the president of this group and also
made these requests.
My time takes me back to 1950 when we
came to the Attorney-General of that time,
the Hon. Dana Porter, and said that this is
not fair, the people should not bear this cost
on the piece of land that they own— espe-
cially the pensioners and those on fixed
incomes. And it is about time that this de-
partment took another look at this particular
cost and bore at least— he said 50 per cent
when they build new ones, if they build new
ones; but that does not appear to be in the
near future.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
the hon. Minister for so quickly making avail-
able to me a copy of the agreement between
the county of Peterborough, the county of
Victoria, and the united counties of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, before the
hon. member goes ahead, I though that I had
them both. They have just come off the
Zerox machine; they are essentially the same.
Mr. Singer: I have been able to spend a
few minutes going over this, presuming in
essence they are substantially the same. May
I say, Mr. Chairman, that these agreements
confirm my foreboding about this whole
situation. This agreement is nothing more
than a declaration of intention. I do not
think it really requires anyone steeped in
the law to read this agreement through and
to find that there is no commitment.
There is no positive commitment at all on
the part of the parties to this agreement—
interestingly enough the province is not a
party to this agreement, only the municipal
organizations are— and there is no commit-
ment by them that they will build a centre.
There is no commitment at all that there
will be built a regional jail. There are
methods established whereby they can con-
tinue to investigate; there are methods
established whereby they can begin to look
at land sites; and there are methods estab-
lished whereby, once they agree, that the
whole matter can go to arbitration.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I
would turn again to the original theme I was
making. The great achievement of having
arrived at two agreements really is not the
great achievement that the hon. Minister
seemed to impress me with. It really does
not mean that today or next week or next
year, or even within a foreseeable target
date, that we are going to have a regional
detention centre that will involve the county
of Peterborough, the county of Victoria and
the united counties of Northumberland and
Durham.
This is an evidence of goodwill on behalf
of the councils of these municipalities that
they are going to sit down and think about
it further and talk about it further. And if
this is true, Mr. Chairman— and I say read-
ing this that this is the way it impresses me
—where is our programme for regional jails?
It is just non-existent.
Mr. Sargent: Before you close this vote,
Mr. Chairman, this 1901— this at the best is
a trying ordeal for the hon. Minister on the
hot seat— I think it has come to the point
where we have these $2 billion worth of
estimates and we have everything corralled
into this one book one inch thick and, pro-
gressively, we have to nit-pick the informa-
tion from the hon. Minister. I see the hon.
Prime Minister is not in his seat, but it be-
comes someone on that side of the House to
furnish us with the information we should
928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have before us; as in any sense of business.
In the estimates of the Prime Minister
there was "other salaries, $49,000"; "other
salaries, $133,000." What are they? The
hon. Prime Minister tells us that they are
all people under $8,000.
Mr. Chairman: That was on another vote.
Mr. Sargent: All right. Now we are back
to this vote. Progressively, Mr. Chairman,
we are going through every vote. We are
going to ask you what those other salaries
are, and we have a right to know them. And
for once, let me establish some sense of
intelligence. This book should be five times
as thick as it is now to carry the information
we want. Behind the Speaker's desk you
could have a complete compilation of all
these facts we need, an addendum or
something to give us this information. And
somewhere along the line, let us give the
Opposition what they need to fight this with.
How can we ask intelligent questions—
An hon. member: That is hard to do.
Another hon. member: That kind of equip-
ment cannot be printed.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Well, it is tough at any time,
but if you do not have the facts, how can
you? I think, Mr. Chairman, we asked the
hon. Prime Minister to give us some ground
rules, but he did not say anything. I asked
for these breakdowns and we have not had
them. But every vote that comes up we are
going to ask for them, so let us get on with
it and start moving.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1901 carried? No,
the member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: This is why I said, Mr.
Chairman, you should have side-view mirrors
there. There are other members in the House
other than those who are in front of you.
Mr. Chairman: I say to the member for
Windsor-Walkerville that, if he will rise in
his place and call "Mr. Chairman," I will
recognize him. If I cannot see him, I will
hear him.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have done
this all morning and I got no attention from
you.
Now, Mr. Chairman, under item 5, the
advisory committee, would the hon. Minister
please advise me how often this committee
meets and what per diem allowances do they
receive?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which committee is
the hon. member referring to?
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister's advisory
committee on the treatment of the offender,
page 7 of his report.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The regular meet-
ings are twice a month.
Mr. Newman: Twice a month. And what
are their per diem allowances?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: At present it is $30
a day; I am sorry, $20.
Mr. Thompson: Following on this ques-
tion, is there any member of the advisory
committee who had not been present for a
committee meeting for six months?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might be corrected
if I am wrong. I will advise the hon. leader
of the Opposition I would doubt that there is
such a member on the committee.
Mr. Thompson: You would notice their
absence. Do you not take their advice?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not sit on the
committee; I rarely sit on the committee.
Mr. Thompson: But it comes to you with
advice.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but I would not
necessarily know everybody who was in at-
tendance at that committee. I do know that
there was an extended absence on the part
of a previous member who finally realized
that he could not attend, and he is not on
the committee now; but I would doubt if
there is anybody on the committee now who
has not attended a meeting for that period
of time. They are fairly regular.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I notice that, on the voluntary agencies that
get grants in comparison with The Depart-
ment of Health and a number of other organ-
izations, yours are very small. Are there
voluntary agencies that have applied to you
to receive grants and which have been turned
down and, if so, which voluntary agencies?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. leader
of the Opposition mean any and all people
who have applied for some financial assis-
tance?
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
Mr. Thompson: No, I am referring to
voluntary agencies.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Any and all volun-
tary agencies? Regardless of work?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There was the half-
way house the hon. member for Hamilton
East referred to, but they were directed to-
wards the drug and alcoholic addiction re-
search; St. Leonard's house has asked for
some money, which we have not granted,
except for what they are getting per diem.
I cannot recall any other agency at the
moment.
Mr. Thompson: The King farm did not
apply to you?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I think they ap-
plied for a capital grant. They were going
to expand at the time. As a matter of fact,
it was on my advice. I am very familiar with
Harold King, he is an old friend of mine. I
advised that in my opinion it was advisable
not to start expanding at this stage, but to
make sure that his existing organization was
well integrated and proved a success for over
a period of time, before he decided to ex-
pand. Then as a matter of fact, because
we were doing research on both his organiza-
tion and St. Leonard's we would not look
favourably on giving any additional grants at
this time.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1901 carried?
Vote 1901 agreed to.
On vote 1902:
Mr. Chairman: Item No. 1, please, under
vote 1902, is this what we agreed upon?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. The discussion that has led you to
call for item one— are we to understand that
if you declare item one passed, it can then
no longer be referred to, or is this just to
bring some order out of the discussion, so
that before the final vote is passed we can
return to—
Mr. Chairman: I would suggest to the
member for Brant that once the item is
passed, it is passed.
Mr. Nixon: I would object to that, Mr.
Chairman. I would say on the point of order
that some more order could be brought to
our discussion if we restricted our comments
to the items as they occur one after the other,
but that before the final vote is passed we
have the opportunity to discuss all the items
in general.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, may I just
follow up what my hon. friend from Brant
has said? I think this is a case where we
have to find a reasonable harmony between
flexibility and order. I would suggest to you
that you treat the item as a guide for the
discussion but have votes only on the actual
votes. There is not only the point that my
hon. friend from Brant mentioned, that a
member may think of something after the
discussion on the specific item. I think that
is legitimate. After all, we cannot have
everything in our minds all at one time.
But there is also the problem of matters
relating to the vote as a whole, that do not
clearly fall within any specific item. They
may cut across items. I would think such
more comprehensive matters could be con-
sidered perhaps at the end. So I would
suggest to you, sir, that we use the items as
a guide but actually vote only on the com-
plete vote.
Mr. Chairman: If it is on the point of
order?
Mr. Sargent: No, it is on this vote. 1902.
Mr. Chairman: No, we have not started
with this particular vote yet. Before calling
on the next member, I would suggest that
we follow through with this, with a certain
amount of flexibility, but we use it as a
guide from No. 1 to whatever items are on
there, and we deal with the entire vote. And
now we will deal with 1902, item No. one.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I
have the same question that the hon. member
for Grey North had in mind. He is quite
concerned about a particular matter about
which I am concerned, too. I am going to
ask the hon. Minister for a breakdown of
item one of vote 1902, which is the item for
salaries and which represents a total of little
over half a million dollars. I would like to
say to him that I am not interested in the
salaries of individuals but in the classifications
covered. In other words, if he would indi-
cate that there are so many people in such
and such a classification receiving total salar-
ies of so and so, I think that would meet my
requirements.
One further observation I would like to
make along the lines of what the hon. mem-
ber for Grey North has said on a number of
occasions: I do not see why that information
and information of that type cannot be given
930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in this book. I was looking at the BC
estimates not long ago, and such information
is regularly given in the BC book. It is ad-
mittedly a much bigger book than this. It is
more about this size. But I do not think we
are so hard up in this province that we cannot
afford a little more paper to provide some of
this basic information. It saves asking a lot
of questions, and in addition to that, it is
easier for a member to absorb informa-
tion, especially if it involves figures, when it
is right in front of him, rather than having to
listen to it.
Nothing can be done about this problem
this year. I am going to raise it again with
the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)
when we come to the provincial auditor's
estimates, but I would ask the government
to bear that in mind for another year. In the
meantime I would ask this breakdown for item
one of 1902— and I assume from what the
hon. member for Grey North has said, that
the hon. Minister and other hon. Ministers
can get ready to give it on every vote as it
comes up.
Mr. Chairman: Is this information avail-
able at the present time, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Chairman, I
will be glad to get it for the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey
North.
Mr. Sargent: I thank the hon. member for
Woodbine for his—
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1902.
Mr. Sargent: On vote 1902, Mr. Chairman,
let us talk about the parole programme of
this department. I would like to ask the hon.
Minister, how much does it cost to keep a
man in jail for a year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are various
costs, depending on the jail.
Mr. Sargent: Well, an average unit cost of
one man per year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
talking about reformatories, or is he talking
about jails? Even then, within these categor-
ies, there are various costs. For instance, the
small county jail-
Mr. Sargent: Give it to us right down the
line, the whole line.
Mr. Chairman: I suppose we can pass No.
1. For your information, this does not speci-
fically come under No. 1; but it does come
under parole.
Mr. Sargent: I think the hon. Minister is
tired. What is your rate then of repeaters in
Ontario, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The rate of recidi-
Mr. Sargent: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the reforma-
tories? There are no such figures available.
And there are no such legitimate figures avail-
able in any jurisdiction in the world that we
know of that can be depended upon.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Minister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are some figures
in the annual report which give you some
rundown of particular rates which have been
calculated for certain institutions. I refer the
hon. member, for example, to page 16 where
there is what we have been able to find out
regarding prisoners in Millbrook and some of
the other institutions. The problem is, until
there is a proper federal system set up, co-
ordinated with all of the provinces, which is
what is being attempted at the present time,
it is very difficult, because you can only take
fingerprints of those people who have been
convicted of indictable offences. Therefore a
person who has not been convicted of an
indictable offence, if he is convicted either in
our own jurisdiction under an assumed name
or in another jurisdiction under an assumed
name, we could not really tell. And then, of
course, recidivism has very different termi-
nology, too.
You cannot include those people who are
still doing all sorts of illegal things but have
not been caught. But insofar as we are able
to establish, the hon. member will find
within the annual report those rates which
we have been able to establish fairly well—
and I would not like to give the hon. mem-
ber the impression that these could be
backed up scientifically in the manner in
which researchers insist that this be done.
Mr. Sargent: Is the hon. Minister aware
there is a programme in the United States, a
sponsorship programme— in other words your
experience is possibly that 85 per cent of
the people now in prison return some time
along the line? Would the hon. Minister
agree with that in some areas, right or
wrong?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, I would doubt
this very much.
FEBRUARY 25, 1966
931
Mr. Sargent: That is a figure that is used
pretty generally in penology.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have never heard
of it.
Mr. Sargent: Well, what does the hon.
Minister figure? He must have figured it
some way. Does he have a figure?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, for example, I
pointed out that the hon. member can take
a look at page 16 in the report.
Mr. Sargent: I am asking a question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: I am asking a question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am saying that if
the hon. member will follow it with the
chart— I am just trying to be of some assist-
ance to the hon. member. Maybe it is easier
to follow it with the chart. There appears
to be, for example, from those first 200
prisoners admitted between 1950 and 1959
and 1960 inclusively, about 40.5 per cent
were not reconvicted.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you. That is the
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report a certain
resolution and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report a certain resolu-
tion and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will proceed with
these estimates in the afternoon and the
Throne debate in the evening session.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves adjournment of
the House.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Before the
motion is put, Mr. Speaker, what is the ten-
tative lineup for estimates after this?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The Department of
Highways will follow this and then we will
go to the Lieutenant-Governor's office, then
the provincial auditor and then The Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Are there three night sittings, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes; Monday, Tuesday
and Thursday.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 32
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 28, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 28, 1966
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 935
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Renwiek, first reading 935
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, bill to amend, Mr. Renwiek, first reading 935
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 938
Recess, 6 o'clock 970
Erratum 970
935
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as guests to the Legislature today, in the
west gallery, students from St. George's col-
lege, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Municipal Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Municipal Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT
Mr. Renwick moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
just a word of explanation, if I may. These
bills were introduced last year and were not
called. I am reintroducing them this year to
provide that the power of the metropolitan
board of commisioners of police, and the
power of the boards of commissioners of
police generally, to pass bylaws regulating
parades be removed, and that such power be
conferred on the councils of cities and towns
Monday, February 28, 1966
and on the metropolitan council, in the case
of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question to ask of the hon. Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) before the orders
of the day, notice of which has been given.
The question is in two parts:
1. Would the hon. Minister inform this
House if he approved the course of action
taken by the Ontario farm products market-
ing board before the takeover of the Ontario
bean growers marketing board?
2. How many police and security officers
were used by the Ontario farm products
marketing board in the takeover on February
24, in London?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first ques-
tion, the answer is "yes".
In reply to the second question, the an-
swer is: None by the Ontario farm products
marketing board. Any security officers were
used by the auditors as a precaution in pro-
tecting the property and the records of the
company and the board, in the interests of
the bean growers of Ontario, under the
authority provided by the new bean market-
ing board.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Sper.ker, would the hon.
Minister permit another question? With the
controversy that has developed over the last
year in regard to the bean marketing board's
operation, would the hon. Minister set up a
public inquiry into every segment of the bean
industry in the province of Ontario and
clear the character or the reputation of every
member of the bean board?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question along the same
line. Perhaps we could get them all in at the
same time.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for York
South and the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr.
Gaunt) would both give their questions next
in order to the Minister, as they are on the
same subject.
936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is in three parts:
1. Under what authority has the govern-
ment dismissed the Ontario bean growers
marketing board?
2. What were the reasons for this drastic
action?
3. For how long will the government-ap-
pointed board replaee the producer-elected
board?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
my question is much the same as that sub-
mitted by the hon. member for York South.
I would ask the hon. Minister, in view of the
farm products marketing board's unprece-
dented action in removing and replacing the
elected representatives on the bean growers
marketing board, what were the facts that
led the government to do this and what plans
does the government have to restore the
autonomy of the bean growers marketing
board?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the questions asked by the hon. members
for York South and Huron-Bruce concerning
the action taken, I would say that it was
taken under the authority of The Farm Prod-
ucts Marketing Act, section 6, subsections 1
(a) and 1 (g).
As far as the reasons for this action are
concerned, anyone who has followed— as I am
sure the hon. members of this House who
have been interested in this matter have done
—the discussions and controversy that has per-
tained toward bean marketing in the province
of Ontario for the last year will realize that
there has been a lot left to be desired be-
tween the relations of the farm products
marketing board and the bean growers mar-
keting board. Agreement-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: If my hon. friend would
keep his mouth shut long enough to give his
ears a chance to work he would find out the
answer.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with the
unfortunate misunderstandings that have per-
tained, and with the fact that there has been
an agreement apparently drafted and reached
which we felt was satisfactory to all con-
cerned, and with the non-compliance with
that agreement that was so evident lately,
there was no other action that could be taken.
But that action had to be taken, if we were to
maintain the confidence of the various mar-
keting boards across this province in The
Farm Products Marketing Act; and in par-
ticular, the confidence of the people who are
concerned with what happens to farm prod-
ucts. I think this is what we have to be con-
cerned with. We have to be concerned with
all of the aspects of marketing, so this was the
only action we felt we could take.
Having said this, I want to make it abun-
dantly clear here in this House that the bean
marketing plan, as it operates in the province
of Ontario under The Farm Products Market-
ing Act, will continue in operation; and that
the plant will be kept open at London to
serve the interests of the bean growers of that
area. This, to me, is the only thing that can
be done. And as far as the date the plan will
be turned back to the growers is concerned,
I would say that it will be turned back to the
growers as soon as it is deemed advisable.
No government wants to be in the field of
operating a marketing plan. We have not, in
any other plan except this.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
lion. Minister a supplementary question? Why
was there all the secrecy surrounding the
meeting? Why were the members of the
board not notified that this was the purpose
of the meeting in London?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, I do not think there
is any particular reason why they were not
notified of the meeting in London. There
seems to be a very great lack of communica-
tion between the bean growers board and
the farm products marketing board, with the
former making decisions that were not re-
ferred in any way, shape or form to the farm
products marketing board at all.
This is the problem. There was no com-
munication. There was a very obvious lack
of communication between them and the
farm products marketing board, and I think
that very obviously it had to be done this
way.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett). I do not know whether he has
arranged to have an answer or not.
Would the hon. Minister comment on the
charge made by Thomas W. Kierans that the
United States Public Law 89-298 may have
the effect of cutting water levels on Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, result-
ing in damage to Canada's downstream
interests?
Mn MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
second question of the hon. Prime Minister
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
937
(Mr. Robarts). In view of the assertion by
Mr. Justice Campbell Grant on page 112, of
the report of the FAME inquiry that Mr.
Gunner would be obliged to place the Fear-
man plant shares for sale, what action does
the government intend to take in face of Mr.
Gunner's recent statement that the plant is
not for sale?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Well,
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gunner's statement was
made on his own responsibility and I have
no knowledge of the circumstances surround-
ing the statement or really why these remarks
were made. As I understand it, he was
speaking about the plant itself. On looking
at Mr. Justice Grant's statement, I want to
make it very clear that this is one sentence
out of 114 pages of the report, so the full
ramification of the statement might require
study of more than just the one sentence.
But he, as I understand it, is referring to the
offering of shares for sale.
Now as I say, I do not know why Gunner
made this statement, but reading a little
further it does appear to me to refer to a
relationship existing between FAME and
Gunner in their private capacities. There was
a buyer and there was a seller and they
reached an agreement for sale. The shares
are hypothecated for certain purposes that
are in the agreement between these two
parties. It is a private agreement and I do
not see that this government is in any way
involved in the transaction to which this
question refers and to which Gunner's state-
ment apparently refers.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I would like
to direct the following questions to the hon.
Prime Minister.
Is it true, as reported in the press, that
Ontario's centennial project will not be ready
in time for the centennial celebrations?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, certainly
tenders for the project have been received.
They were received last week and are pres-
ently under very close analysis and review.
Upon looking at those tenders and various
other factors it does appear that the project
will not be completed in its entirety in 1967.
There are various factors involved, some
of which are referred to in the tenders, such
as rising costs, and these of course are
obvious in the budgeting we have done for
this project. As I think we are all aware,
building projects all over this province are
presently being slowed down as a result of
a shortage of labour. At the moment I would
say that this centre of science and tech-
nology will not be changed in its designation
or in its ultimate function, but the whole
question of the amount it will cost and what
portion of it can be completed by any fixed
date in 1967 is presently under consideration
as a result of these factors I have mentioned
and as a result of what is revealed to us in
the tenders which we now have.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a
supplementary question. In view of the un-
certainty of the fate of this project, I would
say an uncertainty amounting to almost a
certainty that it will not be completed in
time, will the hon. Prime Minister consider
as an alternative centennial project the
implementation in Ontario, by July 1, 1967,
of a comprehensive, universal medical care
insurance programme as a real centennial
for the people of Ontario?
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Agriculture,
notice of which has been given. Could the
hon. Minister inform this House as to
whether he has been in contact with the
federal agriculture Minister in the last few
days with respect to the $4 per hundred-
weight milk price asked by the manu-
factured milk producers? If so, what were
the results?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to say the answer is yes, with promis-
ing results.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Were the promis-
ing results such that the agreement was
reached that the $4 per hundredweight for
manufactured milk can be given within the
next— let us say within the foreseeable
future?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would
say that with the magnificent communica-
tion that I know exists between my hon.
friend from Huron-Bruce and the federal
Minister of Agriculture he might be able
to provide a better answer to that question
than I. Let me say that I am doing every-
thing I can from this side of the House to
assist the federal Minister in trying to arrive
at that happy solution to the problem, which
all dairy farmers really seek at this moment.
We are in constant touch with him and I am
very pleased with our relationship. I know
that if he adds his weight to the cause on
his side of the House I think it will greatly
assist the federal government to make the
decision that we hope will be made as a
happy solution to the problem.
938
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gaunt: I will be glad.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Connell). What steps if any are being
taken to remedy the acute parking situation
in the Kensington market area of Toronto
caused by the fact that the provincial in-
stitute of trades on Nassau street has no
parking facilities at all? I think it has none
at all; it certainly does not have adequate
facilities, in any case.
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the question of park-
ing facilities at the provincial institute of
trades on Nassau street in Toronto is under
study but no final decision has as yet been
reached.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
Minister in any position to say when he
may be able to make a more definite state-
ment in this matter?
Hon. Mr. Connell: I am working on it.
Mr. Bryden: It is urgent, does the hon.
Minister realize that?
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 25th order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. L. M. Reilly in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
( continued )
On vote 1902:
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): On this vote,
parole and rehabilitation services, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions would the policy with
regard to sponsorship programmes come under
this vote? Under parole?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I do
not understand what the hon. member is
referring to when he refers to sponsorship
programmes.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is
part of the parole system in the United
States penology and it is a forward step in
parole systems and I asked the hon. Minister
last week what was his experience of returns
to prison and he did not have a figure. My
hon. friend and myself have talked this mat-
ter over quite often, but I am wondering if
his department is in charge of the sponsor-
ship programmes and, if not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
asked the hon. member to explain to me what
he means by sponsored programmes. I am
afraid he has not clarified that— at least, not
so that I can understand it. Incidentally,
I do not think I ever stated to this House
that I could not give the hon. member
the figures for the success of those on parole;
that is, completion of parole. He may have
been confusing the matter of how many
people who have been on parole had been
convicted at some future date, which are
two entirely different things. If the hon.
member would care to clarify his question,
I would be very pleased to answer.
Mr. Sargent: My only point, Mr. Chair-
man, is that I feel that if the hon. Minister
has no knowledge of return to prison of the
people in there now, there is a great laxity
in the programme they are doing. Quoting
an experience in the United States, with re-
gard to what Warden Duffy is doing, it says:
The warden and I both feel, and it has
long been our belief and our convictions
are shared by nearly every leading penolo-
gist, that the basic premise used in most
prisons is false. Society, its judges and its
prisons seem to think only about the pun-
ishment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is out of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sargent: It may be out of order, but
I want to establish the fact that the hon.
Minister has no concrete programme for
modern treatment of parolees in this province.
And he has no knowledge about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, per-
haps it would be worthwhile putting on the
record the statistics which are already in the
annual report in the hope that this will clarify
it for the hon. member. Page 43 of the re-
port, which I hope the hon. member has
before him, shows the number appearing be-
fore the parole board for consideration, both
men and women, for the fiscal year covered
by the annual report was 1,764; the number
of parolees affected during that time were
976; the number who had successfully com-
pleted parole were 814, or 83.4 per cent. In
other words, of those who had been put on
parole, those who did not breach their parole
requirements were 83.4 per cent. I hope this
answers the hon. member's question. Aside
from that, I do not know what other informa-
tion he seeks.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
939
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
to flog this point, but what is the experience
of the hon. Minister of the return to prison?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that
is an entirely different matter from parole.
There are thousands of people who have been
convicted and have been in and out of penal
institutions, but this bears no relationship
to parole as such. There are many who are in
the institutions, I imagine, who are recidivists
—who have been in institutions before and
have been on parole. I rather imagine that
most of them have successfully completed
parole. Perhaps this is as good a time as
any, Mr. Chairman, to try to clarify some
of the confusion which exists in the minds of
many people when reading statistics from
other sources about success on parole and
confusing this with successful rehabilitation
of an offender. They are entirely two differ-
ent things. Most people who come back to
institutions— I say "most" qualifiedly; there
may be a smaller or larger percentage— are
recidivists and have been in and out of insti-
tutions before. They have, at one stage or
other, successfully completed a parole, which
means that the parole as such had no effect
on their subsequent actions.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, we are getting
to what I want to get across, and that is the
fact that the experience in most jurisdictions
is that the ones who return are 85 per cent of
the people now in prisons. In a new phase in
the United States, now being practised
through a sponsorship programme, they have
a 90 per cent record of those who do not
return after they get through this sponsorship
programme.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is ridiculous;
utterly ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, there is no
place in the world, no jurisdiction in the
world, where they even claim 90 per cent
success.
Mr. Sargent: In this book, "My Shadow
Ran Fast" by Bill Sands-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have met the gen-
tleman.
Mr. Sargent: Then the hon. Minister knows
what I am talking about. This is an actual
happening in the United States. This man
says, in starting a sponsorship programme:
Under the existing laws, men have to
have jobs before being released on parole.
And frequently men were still in prison,
trying to get jobs, months and even years
after the parole board has pronounced
them fit to be free. The longest wait for
any I knew personally was 34 months. He
had spent more time trying to get a job
after he had been paroled than some men
spend in prison altogether. And many men
I knew had waited as long as a year to
18 months.
Under the sponsorship programme, I
interested some Kansas City businessmen
in taking men out and financing them until
they could get jobs. The terms of this
sponsorship require that the man repay
his businessman sponsor before the latter
could take another man. The laws remain
the same, but we have obtained official per-
mission for this programme, thus freeing
parolees to compete for jobs by presenting
themselves for interviews instead of send-
ing applications from prison. With main-
tenance of a man in prison costing more
than $1,500 a year, dollar savings were
noted almost immediately.
Six months after the programme started,
only one man who had a serious drinking
problem had failed to repay his sponsors
and none of the approximately 100 men
who had gone through the class had
returned to prison.
That was the score at the time this book
had gone to press. This is a forward-looking
programme. It is so new that I think it is
time someone in Canada took a look at it.
This department, I would say, would be a
good place to start.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I would
not underestimate the so-called sponsorship
programme, although I have not read Mr.
Sands' book, I have heard him speak. I do
not know what this particular sponsorship
programme is about, but I would not want
there to be any confusion as to what this
really means when the hon. member is
quoting statistics.
In fact, what he is saying is that a volun-
teer group has undertaken the choosing— we
must remember that— of a selected group who
appear to be well-motivated, trying to help
them become rehabilitated in society, get
them work and so on. From this 100 they
have established, to their satisfaction, that X
percentage has not been reconvicted.
In fact, our department— the department
of rehabilitation service— does this, except
that we choose a much larger group. As a
matter of fact, the programme that the hon.
member is speaking of could be one com-
pared to perhaps the Harold King farm, in
which they choose, from all our releasees,
those who say: "I would like to be helped,
940
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not by your rehabilitation service, or by X
rehabilitation service; I would like to go to
the Harold King farm." They therefore, with
the guidance and assistance of our depart-
ment—our rehabilitation officers— make appli-
cation to the Harold King farm. The Harold
King farm then goes over the applications and
takes the few it thinks it could help the
most; and from this few are chosen those
they will accept. Obviously, their rate of
success eventually must be a lot greater
than the rate of success we can claim, because
we have to take anyone who appears, in the
view of our rehabilitation officers, to have
any likelihood whatsoever of success.
I hope that I have made myself clear to
the hon. member. The more programmes
there are, of the nature he suggests, by
qualified— and I want to repeat the word
"qualified"— after-care agencies, people who
are qualified in the work, the happier we
will be.
I should point out to the hon. member,
too, that the John Howard society and the
Elizabeth Fry society and the Salvation Army
—among other groups— have been doing this
work for years very quietly, without any
fanfare, and have been doing a wonderful
job.
Of course, they probably will not claim
these tremendous rates of success. As a
matter of fact, the kind of claims made by
people like Mr. Sands make them subject to
some concern by people in corrections work
all over the world— because it has not been
done over a long enough period to establish
that, in fact, these people have been rehabili-
tated. The fact that a man has not been
reconvicted in a year, or two years, does not
mean that he has been rehabilitated. You
would have to follow through for a great
number of years.
For example, as we did, between the years
1955 and 1960, I think it was, or somewhere
thereabouts, at our Brampton training centre.
We chose those who were considered the
most likely to succeed among first offenders.
Through our rate of success for that period
we were able to establish an actual rate of
recidivism. Through the co-operation of the
RCMP, the offenders were followed through
for five years and we found the rate of
success— where it could be claimed to be
success— was in the neighbourhood of about
66 per cent.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, would the hon.
Minister tell me if interested groups could
have access to prisons to talk to people in
this regard; if there was a firm programme
along this line?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All the recognized
after-care agencies presently operating in
Ontario have access. In fact, they come in and
discuss matters with our rehabilitation officers.
They all work together because there are
some inmates who, after they have been
released, refuse to have anything to do with
officialdom which, in the first place, they
take as having been responsible for their
being convicted and kept in an institution.
These people quite often will choose anyone
but a government agent. So this is the reason
why organizations like the John Howard and
Elizabeth Fry societies are very valuable m
our work. Of course, they work in close co-
operation with our people.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
apropos to what the hon. Minister has just
said, it seems to me that he is begging an
issue here, in that the types of institutions we
have in Guelph and other places are bound
to generate this kind of hostility toward the
establishment. So people there— a certain
number of them— are bound to resent or resist
the continuation of governmental supervision.
I think the solution to this matter is to get
smaller institutions with a different kind of
emphasis.
A question I would like to direct to the
hon. Minister is one in regard to the rehabili-
tation staff. Last year he did give me a list
of the staff members— their qualifications,
education and so on, and also their caseload.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would let us
know if any significant improvement has taken
place over the past 12 months in respect to
this. We had some rather high caseloads;
and the various qualification standards could
be improved, although many of these people
are struggling to improve the qualifications
they now have. Would the hon. Minister
tell us what the picture is at the present
time and what improvement has taken place?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that the
caseload is just about the same. The hon.
member will note in the estimates that suffi-
cient is allowed for an increase in this
complement. In the meantime, many of
these have been upgraded in at least
academic qualifications. They have taken
courses at McMaster, and other such courses
available for them.
Mr. Young: Would the hon. Minister tell
us what changes—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know
whether I mentioned that the average case-
load is about 40.
Mr. Young. Forty-five last year.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
941
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is now 40, so that
is a slight improvement.
Mr. Young: Does this mean then that we
have a larger staff?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The staff at this
present moment is 59, as against 56 last
year. There are still seven vacancies, but in
spite of the vacancies we have allowed for
13 additional ones in the estimates for the
coming year because of additional respon-
sibilities.
Mr. Young: A total of 20.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, obviously, from the hon.
Minister's remarks, the caseload for the re-
habilitation worker is a little heavier than he
would like to have; and he would like to de-
crease it substantially were it possible to do
so overnight. Has the hon. Minister con-
sidered purchasing rehabilitation services
from organizations?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
have considered this. We have not gone into
it in the detail we would have liked to have
done by this time, but this is part and parcel
of the research we are hoping to get com-
pleted, insofar as after-care agencies are
concerned. We have to know just what we
are going to be spending our money on. It
may very well be that we may go into half-
way houses ourselves, or it may very well be
that we might find that purchasing these
halfway houses and after-care services— we
already have services from existing agencies
—may be the answer to it. This is what we
are hoping to discover with research.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my repeating
this is not becoming offensive to hon. mem-
bers; but I must say that we have said, as a
statement of policy, that what we are doing
now and what we intend to do in the future
will be based on research. We want to make
sure that we are spending our money, time
and effort where the money, time and effort
should be spent. Therefore, there is no use
going into another programme of this nature
without undertaking the proper research,
which we hope will be completed within a
reasonable time.
Mr. Newman: May I put a question
directly to the hon. Minister? Does he think
that St. Leonard's house is performing a
satisfactory service?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say it is per-
forming a satisfactory service, yes.
Mr. Newman: If it is performing a satis-
factory service, then why does not the hon.
Minister's department give it recognition for
those services?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In what way would
the hon. member suggest we give it recog-
nition?
Mr. Newman: By way of financial assist-
ance in grants. The only department of this
government that considers it as doing some-
thing is The Department of Public Welfare.
In other words, the hon. Minister is assum-
ing that these people who are being rehabili-
tated are only fit for welfare, rather than
rehabilitation services.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
really; we went into this the other day. I do
not know but I suppose you could say it
really can be spilled over into this vote. The
reason it comes there is really a matter of
difference of opinion in philosophy, if the
hon. member would like to call it that. I
do not know any other way to explain it.
The hon. member for Yorkview, for example,
suggested that there must be something
wrong with our institutions if the inmates
resent officialdom and will not accept our
help.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): He said that
there is something wrong with a place like
Guelph, and that is why they refuse rehabili-
tation services.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is what I thought
I was making clear: He does not suggest
what you are saying; he is making a state-
ment.
The fact is if any of the hon. members in
this House are so naive as to believe that at
any time in the foreseeable future inmates of
penal institutions are not going to resent
authority, then they have a great deal more
optimism than I. There are many of these
who will never do anything but resent author-
ity and I think this is a logical conclusion.
There is a feeling on the part of some in this
work that when a man gets assistance after
he has been released he should not get it
from a governmental agency, at least directly.
The feeling was, at the time, that it might
be better, in view of the fact that these
people had served their terms, that they do
not get financial assistance from The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions, that we might
find more response from them if it could be
stated that in fact the money was not coming
from the department which was responsible
for them while they were incarcerated.
942
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now this is a difference in philosophy and
we have argued and debated this at various
correctional conventions that I have attended
and you really cannot come to any conclu-
sion. This was an experiment in that direc-
tion. If the hon. member is trying to make
the point that really they should be getting
grants from both departments, I think he
could then quite properly accuse us of having
the left hand not knowing what the right
hand is doing. If they are going to get grants
from the government they should get them
from one source. At the moment they are
getting it from The Department of Public
Welfare. If the hon. member thinks it would
be better put into The Department of Reform
Institutions, I would be very glad to take that
under advisement.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, there is a
certain principle involved in here, and that is
the principle of rehabilitation not the prin-
ciple of welfare. I think that this is the
thing that disturbs St. Leonard's house, that
they are not being recognized as performing
rehabilitation services, they are just another
organization that is being provided public
welfare for those they are attempting to re-
habilitate. I think it behooves the hon. Min-
ister to consider that assistance should be
coming from this department rather, really,
than from The Department of Public Welfare.
I will drop that for the time being and go to
another topic.
Last year the hon. member for Essex South
(Mr. Paterson) brought up the question of the
possibility of using inmates as farm labourers.
Did the department experiment with this at
all during the past year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
one of the matters which is going to be inves-
tigated by the new advisory committee which
was announced in the Speech from the
Throne and the personnel of which I hope to
be able to announce to this House in a very
short while, the trades and industry advisory
committee. They are to go into all of these
matters to find out just exactly what field
there is for the training of some of our in-
mates for farm work. It appears obvious that
some of them could only be suited for this
sort of work. This is one of the terms of
reference, this is included in the terms of
reference of that advisory committee.
Mr. Newman: May I then suggest to the
hon. Minister that he also consider an ap-
prenticeship programme for some of the
younger inmates so that they could be sent
out to industry to work for a period of time
and then simply be incarcerated during their
sleeping hours in the institution? This, I think,
would rehabilitate them much quicker than
simply putting in time in the institutions and
not picking up any type of trade.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact
we do have a programme in existence now in
our institutions— I thought I had announced
it last year— whereby we have made arrange-
ments for those taking trades training in our
institutions so that they get credit towards
their apprenticeship papers for the time spent
on this work.
Mr. Newman: Does the hon. Minister allow
inmates to attend schools, secondary schools
or schools in which technical training is pro-
vided? Does he allow the inmates to attend
these?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we provide them
with this training right in the institutions.
Mr. Newman: Well, in the department the
hon. Minister probably does not have suffi-
cient skilled craftsmen, skilled teachers, to be
able to teach certain types of skills; whereas
if those inmates were to attend, say, Ryerson
institute where they qualified, and return to
some institution at the end of the day, I think
the hon. Minister would be providing a real
service to them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do provide a
training, whether it is sufficient or not or
whether it can be improved upon is, of
course, as I said to the hon. member, a mat-
ter for the study of this committee which is
going to be set up. What the hon. member
is referring to now is, I suppose, some aspect
of what is known as a work release pro-
gramme.
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course you would
have to choose them pretty carefully for this
sort of thing. This is all going to be within
the ambit of the terms of reference for this
committee. We recognize that there are a
great number of vocations and trades which
perhaps could not be taught within our in-
stitutions, there are so many trades and
occupations it would almost be impossible.
This is a thing that is to be studied by this
committee and whatever its recommenda-
tions are we will give them the most serious
consideration.
Mr. Newman: One final question, Mr.
Chairman: How long will it be before we
can expect a report from that committee?
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
943
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, in view of the
fact it has not yet been set up, Mr. Chair-
man, I could not say.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on Friday
just at adjournment time I asked the hon.
Minister to break down item 1 of vote 1902.
I do not think he had the figures with him
at the time but I have no doubt that over
the weekend he has been able to dig them
up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just by classifications
—the parole and rehabilitation services?
Mr. Bryden: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber prefer I read it out or shall I send it
over?
Mr. Bryden: Perhaps it would be better,
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister read it
out so it would be on the record.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. One chair-
man of the parole board— did the hon.
member ask for salary range as well?
Mr. Bryden: Yes. I think what I asked for
was the total amount of money in salaries in
each case, but if as an alternative the hon.
Minister could give the wage range for the
classification, I think—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give the hon.
member what I have here. His salary range
is $9,000 to $11,000.
Four members of the parole board, a
range of $7,800 to $9,500; two rehabilitation
officers, class four, $6,900 to $8,200; seven
rehabilitation officers, class three, $5,500 to
$6,600; 69 rehabilitation officers, those in
number two category, $4,800 to $5,750;
number one category, $4,200 to $4,800-am I
going too fast for the hon. member?
Mr. Bryden: How many are in the number
one category?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have 69 for both.
Mr. Bryden: For the two of them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: I take it the rest of the staff
would be clerical?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right.
Mr. Bryden: I am not interested in that,
Mr. Chairman. This gives rise to a problem
we have had before us on many occasions.
The hon. Minister says that right now he
has seven vacancies for rehabilitation officers
and yet he has hopefully added another 13
positions in this year's estimates. How does
he expect to fill them on these salaries? There
are seven of the rehabilitation officers all
told who make $5,500 a year or better, as
far as I could determine from quickly
jotting down the figures he gave us. There
are 69 who are in categories one or two, the
lowest categories, which range from $4,200
to $5,700. These are hardly better than
sweeper's rates and I assume that the hon.
Minister expects them to be better qualified
than sweepers. How does he expect he is
going to fill these vacancies with these wages?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
salaries of this particular category are under
review at the present time and being the
optimistic man I am I provided for additional
staff in the hope that with the increase in
salary we will be able to attract others.
Mr. Bryden: I take it you have recognized
that your difficulty in getting staff up to now
have been very much related to the wages
that have been paid?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I would not
say that it is very much related. I do not
know. There is a shortage of skilled people
and qualified people in practically every
branch of the government and industry. We
must presume that salary may have some
bearing on it. I am hoping that if the
salaries are upgraded we will be more
successful, but as I say I am not going to by
any means suggest that the ones we have
are not qualified people merely because
they are not getting more money.
Mr. Bryden: Well no, I do not want to
suggest that either, Mr. Chairman. I know
that can always be implicit in a suggestion
that wage rates should be increased, but I
long ago learned not to let that be an in-
hibition when I wanted to suggest that
wage rates be increased. I found even the
people concerned do not object when you
suggest their wages be increased. I have
no doubt that the people you have are quite
well qualified.
What I am more concerned about is that
you should get more of them. There are
always a certain number of people who have
a devotion to a job that will lead them to
accept it even though the wages are inade-
quate. But you could be reaching a dimin-
ishing return in exploiting that sort of devo-
tion. I am not quite as sanguine as the hon.
Minister appears to be with regard to the
fact that these classifications are now under
review. I would like to put before the hon.
944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister and the government a proposition.
This type of occupation in the government
occurs in other departments; for example, The
Department of Public Welfare— it is not iden-
tical work, but it is work with many char-
acteristics in common— and right across the
board the rates are too low. The trouble with
these wage reviews is that they go according
to norm. Everybody gets some increase, per-
haps $200 or $300 a year or something like
that. I think the trouble we are up against,
not only in this department but in other de-
partments, is that these categories simply
have been misclassified by the civil service
commission in relation to the overall picture.
There should be a special increase, and I
would say a substantial one, for people in
this classification.
I am putting this to the hon. Minister. I
know that he is very much concerned about
his staff. I am sure that he would be happy
to see them get an increase in pay where he
thinks it is merited, and I am sure he thinks
it is here. I would suggest to him and to the
government generally that they ought to take
a look at the relative position of this type of
occupation in the general structure of the
civil service.
Just before I leave the matter, Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask what educational qualifica-
tions are required of the grade one and two
officers? I presume officer number one is a
sort of probationary position, and that usually
an employee would move into two. What
are the qualifications required?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Grade 13, with some
experience in related work; or grade 12 edu-
cation with two years of varied relevant
experience in an institution, involving consid-
erable personal contact with inmates; success-
ful completion of the civil service commission
examinations, designed to select suitable staff
based on their knowledge of, and aptitude
for rehabilitation work; ability to win the con-
fidence and co-operation of persons with
anti-social attitudes; patience, tact and good
judgment; willingness to travel and to work
unscheduled hours when required; ability to
drive a car; and personal suitability. I know
what your answer is going to be to that, sir;
that we expect quite a bit.
Mr. Bryden: You also expect quite a bit, I
think, from grade 12 and 13 graduates. As
far as the scholastic requirements are con-
cerned, does your department believe that is
sufficient? It would seem to me that the type
of person you are asking for is, in this day
and age, the type of person who would have
more than grade 13 education. I do not want
to rub any open sores, and I know that there
are many people with limited formal educa-
tion who show a lot more savvy and intelli-
gence than people who have. But that is get-
ting to be less and less true. The oppor-
tunities for education have expanded greatly.
I think it is true to say that the type of quali-
fications in the second part of the statement,
other than driving a car, would be the sort of
thing you would look for in graduates from
schools of social work, or at any rate, in
graduates from the special courses that
an institute like Ryerson might put on. I
think that you will not find those qualifica-
tions, by and large, in a person who nowadays
is content with grade 13 education.
Has any consideration ever been given to
increasing the qualifications? Have the quali-
fications been determined in relation to the
amount of money the government is willing to
pay, rather than determining what the qualifi-
cations should be and then determining the
amount of money that should be attached to
those qualifications?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not speak for the civil service commission and
how it arrives at the salary schedule. I am
sure the hon. member will appreciate that it
is most difficult in discussing salary schedules,
which he admits generally overlap into other
departments, to expect a particular Minister
to speak for his particular branch. This is a
matter that has to be discussed on the gen-
eral basis across government generally. The
dilemma we would be in, of course, if we did
what the hon. member suggests— insist on a
higher education level— would mean that it is
going to be more difficult than ever to recruit
already hard-to-get staff. The hon. member
will recall that, very regrettably, I went be-
fore the select committee on youth and actu-
ally appealed for a relaxation of the academic
requirements, because there are times when
you are able to recruit someone who appears
to have a lot of good common sense and
would fit the category. The hon. member has
admitted there are such people, but we are
not able to hire them because they do not
meet these particular qualifications. In view
of the shortage of the kind of people we are
looking for today, and there is a shortage, as
the hon. member will admit, I am sure, across
the country for people who have qualifications
for particular types of work, we are trying to
upgrade our present staff. And a great deal
of effort and work is being put into it.
Most of our staff have been through our
own staff-training programme, and several
have passed the three-year McMaster certi-
ficate course in corrections; others are pres-
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
945
ently taking this course. Rehabilitation offi-
cers attend extension courses and seminars
conducted by universities and other agencies
and services. Regular conferences are held
and arrangements are now being completed,
as a matter of fact, for this year's conference.
We are continually working with the civil
service commission and other departments
employing similar staff to create upgrading of
courses for the existing staff.
Aside from that, the matter of requiring
higher academic qualifications is, as I say,
the dilemma we would be in. If we raised
them, it would only make it more difficult
to at least fill the vacancies we presently
have.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, may I make
a suggestion to the hon. Minister? It is
possible to do a little bit of both by using
the different gradings within your classifica-
tion system. The hon. Minister says that a
number of people currently on staff have
improved their qualifications in a number of
ways— for example, by taking the McMaster
course, which, no doubt, is of great benefit
to them in the department.
What incentive do those people have?
Would they be moved, say, from number
two to number three? I notice there are only
seven people in classification number three
—69 in one and two, and seven in three.
Maybe people could even be introduced at
number three level. Mind you, it seems to
me the wages for three and four are pretty
low, especially three. I think that rate should
go considerably higher. This is the point
where you might introduce people who
already have higher qualifications. Grades
one and two could be used for people who
appear to have the potential. They could
be given an incentive for improving their
qualifications, if they could see that they
would move up to three as soon as they
did so.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member's
suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is a very good one
and this is precisely what we are engaged in
discussing now, the possibility of instituting
the sort of plan the hon. member has sug-
gested.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the
upgrading of the staff. It seems to me that
in the parole system the real key to the
whole situation is going to be the decisions
made by the parole board. I am sure that, in
the appointments to the parole board, the
hon. Minister has thought very carefully
about the background of the members who
are going to be part of the board, and has
looked at their backgrounds to see that they
have a knowledge of our background in
penology and social work, and our many other
areas of boys work.
I am looking at the hon. Minister's report
on the Ontario plan of correction. I am not
well acquainted with these gentlemen, except
for two. I am acquainted with them be-
cause they belong to the Conservative Party;
I am sure that there must be some other
reason why they were placed on the parole
board. Let me say that they were both out-
standing men within the Conservative Party.
As I look at one of them, I realize that I
defeated him in my own riding; the other
one is, I think, secretary of your own associ-
ation—the Spadina association, or else the
St. Andrew association.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who is that?
Mr. Thompson: A very fine person — Dr.
George Nagy— a very find outstanding citizen,
but I am particularly—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is not an officer in
my association at all.
Mr. Thompson: Was he?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Was he what?
Mr. Thompson: Was he part of your associ-
ation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes! Is there anything
wrong with that?
Mr. Thompson: What is the reason that
these two gentlemen are on the board? What
is their background in this kind of work?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in the
first place, I make no apologies for people
being Conservatives. If you are going across
this whole province looking for people, be-
cause there happen to be more Conservatives,
your chance of choosing a Conservative is
going to be a lot greater.
Mr. Thompson: Defeated candidates only.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, there must
be more, because more people vote for this
party.
Mr. Thompson: But these are unsuccessful;
these are losers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think that
the hon. leader of the Opposition would sug-
gest that Dr. Nagy is not a suitable person
for this job. He has quite a background.
946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Thompson: I would say, sir, with all
respect to Dr. Nagy, that I am wondering—
when we learn that the hon. Minister is
talking about training workers and upgrading
workers, and that this parole board is going
to be making the decisions— if we could have
the hon. Minister's explanation of why he
chose these two men. I would be the last one
to suggest that it was because they are
Progressive-Conservatives— who have been
either in the hon. Minister's riding or a
defeated candidate— that they are getting a
soft position. Certainly, they are honourable
men, but I wonder what is in their back-
ground that qualifies them above many others
to be on the parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in the
first place, I did not go into the background
of those people who are on the parole board
when I took this post. I have appointed ex-
actly one person, and that is Dr. Nagy. I am
convinced, because of my personal association
with him, that he is a very intelligent man;
and this is, in my view, all that is needed on
the parole board. I am very happy with the
work he is doing now and I know he is a
most qualified man for the job.
I think there is confusion among some
people about the operations of the parole
board and its purpose. The purpose of the
parole board— one of its main objectives
—is to make sure that the particular inmate
they are considering for parole can be let out
on supervision prior to the termination of his
sentence. The difference between a person
going out on a parole and serving his sentence
completely in the institution, is that if he
goes on parole, say, two months before the
completion of his sentence, his activities can
be supervised and he can be helped to be-
come oriented and rehabilitated in society.
If he is not put on parole, he is going to be
out in a month or two anyway and then we
do not have to pay any attention to super-
vision at all.
This generally just requires good common
sense, and I do not see anything wrong with
any of the members of this board. The fact
that they have provided such a good record
—I think I mentioned it a few moments ago
—of about an 84 per cent success ratio regard-
ing those who have completed their parole
successfully, is a sign that the right ones
must have been chosen for parole. It speaks
well of the good common sense of the board
members.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am not
saying that there is anything wrong with
them. I am asking: What was the basis for
selecting them and what were their qualifica-
tions? What were the qualifications of the
Rev. David Kerr. Why was he selected?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not have his qua-
lifications here. If the hon. leader of the Op-
position had given me notice that he was
going to ask this I—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say this: For
the period of time that he has been on the
parole board, the reports I have on his work
are very commendable. I think that it ill
behooves any member of this Legislature to
feel woried merely because a person happens
to be a defeated member, having served in
this House. If there is anything wrong with
that, I would hope that someone considering
any member who has served in this House—
whether he be defeated or had retired volun-
tarily—that someone considering him for an
important post would think that this experi-
ence was an advantage, that this would mean
that he had a little more than the average
common sense. There is nothing wrong with
it at all!
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I want to
get this clear to this House. If the shoe
pinches and the hon. Minister suggests that it
"ill behooves" any member to suggest that
there is something wrong with them— I sat
here when the hon. member for Rracondale
(Mr. Ben) talked and the hon. Minister tried
to switch it around then as though it was a
constant castigation of his staff, personal re-
marks about his staff.
With respect to the two people who are on
the parole board, I simply asked him to justify
what background— not background in the Con-
servative Party— they needed to be on the
board. The hon. Minister became extremely
sensitive, Mr. Chairman, and suggested that
it "ill behooves" a member to be critical of
these people.
I am not being critical of them; I have a
great respect for Dr. Nagy, and I have great
respect for Rev. David Kerr— I ran against
him— but I know there must have been other
reasons than political ones for the hon. Min-
ister to have chosen those two men. That is
the question I want an answer to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I answered this ques-
tion previously. I said that all they needed
was good common sense. As far as I am
concerned, this is all they need— good com-
mon sense. And I think they have good com-
mon sense.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
947
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister does
not need to be sensitive about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was the hon. leader
of the Opposition who suggested it. He need
not try to do all this sort of—
Mr. Thompson: I am not trying to do any-
thing. I just—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was not an impli-
cation; the hon. leader of the Opposition prac-
tically made a charge that they were
appointed merely because they were Tories!
Mr. Thompson: I simply asked for clarifi-
cation so that that would not be substantiated,
and I appreciate it.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I understand that the hon. member
for York South wishes to say a word on this
particular point. I want to revert to the re-
habilitation department and I would concede
to the hon. member for York South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister stated that a man
who has experience in this House might be
better qualified to take an appointment such
as he has made in this instance. Has the hon.
Minister ever appointed a defeated candidate
from the Opposition side of the House?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has said he
only made one appointment.
Mr. MacDonald: My question is: Has the
hon. Minister ever in any one of his com-
mittees, including this committee, made an
appointment from that wealth of experience
that may be found of a defeated candidate
on this side of the House?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member can recommend such a person
to me and there is an opening and every-
thing else being equal, I would say that is
in his favour, and I would be very glad to
consider it.
Mr. MacDonald: I will bear it in mind,
Mr. Chairman. I can recall sitting in a com-
mittee with the Rev. David Kerr and he on
one occasion cited one of his qualifications
that he attended the wrestling matches at
Maple Leaf Gardens every Wednesday night.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think that
was one of the—
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps that is one of
the qualifications that could be considered
meritorious for this committee.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
That is hardly a commendable observation
from the hon. member; it is hardly com-
mendable.
Mr. MacDonald: It was hardly commend-
able in the first instance.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister of The Department of Reform Institu-
tions in answering a question posed by the
hon. member for Woodbine, regarding the
number of rehabilitation officers on the
board, and I think the total came to 78 in
the classification 2769. Then, when I look
at the report which shows the number of
paroles effected during the fiscal year, and I
take it that would be 1964-1965, it is a total
976. Now assuming that the 78 rehabilita-
tion officers were working in the field of
supervision of the parolees and probation-
aries, this would give them a caseload of
about 12.5, or 12Vz, if I can put it that way,
per man. I notice in reading some material
regarding the state of Florida, which I be-
lieve is comparable in population to Ontario
within a few hundred thousand, that they
have been trying for years to reach the
objective of 50 probationaries or parolees per
man. They have this year, I believe, reached
the maximum of 70 and they find this is
greatly increasing the intent and objective of
their work.
My question is with the case in Ontario
being about 12 per rehabilitation officer.
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
as to whether or not the department has an
objective of maximum caseloads for the
rehabilitation officers, and if they are work-
ing towards that maximum?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know. Quite
frankly, I was trying to get an answer to the
earlier part of the question, when the hon.
member was asking the latter part. I am
told that the total caseload is 2,083, and the
number of parole officers in relation to this
gives them a caseload of 54—1 am sorry, 40.
The number of officers involved is 54, giving
them a caseload of 40, the figure I men-
tioned earlier. They have a caseload of 40.
Mr. Gisborn: Then there must be a great
many more than 78 rehabilitation officers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Seventy-eight in-
cluded the vacancies we have now and the
number included in the estimates, which will
be added in this coming year. That is where
the figure 78 comes in. The caseload pres-
ently is 40.
948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gisborn: Then what is the total
number of rehabilitation officers on staff?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Fifty-nine.
Mr. Gisborn: And what was the number
that are now under supervision?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Two thousand and
eighty-three. I have not divided that, but I
take it my staff is sufficiently competent and
they tell me it is 40.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, just one ques-
tion, following up what the hon. member
for Woodbine had to say. The loss in staff
last year, the number of people who did
leave the rehabilitation staff, was seven and
we are hoping to have 20, including them,
by the end of this year. I am wondering
how many actually left the service last year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that one
left last year.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the
selection of members to the advisory council,
the hon. Minister spread his advisers over
all parts of Ontario. Why did the hon. Min-
ister, when selecting the members to the
board of parole, stay only within the Metro
area?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
essentially the same question is asked about
why do you not put your institutions near
those large centres where professional staff
is available. Generally speaking, in the
Metro area, most of this kind of person is
available. Secondly, the cost of operating
and the expenses of the advisory board would
go up in direct proportion to the amount of
distance they have to travel for the number
of meetings they have to attend. If the hon.
member has any qualified person he thinks
might be helpful to our board we would give
him very serious consideration.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Minister, I would
expect—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They would not be
chosen on a geographical basis at all.
Mr. Newman: I would expect the hon.
Minister would want to get an overall picture
from all parts of the province and an opinion
from all parts of the province in selection
of personnel to a parole board. I think it
would be advisable to have a thing like that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry. I thought
the hon. member started off by asking about
the advisory council.
Mr. Newman: I mentioned that the advis-
ory board— the advisory council— the person-
nel of that council were selected from all
parts of the province, but when it came to
the board of parole they were concentrated
from the Metro area.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The reason for that
is they must work out of Toronto where the
files are kept. They review the files before
and after having visited all of the institutions.
The decision is then made after they come
back, at head office they view the files again
and then arrive at their decision.
Mr. Newman: Well, how often would they
work?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Daily. It is a full-
time job.
Mr. Newman: I thought possibly it was
only once a week or something like that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh no.
Mr. Newman: Well, that is quite all right.
On the topic of parole, quite often the
individual who is paroled has to return to his
community and he too often has a tendency
to fall back into his evil ways. Now one of
the reasons for it sometimes is the home con-
ditions to which he has to return. Does the
parole officer investigate home conditions and
make recommendations at all?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course, this is
the work of the rehabilitation officer. Quite
often, in fact I suppose in every instance
where it is possible, he visits the home, if
the inmate has a home, to prepare for his
return. Of course, while he is on parole he
is under direct supervision. They do every-
thing possible to see if they can get him re-
habilitated.
Mr. Newman: Does he suggest to the pa-
rolee that it would be better for him to find
other accommodations rather than return
home?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is yes,
in many instances. In many instances it is
not the home condition. In many instances
it would be better if he did go home. In
other instances not. We do everything pos-
sible and even help him find accommodation,
sometimes help pay for the accommodation if
it appears advisable in that particular in-
stance.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
949
Mr. Newman: In the instance where he
finds that returning to his own home might
be harmful to him, to the inmate or to the
parolee, does the parole officer suggest to
some social service organization in the com-
munity that that family could stand some type
of guidance so that the parolee could eventu-
ally return to his home?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am told that
generally the original contact with the home
is made with the co-operation of the agency
which is working with that home, if there is
an agency involved. In many of these in-
stances, of course, that does happen and they
keep in contact with him. Aside from that
I do not know what else we can expect the
rehabilitation officer to do; he has a pretty
heavy caseload now.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Minister, there
may be younger members of the family and
unless something is done with the home con-
ditions there will be other members of the
family following the first member who came
to an institution, were the parole officer to
suggest to some association or organization in
the community that guidance would be an ad-
vantage to that family, that guidance or
counselling would possibly prevent other
members of the family from eventually end-
ing up in an institution. This would be a
real asset.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This, Mr. Chairman,
in fact, is done in many instances.
Mr. Newman: It is done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracon-
dale.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman,
apropos what was being said about the pro-
bation officers, I noted that 14 years ago a
bill was introduced to increase the size of
the parole board from six to nine members.
Now we have five. The hon. Minister intro-
duced a bill to increase it by two more.
Could he first tell us what happened in the
interim, why we only have five, while at one
time we had six? And, second, were the
present members of the board appointed as
a result of an advertised civil service position,
and were the positions written for in the
way of a civil service examination and, if
so, how many people wrote the examination?
Third, will these two present posts that will
be created by the bill which the hon. Min-
ister introduced be advertised, and will they
be competed for in a civil service examina-
tion?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that these
positions do not require writing a civil service
examination. Insofar as the first question is
concerned, the hon. member used the word
"probation"; I presume he means "parole."
Mr. Ben: Sorry, parole, yes; the parole
board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. I am told that,
prior to the five-man board, they were all
part-time members. At that time it was felt
advisable to bring in a permanent parole
board on which there are, in fact, civil ser-
vants. So there are presently five members
on the board— three full time and two part
time. The intention is to add, as the hon.
member knows, two more full-time members
so that we will have two teams operating at
the same time, and we can extend our train-
ing centres and not confine them to those
areas which can only be covered by one
group.
Mr. Ben: Well, Mr. Chairman, what hap-
pened to the nine members of the parole
board that was created by a bill in 1952?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that two
were kept on— two ladies who were part-time
members; one has since passed away.
Mr. Ben: The question is, Mr. Chairman:
When was the board reduced from nine to
five?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: 1960.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, a question for
the hon. Minister in connection with the ad-
visory committee. I understood the other day
that he said the per diem was $30?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: $20.
Mr. Young: $20. And the per diem for a
similar advisory committee in The Depart-
ment of Education is a good deal higher than
that. I wonder whether there is any real
reason for this, or is this whole situation
under review?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is allowance in
the estimates now to raise that to $35 a day.
Mr. Young: $35. Will that bring it up to
par with education?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know, I could
not tell the hon. member. Perhaps he might
950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ask that during the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Education.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, to clarify
things in my mind: Is there a plan of qualifi-
cations for people on the parole board? Are
they trained for this type of work?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I think I made it
quite clear earlier, Mr. Chairman, that all this
job really requires is intelligence, good com-
mon sense, and the ability to be able to judge
human nature and the character of the people
to whom you are talking. For example, I
think the hon. member would make a good
member of the parole board. I think I would
make a good member of the parole board,
and I have not the qualifications required for
some of the lesser jobs.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
important in these estimates debates that we
know at all times who the advisors to the hon.
Minister are. I think this is important— the
names of the people who are advising the
hon. Minister. He may have Warden Duffy
there trying to make the Minister look good,
but I do not know. Who are we talking to in
front of the hon. Minister there? We should
have the names of these people. I think he
should introduce his staff to the House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have a lot of staff
here; would the hon. member like me to name
them all?
Mr. Sargent: I think his key people should
be introduced to the House, yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
an unusual request but I have no objection
to it. I have with me the Deputy Minister,
Mr. Hackl; I have with me the director of
library services and information branch, Mr.
Nuttall; and the chairman of the parole and
rehabilitation service, Mr. Mason.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
think that is important because they must be
able people to make the hon. Minister look
so good.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am glad the hon.
member says I am looking good.
Mr. Sargent: At times. But I do say that
I have tried to put before the House the fact
that there is a new trend in penology of which
this department is not too aware, and it is not
being taken advantage of. The hon. Minister
says any person with common sense can be
a good member of a parole board. This
authority says—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which authority is the
hon. member quoting?
Mr. Sargent: A very successful penologist,
Bill Sands.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, now, Mr. Chair-
man, Mr. Sands' qualification as a penologist
is that he served time with a life sentence.
Mr. Sargent: He was a lifer in San Quentin.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, all rightl
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, there
is anything wrong with the man, but to
suggest he is a penologist is really an insult
to those people who have gone in for
penology as a career.
Mr. Sargent: This is typical, Mr. Chair-
man, of this whole sneering from the front
bench, that a person cannot come back. This
man is acclaimed in the United States as a
top man in penology.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: By whom?
Mr. Sargent: By everyone, the press and
everyone. The results speak for themselves.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who has claimed
him as a great penologist?
Mr. Sargent: It just shows the hon. Min-
ister does not know what he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have met the man,
he is a very fine and able man but to call
him a penologist is a bit of an exaggeration,
that is all I am telling the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I am going to
suggest to the members of the House that we
avoid the crossfire.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to get to my
point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have 6,000 people
in my institutions, all of whom claim they
are penologists.
Mr. Sargent: Well, thev have had a good
saturation with the conditions in those in-
stitutions.
The point is that this man who was sen-
tenced to a life term and now is keeping
people from going back into prison at the
rate of 90 per cent of those he assists, he
said that he would instal on these parole
boards, in the places of the men now on
parole boards, an MD, a psychiatrist, a poly-
graph man— that is a lie detector— men skilled
in the use of sodium pentothal, hypnotism
and every other technological advance that
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
951
probes the human mind. This is an actual
bible of modern penology; and this man, who
professes to be doing a job in this, scoffs at
it when the results are fantastic. I suggest
that it takes more than an ordinary person,
more than my qualifications— I thank the hon.
Minister for the compliment— to be a good
parole officer. I think he should pull up
his socks and get people on the board who
are qualified.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, as the hon.
member suggested I will ask the head of the
penitentiary services in Ottawa to recom-
mend to me seven people who have served
life sentences and consider them for the
parole board.
Mr. Sargent: That is about the intelligence
of the hon. Minister right there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what the hon.
member is suggesting.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon.
Minister is being a little facetious here. I
am amazed—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course I am.
Mr. Ben: —at his attitude in replying to
the hon. member for Grey North.
Mr. Chairman: Stay with the vote, please,
we are on 1902.
Mr. Ben: That is exactly what I am deal-
ing with, the parole board. Thank you. I
think if you had the courtesy, Mr. Chairman,
to listen out the question you would see I
was within the item under discussion before
this House.
We are dealing with parole officers and I
was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
although I cannot state that anybody who
has served a life sentence can be qualified, I
am very much shaken by the hon. Minister
getting up and saying: "Good God," when
you suggest that you have a doctor, a psychi-
atrist, a hypnotist. As a matter of fact, "The
Rebel Without A Cause" is quite an interest-
ing book on the use of hypnosis in rehabilita-
tion. I am not a psychiatrist, I cannot pass
on it one way or the other, but the fact is it
does make interesting reading and I do not
think the hon. Minister should discount any-
thing.
On the other hand, I would point out that
the hon. Minister must be extremely naive
when he is going to suggest that perhaps
people who get all their training out of a
book have learned nothing from a fellow
who has spent a lifetime in a prison and
studied, you might say, the psychology end
of psychiatry behind people being in prison.
Now a lot of research has been done with
the use of the polygraph and sodium pento-
thal right in this city with money supplied
by this government. This government bought
a lie detector. Why did they spend their
money buying a lie detector if this hon.
Minister thinks it is such a ridiculous con-
traption?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, is the
hon. member talking about the parole board?
Mr. Ben: I am talking about the parole
board. The hon. member for Grey North
suggested who should be on a parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you sure the hon.
member was not confusing a parole board
with rehabilitation staff, because they are
two different things.
Mr. Ben: I can see the sense that the hon.
member was making with reference to the
polygraph and sodium pentothal—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a parole board?
Mr. Ben: Every prisoner says: "I am go-
ing to reform, I am going to walk the straight
and narrow—"
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
on the parole board?
Mr. Ben: Parole! What would be wrong
with having a doctor, psychiatrist and some-
body who operates a polygraph and gives
sodium pentothal to interview the prisoners
who are seeking parole? What would be
wrong with it? Perhaps you might have a
better average. Perhaps the hon. Minister
would not have to get up in this House and
say 90 per cent is a fantastic amount. Maybe
if you tried it that way you would get 90
per cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon.
member mind my interrupting this way?
Mr. Ben: Sure, please! I enjoy inter-
ruptions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wonder how many
under these circumstances— it shows you the
confusion there is here; I think we are talk-
ing about two different things; one the
parole board; the other, rehabilitation setup.
I wonder, under the circumstances the hon.
member is suggesting, how many inmates
would appear for parole if they had to
undergo what the hon. member is suggest-
ing? Would they undergo a shot of sodium
952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pentothal, or any of these other things; how
many of these people do you think would
apply for parole?
Mr. Ben: Well, I will tell the hon. Minister
one thing. Your inmates are offering to take
a polygraph test and sodium pentothal to
convince me that what they have been say-
ing about Millbrook is true, so why should
they not do the same thing to get out?
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister did
not answer my question about how many
qualified for those positions on the parole
board. He stated that they do not have to
write a civil service examination. I want to
know was the position advertised, if so how
many people applied for it and on what par-
ticular qualifications were these particular in-
dividuals chosen as against the others that
applied; and what are the ages of these
people, what background do they have in
penology?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We did not advertise.
We had one vacancy on the board and I was
looking around for a good man and this man
was recommended to me amongst half a
dozen others and in my view he was the best
qualified.
Vote 1902 agreed to.
On vote 1903:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I see in this
vote we have an amount on page 115 of the—
Mr. Chairman I would suggest to the
member for Grey North, before you get
started you might bear in mind what this
committee has decided upon was that we
would try to deal with the vote and then
with the sub-headings.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, I agree, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Would the member like to
start then with vote 1903, sub-heading one?
Mr. Sargent: How are you going to do it?
That is what I am trying to say. You have
got to have two books in your hand, like a
juggler. Why do you not make some system
by which we can talk intelligently?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey North
will remember that rather than go from point
to point in connection with this, we would
prefer to follow through with a sequence. If
it is possible, we would like to do it this
way.
Mr. Sargent: I want to talk about in-
stitutions insofar as maintenance and repairs
are concerned. That goes on to item No. 4 in
this section.
Mr. Chairman: Item No. 3 under this
section.
I suggest that there is someone who wishes
to speak in advance on No. 1 of that vote.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member does not wish to ask any questions
nor make any comments with regard to item
one, I would like to ask the hon. Minister
to give the same sort of breakdown of the
salaries under this vote as he did under vote
1902. I suggested to him on Friday that he
might as well get that information while he
was getting it for 1902; perhaps he has it
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I
have it for the hon. member. It is a very
lengthy list. I wonder if he would be satisfied
if I send it over to him or tabled it, so that—
Mr. Bryden: That is acceptable to me, Mr.
Chairman. Perhaps you would permit me,
after I have had a chance to study it, to ask
some questions, even if we have passed item
number one?
Mr. Chairman: I think we agreed that we
would return to number one; at the same time
we would like to have a sequence.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Suppose I send that
right over to the hon. member now?
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may we ask
the hon. Minister what the lowest wage
category is there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The beginning is
correctional officer one.
Mr. Newman: The lowest salary—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It starts as a cor-
rectional officer one. It presently starts at
$3,900 and shortly will be $4,050 at the
beginning of April. After being a year with
the department, he becomes correctional
officer three, with a salary range of $4,600
to $5,000.
Mr. Newman: Right.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: On this item one?
Mr. Sargent: No, I am getting on. I do not
see anyone talking on these first two, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on num-
ber one?
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
953
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman. Where will
you allow some observations on institutions
in general terms, rather than specific?
Mr. Chairman You say general terms,
general discussion?
Mr. S. Lewis: Yes, without singling out any
individual institution; some general observa-
tions.
Mr. Chairman: This could be decided upon
by the members of this House now. We
have six adult institutions. We can do them
either separately or group them together, and
then we have the industrial farms, the jails
and the training groups.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Two groups, Mr.
Chairman; the juvenile and the adult.
Mr. Chairman: Right. I think it might be
better if we were to do it with the groups.
Mr. S. Lewis: Right.
Mr. Chairman: Anything on item two,
1903? Then 1903, section three.
Mr. Sargent: On 1903, section three,
someone has said that we should build our
jails because we might have to use them our-
selves. The fact is that we discussed county
jails on Friday. I doubt very much if this
programme is ever going to be consummated;
I talked to some people over the weekend,
not far away, insofar as county and city in-
terest in these regional jails. As long as the
municipalities are going to have to put up
50 per cent—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is nothing of that in this vote.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking on repairs to
institutions, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has nothing to do
with this.
Mr. Sargent: This certainly has. I am
suggesting to the House that repairs to
buildings-
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps on number four,
repairs and maintenance to buildings—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member, I understand, is talking about
county jails-
Mr. Sargent: Would the hon. Minister tell
me, then, to cut this off? Where are the re-
pairs to county jails in this estimate?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we dis-
cussed that in 1901 in ten, maintenance to
county jails.
Mr. Sargent: All right. We will talk about
repairs to jails in Ontario, not county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
only jails we have anything to do with are
district jails. It has nothing to do with the
county jails at all.
Mr. Sargent: I am making reference to
the new development in Cowansville the hon.
Minister may know about. They opened, last
week, the new federal jail at Cowansville.
This new institution-
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. Is this a fed-
eral jail?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman: I do not think that is be-
fore us.
Mr. Sargent: Come on; I am trying to talk
repairs to institutions. That is my subject
here.
Mr. Chairman: But you said something
about a federal jail in Cowansville.
Mr. Sargent: Here we have a budget of
$731,000 for repairs to jails in Ontario. What
is your programme for upgrading the jails,
other than repairs?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What number is this
on, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Under number four. I
would take it the member for Grey North
is talking about number four, 1903?
Mr. Sargent: Right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, with
all due respect, the hon. member, even if he
is talking about item four, is talking about
repairs to our own institutions, reformatories
and so on. It does not have anything to do
with jails at all.
Mr. Sargent: I am trying to let the House
and your staff know the awareness of the
Opposition as far as inadequacy in modern
penology is concerned.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the hon. mem-
ber made his point there— once or twice.
Mr. Sargent: All right. Now this new jail
built at Cowansville—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is this?
954
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: At Cowansville. There is a
new federal prison there. The hon. Minister
should know about that, too. I will quote to
the House-
Mr. Chairman: I do not think so, member
for Grey North. I do not think that the fed-
eral jail at Cowansville properly comes under
this vote.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to show the House how far off base this de-
partment is on modern jails.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry; I cannot per-
mit it at this time.
Mr. Thompson: What is the basis of tender
for the repair work? May we start with that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Either we do the
work ourselves or it is let out by The Depart-
ment of Public Works.
Mr. Thompson: It is The Department of
Public Works—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Either we do it our-
selves, or it is let out by tender-
Mr. Thompson: The department would not
do electrical plants, would not have men to
do that, would it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we would have
some of that done. Where we cannot do it,
The Department of Public Works handles it
through tender.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the public
accounts, we have an item for "Sundry per-
sons—maintenance of boys in foster homes,"
$92,945-odd; and likewise for "Girls in foster
homes," $44,338-odd. On what basis are these
foster homes-
Mr. Chairman: Where is this?
Mr. Newman: Page S-9 of the public
accounts, under "General maintenance" —
about 12 lines from the top of the page.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the— I am
sorry-
Mr. Newman: I want to know on what basis
the item of $92,000 for maintenance of boys
in foster homes is arrived at, and likewise
the $44,000 for the maintenance of girls in
foster homes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is, of course,
where the training schools advisory board
recommends that a youngster be put in place-
ment in a foster home.
Mr. Newman: Is that home generally in his
own community, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is wherever the
training schools advisory board feels is the
wisest place to put the child. In most in-
stances, I would imagine that it is back in
his own home; in other instances, it is not.
Mr. Newman: What is the per diem rate
of pay for these individuals? Approximately?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: $2.25 per day.
Mr. Newman: $2.25 per day? Who selects
the homes?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our rehabilitation
staff.
Mr. Newman: Do they have difficulty in
getting homes?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suppose they could
use more homes.
Mr. Newman: There is another item in the
public accounts, and that is a sum of $367,000
to the Ontario reformatory, Guelph— industry.
What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Line
4 at the top of the page.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That would be to
provide materials for the operation of the
industries within the institution.
Mr. Newman: Would that not come under
"repairs" instead?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. This is for stock
and materials required for the industries
themselves.
Mr. Newman: Then, under this item, you
would have the manufacturing of the licence
plates, would you not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but not in this
particular item. It would be for Millbrook.
Mr. Newman: But under "General main-
tenance."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. "General main-
tenance" refers to those things required to
keep it in proper repair and so on— the same
as in a home.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman, I
am interested in the provision of the facili-
ties for academic education that comes under
item 3 of vote 1903. I would like to ask the
hon. Minister what association he would have
with the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis), or the education officials, in the pro-
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
955
vision of a properly supervised curriculum
for the young people in these institutions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Department of
Education sets the curriculum and the school
is inspected by the school inspectors the
same as any other school.
Mr. Nixon: Would your staff be properly
certificated, as any other teacher would be?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes. As the hon.
member knows, we started hiring teachers
this year under contract and we compete for
them with all other boards of education.
We have, in effect, under the contract
system, practically a board of education for
this purpose.
Mr. Nixon: Would your institutions offer
the three basic streams then, so that when
the boys or girls get out they would then be
able to continue without any restrictions in
the general academic pattern?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we do.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister: Taking item 5,
is this the purchase of materials and
machinery, and so on?
Mr. Chairman: Under item 5? Does the
leader of the Opposition mind if we just
find out if there are any futher questions on
item 3?
Mr. Newman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The
gratuities to inmates— how far down the
ladder does that go? Does that include indi-
viduals leaving the training schools?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are for adult
institutions.
Mr. Newman: Adults only?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We provide some of
the youngsters with cash at the training
schools, but this particular item refers to
gratuities for adults.
Mr. Newman: What will a youngster leav-
ing the training school get from the depart-
ment if he goes back to his community and
into a home that is economically depressed?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The same thing
applies to the youngsters as applies to the
adults, insofar as assistance is concerned.
There is no fixed figure. The department will
do everything possible if it appears that it is
necessary to make some expenditures by
way of cash; or, in the case of adults, buy-
ing tools for them— or anything of that
nature, if it appears necessary to provide
them.
Mr. Newman: The youngster may have to
go on welfare when he arrives at his com-
munity, will he not? Or will the department
take care of him for an interim period?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would take care
of him as long as the rehabilitation officer
deems it advisable for us to do so.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I take it that
they are not paid a fixed rate of pay per day?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who?
Mr. Sargent: The inmates, on leaving the
reformatories, are not given a rate of pay
per day?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a gratuity
which amounts to about $2 a day, but this
has no significance at all.
Mr. Sargent: Two dollars a day for the
time they have been there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Two dollars per
month.
Mr. Sargent: Two dollars per month?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but this has no
significance really, because—
Mr. Sargent: It certainly has not!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will wait until I am finished, I will be glad
to explain.
Mr. Sargent: It is a shocking thing that
you allow this to happen.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, you got
that "shocking" in there. Let me tell you
how shocking it is. When an inmate is re-
leased and he appears to be well motivated,
and the rehabilitation officer thinks that he
needs assistance— I just finished saying this—
he will get all the assistance he needs, either
by way of cash, tools, help to pay rent until
he gets a job.
Mr. Sargent: How much will he get?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no limit.
Mr. Sargent: There must be a limit some-
where.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, we would not
give him $10,000, if that is what the hon.
member is referring to. We do whatever is
necessary to help them out. If it appears that
money is the thing to help them out then,
956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
under the supervision of our rehabilitation
officers-
Mr. Sargent: What figure did he give you
there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: What is the figure he gave
you— how much money?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no such thing
as a set payment. Are you suggesting—
Mr. Sargent: If that is the way you draw
up your budget—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You mean the note
that was passed to me? Is that what you are
suggesting?
Mr. Sargent: There should be a figure
somewhere.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no figure.
The total is there.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, how much
can an individual receive from the hon.
Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As much as is neces-
sary to help him become rehabilitated. If it
appears advisable on the part of our rehabili-
tation people that this man needs this kind
of assistance, he will get it.
Mr. Newman: What is the largest amount
that you have given in the past?
Mr. MacDonald: What is the range?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no range.
An hon. member: Do you give him
$500,000?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, the precise amount
is the $2 a month to which he is entitled.
If he spends ten months in an institution, he
gets $20— even though you know that, two
hours after he is out, he may have used up
that $20 on alcohol. This he gets anyway.
The ones we are helping get all the kinds of
help they need from the department, and
there is no fixed range.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I under-
stood the hon. Minister to say there was no
range. There must be a range.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, there is no
range.
Mr. MacDonald: Presumably the range
runs from $2 a month— that is the minimum—
up to some level.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no "up to any
level." Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is
suggesting that it would be unlimited, of
course we would not give unlimited assis-
tance. I am talking about something reason-
able.
Mr. MacDonald: We are asking what it is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I can give the
hon. member an example. This young man,
the young man concerned in this case, is 22
years of age and was sentenced here in To-
ronto. He was transferred to Guelph and the
selection committee recommended him for
training at Brampton. In due course he ap-
peared before the Ontario board of parole
and was granted parole, to be effective the
early part of this month.
He came from a poor home in the Mari-
times and had been in Ontario only a short
time prior to his arrest. He did not wish to
return home and expressed his desire to be-
come established in the Toronto area. He
showed an interest and possessed some ability
in the field of radio announcing and some
preliminary contacts were made by our
rehabilitation staff here in Toronto.
On his release he reported to our Toronto
office and a supervisor arranged a boarding
home, paying a week's room and board. He
was supplied with sufficient money for carfare
and other necessities. During the following
two weeks arrangements were made for
auditions and, as a result, he was successful
in obtaining a position in a radio station. He
required suitable clothing for the job and this
was purchased for him in addition to making
arrangements for his room and board until he
receives his first pay. There will be a total
expenditure of between $75 and $100 in this
case. However, with continued help and
guidance from his supervisor, we are hopeful
that this young man can take his place in
society and not become involved in further
illegal behaviour.
This is an example. When you find a person
who appears to not only want help but
appears to be able to benefit by it, he gets
all the help we can possibly give him. When
you talk about a range, it is not a specific
range.
Mr. Chairman: Are there further questions
on item No. 3?
Mr. Thompson: I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister could tell us the most that was given
last year to any individual?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I could find that out
for the hon. leader of the Opposition.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
957
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I think the interesting
thing is how far the hon. Minister would go.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get that informa-
tion for the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister if this is a standard
offer to all graduates.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: An inmate who
shows signs at all of being able to be helped,
is properly motivated, and is prepared to
accept the help and guidance of our depart-
ment, is helped in this fashion.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other ques-
tions on item No. 3?
Item No. 3 agreed to.
Item No. 4 agreed to.
On item No. 5:
Mr. Chairman: I recognize the leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question about tenders on purchase of
material. Is it the practice that there is open
tender on the purchase of materials for the
institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: Is there any exclusion of
open tender?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has the hon. leader
of the Opposition anything particular in
mind?
Mr. Thompson: No, I am interested to
know if there are any exclusions from the
principle of open tender and, if so, what they
are and why.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not to my knowledge
at the moment. There may be some instances
where there may be invitation tender; I do
not know. If the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion has any particular item in mind I will
gladly give him the details.
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. Minister would table to
the House anything which is done by tender
by invitation. Does the hon. Minister have
no knowledge of any tender by invitation at
this time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not at this time.
Mr. Thompson: Would the hon. Minister
undertake to table, or to supply the informa-
tion for us?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I will look into it.
If there are any invitation tenders, are these
the items the hon. leader of the Opposition
would like to know about?
Mr. Thompson: As I understand it, the
principle of the hon. Minister is that he has
open tender.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Generally, yes.
Mr. Thompson: I am interested in knowing
if there is any exception to that and, if so,
why.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are exceptions,
for example, in areas where there might be
small items in particular locations where you
would not want to open the tenders wide.
You would only have them in that particular
area; something of that nature.
Mr. Thompson: I would be interested.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get them.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Any other questions on item
No. 5?
Mr. Newman: On item No. 5, I want to
pick out a specific item here, Mr. Minister,
and that is the Wabasso Cotton Company
Limited, $163,000. Was that open tender or
invitation tender?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was the name?
Mr. Newman: Wabasso Cotton Company
tender; S10 in the public accounts.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the name of
the firm?
Mr. Newman: Wabasso Cotton Company.
It is the only substantial cotton tender, or
cotton supplier.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will get that infor-
mation for the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on item
No. 5?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. Minister a question? In the institution
we are talking about, has he any planned
programme for upgrading them or moderniz-
ing them? At least, the cells?
Mr. Chairman: I am not sure under what
question the point the member has raised
958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: He would not know, anyway.
We are talking about—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We passed that two
votes ago.
Mr. Sargent: —putting the materials in. I
would ask the hon. Minister if he has any
planned programme for modernizing the cells
in these institutions? Mr. Chairman, I take
exception to this hon. Minister sneering at
my remarks. He has no right to sit there and
sneer at my questions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not sneer at the
hon. member's question.
Mr. Sargent: I speak for 40,000 people
concerned about the rights of small people.
Give us the answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not know what the hon. member means by
sneering. If I am showing puzzlement in my
face-
Mr. Sargent: Well, show some intelligence.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The other hon. mem-
bers of this House are as puzzled as I am
about what the hon. member means when he
asks the question.
Mr. Bryden: It was a straightforward ques-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was the straight-
forward question?
Mr. Bryden: He asked if the hon. Minister
had any plans to modernize the cells in his
institutions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What does he mean,
modernize our cells? Which cells is he refer-
ring to? We try to keep all our institutions
as modern as possible. In the first place, it
was not even under the right item.
Mr. Thompson: Does that mean the hon.
Minister is satisfied with the cells?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say I was
satisfied. I said we do our best to keep our
institutions as modern as possible.
Mr. Thompson: Well, has the hon. Minis-
ter got plans to modernize the ones he is not
satisfied with?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We put some money
into some of the institutions every year.
Mr. Thompson: The question that probably
the hon. member is after is which ones is the
hon. Minister planning to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In this coming year?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: In answering this, I wonder
if the Minister will bear in mind that this
comes under industries in item No. 5 for the
purchase of materials for certain jails. Right?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, in line with
our agreement about flexibility, could we
consider that we are now under item number
four? I think that is the proper item under
which to discuss the matter.
Mr. Thompson: We are asking which cells
the hon. Minister is going to modernize.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which cells?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. The hon. Minister
says he is constantly trying to bring them up
to date; therefore, we are asking which ones
this year is he going to try to bring up to
date.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
have no programme for bringing cells as
such up to date. We are doing our best to
bring up every institution we have, to keep
it up as well as possible and to bring it up
to modern conditions as much as possible,
having regard for the fact that we do not
know how long these institutions are going
to be ours.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I make it
easy for the hon. Minister? The latest, most
modern prison in North America today was
built in Cowansville and opened last month.
It is a federal prison. They say it is the most
modern prison on the continent. Each of
the pastel-coloured cells will house one man.
He will have a cot with a foam-rubber
mattress, private toilet facilities for himself,
a metal desk, a doorless clothes closet, and
an intercom system.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey
North, I am not trying to curtail discussion
on it.
Mr. Sargent: I hope he knows what I am
talking about when I say upgrading the cells.
Mr. Chairman: What the member is trying
to do is find out if they have any methods or
any projects for any improvements in mind.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
mentioned before that we are adding a
training centre at the Rideau industrial farm
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
959
where there will be no cells. We have a new
clinic planned at Mimico, we have a new
training centre just being completed at Fort
William, and we are providing for a new
training centre and new recreation hall at
Burwash. We have a constant programme
every year of asking for so much money so
that we will be able to modernize certain
aspects of the institutions. If the hon.
member wants some specific ones, I will
have to go into detail with my staff.
Mr. Sargent: But the hon. Minister does
have a programme?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: When the hon. mem-
ber talks about cells, and the implication is
that we should go into an institution and
modernize a cell I would have to ask which
institution the hon. member refers to where
the cells need modernizing. If the hon.
member can show me which ones, I will be
able to give the answer as to whether they
were in the programme.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am not apply-
ing that at all. As a matter of fact, there
are a number of institutions which I would
like to completely replace, but there are
certain priorities and they have to be
watched. Within this framework, we do
what we can. We are doing what we can to
build new institutions to replace many of
the old ones. As I mentioned, we are gradu-
ally reducing the size of Guelph; it is already
reduced to where it accommodates 200 less
than last year. We are doing it with these
new training centres and modernizing some
of our other institutions. But as for the
specific question about modernizing cells, I
do not know how to answer it.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, might I ask
the hon. Minister in which institutions the
licence plates are manufactured?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Millbrook.
Mr. Newman: And what is the cost per
plate to manufacture?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We charge The De-
partment of Transport around 14 or 15 cents
a plate.
Mr. Newman: So it must cost a lot less to
manufacture because you would not—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, not necessarily;
it would not cost much less.
Mr. Newman: Has the department been
approached with the possibility of manu-
facturing reflectorized licence plates?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would carry out
the requirements as directed by The Depart-
ment of Transport, and The Department
of Transport has not asked us to go into the
matter of—
Mr. Newman: The department has not
asked your department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Chairman: Number 5; number 6.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I am going to
ask the hon. Minister if he would break
down this item for us in terms of individual
schools. Before I do that I would like to
ask whether that cannot be done as a matter
of course; it is customary in most of the
estimates to itemize grants. I realize these
are probably not in the same category as
some other types of grants, but I see no
reason why we could not, as a regular course,
have a breakdown of item 6.
I understand from the report of the depart-
ment, and the hon. Minister may also have
mentioned it in his introductory remarks,
there has been a considerable change in the
policy of payments with regard to training
schools; does that mean a significant increase
in the amount of item 6?
I have asked the hon. Minister two things,
and perhaps I should just review them. First
of all: What schools are getting what amounts
and what increases do those amounts rep-
resent?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The three private
training schools are those operated by Roman
Catholic religious orders and up to this year
they have been paid on a fixed arbitrary per
diem grant, which was most unsatisfactory
because some of them are having a great deal
of difficulty operating on a fixed per diem
grant.
As I announced about a year ago, sir,
this government has decided to pick up the
complete operating costs, and so this is the
estimate that will be required for picking
up the complete operating costs of the three
private training schools.
Mr. Bryden: Now is this the first year, the
first complete year, that that policy has been
in effect; or was it in effect last year, too?
960
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think this is the
first year.
Mr. Bryden: What difference, in terms of
money, does that make according to the esti-
mates over your previous experience?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think this is the
first year that we have finished up paying
the complete costs of the private training
schools.
Mr. Bryden: What difference in cost is
anticipated?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot give the hon.
member an estimate. I will be glad to get
that for the hon. member. I imagine it is
rather considerable.
Mr. Bryden: Now the one other question,
Mr. Chairman: How is the expenditure con-
trolled? The entire tab is being picked up for
the operation of these schools. I am not com-
plaining about the policy, but I would like to
know what system of financial control the
hon. Minister has to make sure that reason-
able economy is exercised without essential
services being reduced.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course. As
soon as this policy was established, the
religious orders involved agreed with us
to a certain scrutiny of their books, and any
expenditures of any substantial amounts must
be approved by our department before they
are undertaken. So we have pretty good con-
trol of the amount of expenditures.
Mr. Bryden: Do they submit budgets to
the Minister in advance on the basis of which
the Minister approves their operations, or
how is this determined? How does the hon.
Minister give them an idea of how much
money they are going to get?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is done exactly as
we now do with our own schools. They
present a budget and the budget is considered
by our department. If there is anything
in the budget which we think should be
questioned, this is discussed with them. We
have pretty good control and it is improving
all the time. The hon. member will appreciate
it has been in effect only a very short while.
But I must say too that the religious orders
involved were very happy with the arrange-
ment and are quite prepared to carry out
any of these requirements for keeping con-
trol of the expenditures.
Mr. Newman: The per diem cost per capita
at Bowmanville is $8.26, whereas at Cobourg
it is $5.27; yet the number in attendance at
the two institutions compares favourably.
Why would there be such a big difference in
per diem costs between Bowmanville and
Cobourg?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In Cobourg they are
in smaller groups and naturally this would
raise the cost. In other words, staff to student
ratio would be higher and other costs would
be higher. Obviously the more you have
under the same roof the lower the per diem
cost generally is.
Mr. Newman: At Cobourg there is a
smaller group you say, is that it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Newman: Well, according to the
figures here, Bowmanville has 258 and
Cobourg has 203, it is the reverse really.
The smaller group has a lower per diem cost
than the larger group.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are smaller
groups within Cobourg; this is what I am—
Mr. Newman: I think you just do not have
it right there, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: What I think the Minister
meant is they are broken down into smaller
groups.
Mr. Newman: It still does not answer the
fact that it is $8.26 per day for 258 at
Bowmanville, if you use that term, as against
$5.27 for 203 at Cobourg.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They say they are
smaller boys; but really I cannot see why
that should cost any more at the moment, but
there may be a good reason. This is informa-
tion I can get for the hon. member.
Mr. Newman: Well, the per diem costs of
the three institutions- St. Mary's, St. John's
and St. Joseph's— are all roughly under five
dollars a day. Are these per diem costs sup-
plemented at the end of the year when they
find themselves operating at a deficit?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This has no relation-
ship to the grants. It is only statistical infor-
mation, accumulated at the end of the year
to find out what the cost per diem is for each
pupil, but they bear no relationship to the
grants because now the grant system is on
the basis of picking up the complete cost of
the operation, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa
East.
FEBRUARY 28, 1968
961
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr. Chair-
man, perhaps I could answer part of the ques-
tion by the hon. member for Woodbine
regarding overall costs. I think I know some-
thing about the operation of the training
schools because I have been very closely
associated with the St. Joseph school at
Alfred. In connection with the question of
my hon. friend from Windsor-Walkerville I
would say that in the past few years St.
Joseph's had a substantial deficit ranging
from $40,000 to $50,000 a year; and natur-
ally perhaps this year the cost of operating
that school and the other two schools will be
much higher. But looking at the public
accounts of 1965, the total expenditures for
those three schools was $845,743.35, whereas
this year's estimate for the three schools is
roughly $1,110,000. So that should cover
the cost of the difference between the oper-
ating costs and the amounts paid by the
government.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister regarding the oper-
ating of those schools. I think he did make
a statement in his introductory remarks. I
would like to find out whether the new sys-
tem is operating satisfactorily at this time,
and whether he is satisfied with the changes
that have taken place? I think it is a reason-
able question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We find at the
moment it is operating quite well.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on page 52
of his annual report, we notice that there is
designed accommodation for St. John's train-
ing school, St. Joseph's training school, the
Ontario training school for girls at Gait, the
Ontario training school for boys at Bowman-
ville and the Ontario training school for boys
at Cobourg. Their designed accommodation
is less than their actual attendance. Is there
some plan on the part of this department to
overcome the fact that they have more in
attendance than they were designed for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have two schools
opening at Hagersville, as the hon. member
knows, and the new training school which is
to be built in northern Ontario, at Sudbury.
Mr. Newman: This will take care of this
problem then, will it, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Considerably, yes.
Mr. Newman: All right.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough West had earlier asked me at
what point we would consider dealing in
generalities with institutions. I suppose what
should be said is that we did deal with it
originally with the Minister and with the
lead-off speakers; but I should judge at this
particular time, if it is the wish of the com-
mittee, that we should deal with it now un-
der the two headings, the adult and the
juvenile institutions. So as to allow some
flexibility in connection with it, we can deal
with the adult section now and take in both
pages of this estimate right around to district
jails on page 117, if it is the wish of the com-
mittee.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
remind you that at some point in the pro-
ceedings I would like to revert to the matter
of salaries. I am quite willing to do it
whenever you say.
Mr. Chairman: I think we should do that
before we start into the institutions at this
point. The member is dealing with vote 1903,
point one?
Mr. Bryden: Yes.
The hon. Minister was kind enough to give
me a quite detailed statement of the classifi-
cations of employees employed in the institu-
tions, and of the wage rates applicable to
those classifications. I would say at the out-
set that they reveal the same penurious atti-
tude the government usually takes. I notice
people with pay as low as $2,760 a year— just
one person I think in that category, but sev-
eral in the category that starts at $2,880 a
year. Generally, there are some real starva-
tion wages that should be eliminated entirely.
However, I know what the hon. Minister
is going to say to me. He is going to say
that he does not control this, that this is a
matter for the civil service commission and
the negotiating machinery, such as it is,
within the government. I will accept that
answer in advance, without even putting him
to the trouble of giving it. I will have some-
thing more to say about some of these
starvation wages of the government at a later
time.
However, I continue to be concerned
about categories that relate particularly to
his type of work and which undoubtedly
have an effect on his operations generally.
For example, I notice one category in which
there is one employee. The category is "in-
mate counsellor" and the salary range is
described— I would call it rather wage range
-$4,050 to $4,800 a year. What does an
inmate counsellor do for this tremendous
amount of money?
962
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
not a usual position; it is a position kept open
especially for a particular person who is
doing a job in that particular institution, help-
ing to counsel inmates, and this is the
salary—
Mr. Bryden: I hope it is not another de-
feated Tory candidate.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it may be, but
I do not think so. It might be a defeated
NDP candidate; I do not know.
Mr. Bryden: Not likely.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is one thing
about it. You cannot tell their politics once
they pass beyond the doors of the institution.
Mr. Bryden: Oh, you know all about their
politics before they are taken in?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope the hon. mem-
ber will understand what I am trying to say.
Mr. Bryden: Well, all right; this is a
unique classification. It really does not fit
into the pattern at all, so I will forget about
it. I would like to know: What are the duties
of a maintenance superintendent, grade 2?
Admittedly this is not a classification peculiar
to the hon. Minister's institutions; but good
maintenance, I would think, is rather impor-
tant to him. I would like to know what quali-
fications are required of a person paid be-
tween $5,000 and $5,500 a year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will ask me the next one, I will wait for
some information on the maintenance super-
intendent.
Mr. Bryden: I see that you have social
workers, twelve of them, whose wages range
from $4,600 to $6,900, over two classes. That
is rather a wide range and I am just wonder-
ing how many are in the category of $4,600
to $5,500; and how many are in category 2,
which provides $5,750 to $6,900.
What I am particularly concerned about
here, Mr. Chairman, is the social worker cate-
gory 1, which is $4,600 to $5,500. Is that
regarded as the hiring rate? And then the
social worker category 2, $5,750 to $6,900; is
that regarded as, shall we say, the category
for the experienced worker? If that is the
approach, I think it is most unfortunate. I
think your hiring rate is too far below the
general rate you are paying for that category;
and the danger is you will not be as competi-
tive as you should be in this field where, we
can all agree, I think, there is a tremendous
shortage of qualified people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that the
salary depends upon the qualifications. The
only answer I can give the hon. member in
respect to this particular question is the same
as I did with respect to the other. This is a
matter of the general policy of the commis-
sion, and that is the level at which it would
have to be changed. It cannot be changed in
one particular department.
Mr. Bryden: What would the qualifications
be for a social worker 1?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While I am waiting
for that one, Mr. Chairman, I can give the
hon. member the answer to the question
about the maintenance superintendent 2; he
is supervisor of the maintenance crew, not
necessarily a qualified tradesman. I hope that
tells the hon. member what he wants to know.
Mr. Bryden: This all depends on what the
maintenance crew does. Well, I suppose, the
superintendent of maintenance, if he is not
superintending qualified tradesmen—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suppose this would
also differ, depending upon the institution.
Some would require a larger maintenance
crew than others. I suppose this would have
something to do with it.
Mr. Bryden: Does not all maintenance re-
quire a certain number of skilled people? I
would think a maintenance superintendent
would have to be a qualified electrician, and
then paid substantially above what electri-
cians are paid, if you are going to get a
proper person.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The requirements for
social worker 1 is bachelor of social work; he
should have a bachelor of social work degree.
Mr. Bryden: A bachelor of social work, I
think, is a person with two years university
training beyond the BA level; am I not right
on that? It is just incredible to me that the
government or anyone else should think that
they can continue to attract people into this
most important profession for that sort of
wage. No wonder we have a shortage of
social workers.
The hon. Minister may say I should take
this up under the estimates of the civil serv-
ice commission; the only trouble is that the
civil service commission clearly is just not
with it. They are living in a dream world as
far as people trained in the social sciences
are concerned, particularly those trained in
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
963
what may, in many respects, be the most
important phase of the social sciences— the
people whose task is to help people who have
fallen along the way to get back on their feet
again.
We pay these absolutely ridiculous wages.
In fact, I would say that $4,600 should be
something close to the minimum wage for
any type of work in the government; but
$4,600 for a person with a bachelor of social
work! I do not know if you have any actually
in that category, but they certainly show
more devotion to their job than common
sense if they continue to work for those
wages.
I am now interested in another classifica-
tion—one that has been referred to previously
under these estimates— I think it is worth
referring to it again. That is the category of
correctional officers. I notice that there are
982 correctional officers in grades 1, 2 and
3; and the total range of those three grades
is $4,050 to $5,000 per year.
I will not go through some of the argu-
ments that were raised in the introductory
remarks. My hon. friend from Bracondale
made some comments and I agreed with the
spirit of them, if not necessarily with the
particular way he put them. The people who
are now employed in these classifications
have quite low educational qualifications. I
want to make it clear that I am not suggest-
ing that is any criticism of them at all. And
I agree with what the hon. Minister said, in
replying to the hon. member for Bracondale,
that there are people with not very im-
pressive formal educational qualifications
who, nevertheless, can do very good work in
the field in which they have chosen to work.
We can agree with all that.
But the fact still remains that the objective
of the department should be, over a period
of time, to increase the qualifications of the
people in this very important field of work
and one starts that by increasing the quali-
fications at recruitment. Because, by and
large, and there are always exceptions to all
rules, but by and large, a person is able to
absorb further training depending on the
training he now has. The further he has gone
in school, the more likely he is to be able
to benefit from further training. When I
heard the hon. Minister giving his answer to
the hon. member for Bracondale in the
introductory statement of these estimates, I
thought he was going to carry his remarks
to the point where he would say that people
did not need any education at all. I said
something to the effect— I doubt if it was
recorded in Hansard— that his argument was
a masterpiece of sophistry, or something like
that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, you would not
say that.
Mr. Bryden: I would indeed. I think, as a
matter of fact, if you go back and read over
the argument you made, you would agree
that it was a masterpiece of sophistry; it was
obviously an evasion of the problem. There
surely is no justification at all for a situa-
tion in which the average level of educa-
tional attainment is about grade nine for
people in this kind of work. Again, I am not
criticizing the people who are now there. I
admire them for carrying on this important
work at the rotten wages they are getting.
But I think that you should start jacking
these wages up. I would say at least 20 or
25 per cent to begin with. These rates are
so completely unrealistic that I do not know
how the hon. Minister can feel that he can
carry on adequately. It is not so much the
existing staff I am concerned about as the
future. The present employees are going to
move on through the working span, as all of
us do, and how is the hon. Minister going to
recruit new people? What is his experience
now in getting replacements for this exalted
level of correctional officer— grade one, draw-
ing a salary of $4,050 to $4,200 a year? I
take it that is the recruitment classification.
What sort of educational qualifications is he
able to ask for, recruiting at that level?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least 8, preferably
10. I must point out something to the
hon. member again. I tried to make the
point before; perhaps this is what the hon.
member was referring to as sophistry. I
hope not.
I am saying that even with this level of
educational requirement, there is difficulty
in recruiting sufficient staff.
Mr. Bryden: Of course, it is difficult, I
imagine, to recruit sufficient staff for this
kind of work, which is far from easy work.
I think we will all agree that at this kind
of wages, and even with the educational
qualifications at a point which are simply
ridiculous, he still cannot get people. I
think another thing the hon. Minister should
bear in mind is that in this day and age,
when the pressure on all young people
is, quite properly, to stay in school, you are
not going to get the kind of people you want
from school dropouts. You might as well
face it; anybody who leaves at grade 8 is
a school dropout. And yet the hon. Minister
is willing to take that person on. There are
964
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
many useful types of employment that
school dropouts can do, and I would hope
that they will be trained, their needs will
be taken into account and everything
possible will be done to adjust them to
society so that they can make a useful con-
tribution. But I really do not think that a
correctional officer is the role for a school
dropout. I am suggesting to the hon. Min-
ister that he should not think in terms of
anything less than grade 13 for this type of
work, with the idea that further training
will be given to move recruits further up
the scale and make them even more useful.
The type of qualifications needed for this
type of work certainly will not be found
among the people who dropped out at
grade 8.
The hon. Minister waves his hands with
resignation. I do not know if that indicates
he is doing the best he can, but the civil
service commission is making things im-
possible for him. I am sure he would not
say that, but I will say it. I think that if
these are the wages that the civil service
commission is establishing for the type of
work involved here, even allowing for the
possibility there may be some increase, then
there is something radically wrong with the
civil service commission. I think they ought
to be made to face reality, made to face the
kind of work that ought to be done here.
These rates are heritages of an ancient time
when people who looked after prisoners in
institutions were not considered to be per-
forming a very important work of society. I
think that now they are performing an ex-
tremely important work. But the civil service
commission is obviously living somewhere in
the remote past.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that he can-
not possibly carry on on those wage scales,
and that something has to be done to raise
them.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracon-
dale.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, listening to the
remarks of my hon. friend from Woodbine, I
heard, and perhaps the hon. Minister would
comment, that the job description calls for a
grade 10 education and that the hon. Minis-
ter, being unable to recruit people with a
grade 10 education, has been recruiting them
with less than a grade 10 education and has
requested that the job description be amended
to provide that he can hire them at grade
8 education, and that the civil service is
objecting to this on the part of the hon.
Minister.
This is what I have heard. I would appre-
ciate very much receiving the hon. Minister's
comments, in view of what the hon. member
for Woodbine has had to say.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
It may be that the Minister will have some-
thing to say in connection with all three
members.
Mr. Young: I rose, Mr. Chairman, to say
almost the same thing as the hon. member for
Bracondale. Two years ago the hon. Minister
set the standard at grade 10. The statement
he just made to this House is rather startling.
Because as I understood it, a couple of years
ago the standard had been raised to 10 and
at that point recruitment was taking place.
Have we dropped the standard because it is
impossible to get men?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the hon. member for Yorkview, the
standard was raised to 10 for training schools.
It remains at 10. But we are permitted to
recruit them at 8 for the—
Mr. Young: But from what we were dis-
cussing at that time, Mr. Chairman, I under-
stood that the Guelph institution and similar
institutions were going to establish grade 10
as the minimum!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that we were
probably talking about what was preferable
—what we were looking for: If the hon.
member will go back in the record— I do not
know, I cannot recall that discussion-
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. Minister what the job description calls
for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I went into
that earlier today-
Mr. Ben: In the way of education, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bryden: What does your job descrip-
tion call for for a correctional officer number
one?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I shall get that for the
hon. member shortly.
Mr. Bryden: While the hon. Minister is
getting that, Mr. Chairman, there is another
category here called "training school super-
visor," and there are six classes of that. Two
hundred and sixty-two of the people involved
are in classes one, two and three. Training
school supervisors seem to be considered by
the civil service commission to perform much
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
965
the same duties as correctional officers, be-
cause they get exactly the same pay. In other
words, the bottom of the scale for grade one
is $4,050 a year and the top of the scale, for
grade three, is $5,000 a year. What do train-
ing school supervisors do? Whom do they
supervise? Do they supervise children in
the-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: And they are considered to
have the same sort of duties as correctional
officers?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are not the same
duties, of course, and the handling of children
is an entirely different thing. In the first place
the correctional officer's job involves a great
deal more danger in his job, and there is
more of a custodial aspect in an adult in-
stitution than there is in a training school.
It is not the same.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, does the
hon. Minister feel that there is a direct
correlation between the salaries paid and his
problem of staffing the institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it would be
underestimating any hon. member's intelli-
gence if I suggested that salary does not play
some part in the recruitment of staff or the
holding of staff. Of course, salary has some-
thing to do with it.
Mr. S. Lewis: Then what does the hon.
Minister intend to do? If he feels that, as
Minister of this variety of institutions, one
of the inhibiting factors in staff recruitment
is salary level, what will he, as a Minister of
the Crown, do?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do what I can
within the framework of the way a govern-
ment is operated, within the limits of the
money available. The Treasury board has to
decide how far that money can go, and I do
the best I can for my department, to get as
much money as I can for my employees, the
same as every other Minister does. I
suppose that is the reason, essentially, why
we have one policy— and certain requirements
and certain complements and certain salary
schedules across the board. I have to abide
by that the same as any other Minister.
It is a matter for general government policy.
It has nothing to do, really, with my specific
department, except the effect that it has on its
work— the same effect it may have on other
departments.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, if I
may just finish? If the hon. member for York-
view will please excuse me.
Of course, we are now in the position
where really— and I hope that the hon.
member will not think that I am saying
something to suggest that he has no right to
discuss these things— I do not mean that,
really. These things are all subject for nego-
tiation.
It is a difficult position I am in. Even when
my own staff wants me to discuss salaries
with them, I cannot discuss salaries with
them. Obviously, I cannot discuss salaries
with them. I would destroy the value and the
function and the strength of their own asso-
ciation, if I went over their own association
and discussed these matters with them. They
are subject to negotiation between the civil
service commission and the civil service asso-
ciation; they are representatives of the em-
ployees, and we must abide with whatever
the decision is as a result of those negotiations.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I think that I
can quote the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions on this matter. In his own report,
July 29, 1965-his statement on Millbrook
reformatory— he says this:
At no time was the security of the in-
stitution in jeopardy and the superintendent
and the staff were in complete control.
In the past 18 months, since January,
1964, 22 people have resigned; 13 to take
up better-paid positions—
This, is seems to me, is the answer which the
hon. Minister himself is giving— that more
than half the people who resigned from that
institution, over that period of time, resigned
to take up better-paid positions. He tells us
in his own words the difficulty he is facing;
and it is high time that the civil service, and
whoever is handling negotiations, stepped in
here to make this right.
But more than that, I think the hon. Min-
ister himself ought to indicate to the depart-
ment that he is quite willing for these scales
to be raised. There will be no objection on
the part of the civil service association. I
think they will reclassify and raise these
salaries. It seems to me a very simple thing
for the hon. Minister to put on record that
he wants to see these salaries raised; he is
having difficulty in getting people and hold-
ing them at this salary scale. Therefore, it is
high time that something realistic was done to
raise those scales.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, Mr. Chair-
man, I want as much as I can get for my
966
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
people and we know what the answer to that
is. We have gone into that.
Mr. Bryden: I do not really think that this
is the answer, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no other
answer I can give. It is a subject for negoti-
ation between the civil service association
and the civil service commission.
Mr. Bryden: If past experience is any
guide, there is going to be a lot of difficulty
there; because, as far as I can see from my
observation, the civil service association is
dealing with the blood brother of Simon
Legree at all stages. I am not specifically
referring to the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan), although he is closer to Simon Legree
than is fit and proper, but that is not the
point I am most interested in.
The hon. Minister's answer up until now in-
creases my alarm, because what I am afraid
of is that these particular categories— types
of employment which are of vital importance
to his work, and there are also similar types
of employment in some of the other depart-
ments—are just going to be lost in the big
shuffle.
After a good deal of negotiating and
bargaining, and perhaps even some hard
words, there will be some general increases
in pay; but our problem, as I see it, is:
Regardless of the overall level of wages in
the service— and that is one point we should
discuss on some other occasion— there are
particular categories of people who are
simply misclassified in the total picture.
They have been at a level which is far too
low for the type of work that we would
expect from them, and I would hope that
the hon. Minister would make his voice
heard as strongly as possible.
Perhaps the hon. Minister of Public Wel-
fare (Mr. Cecile) could make a similar
representation that, apart altogether from
general overall increases in wages, specific
consideration should be given to such classi-
fications as rehabilitation officers, correctional
officers— what is the other one?— training
school supervisors, and social workers. These
are people who are dealing with human be-
ings on a direct personal relationship; people
who are vital, I am certain, to the future
development of many of these human beings.
And the civil service commission simply has
not given consideration to the type of
qualifications that I think we all want.
I think it is up to the hon. Minister to
make this case extremely strong. I do not
think he will have any trouble with the civil
service association. His troubles lie within
the government— with the Treasury board
and the civil service commission. I would
suggest to him that he should really raise a
fuss this year because every year we get the
same answer: that this is all a part of a
total policy and all Ministers want more
money. Here is a case that has much greater
merit than most cases, I am sure, that are
put forward to the Treasury board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on
that last point: I would hope that the hon.
member does not think that I have a reputa-
tion at Treasury board for being a shrinking
violet.
Mr. Bryden: I do not know what the hon.
Minister's reputation is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact,
there was an increase just last year, but the
complete effect of it is still not being felt
because there will be another increase be-
ginning April 1. I got an increase— I think
the average was around $750.
Mr. Bryden: You mean you raised the
wages from disgusting to disgraceful. They
were away down at about $3,200 a year; it
is just incredible that you could even think
of paying—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
offered to get some information for the hon.
member for Bracondale. I think I was asked
about qualifications for correctional officer 1,
what they are: Grade 8, as I said, preferably
grade 10; ability to pass mental ability test-
that is a score in the average range or
higher.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracon-
dale has the floor now.
Mr. Ben: When were these specifications
set?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I will try to get
that.
Mr. Ben: The mental range score; how
does that compare to IQ? I asked that of
the hon. Minister. He said: "In the average
range." Does that relate to IQ, or do you
use the words "mental score"?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that would be
IQ.
Mr. Ben: That would be IQ in the aver-
age range. Mr. Chairman, one of the things
that confuses me about the debate— there
are a lot of things that confuse me but one
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
967
thing specifically— is that the hon. Minister
took exception when I referred to what are
now called correctional officers, as custodial
officers, and said they were formerly turn-
keys. It is quite conceivable that perhaps
there is a distinction, but if there is a dis-
tinction, Mr. Chairman, should not that
distinction be recognized by this govern-
ment?
Is it not rather strange that a Minister of
the Crown gets up there and says, "We can-
not dictate the salary ranges here; that is
out of our hands because the civil service
wishes to protect and maintain a certain
pecking order, and keep a certain group
down in salary to make their position look
more illustrious and give it more stature." Is
that a reason for a government to sit there
complacently and do nothing and say, "Our
hands are tied. They are the ones that set
this routine"?
If, as the hon. Minister states, these people
are correctional officers and not simply turn-
keys, can I suggest their salary should be
commensurate with their new responsibilities?
I suggest also that it is the responsibility of
the hon. Minister to take the initiative in that
regard, and not throw that task to the civil
service who, I respectfully submit, are trying
to maintain their own pecking order, to
maintain the gap that exists between the top
and the bottom, for if the salaries of the low-
est paid go up then they feel that a certain
stature is being lost.
One of the things that strikes me about
this is why it should be the hon. Minister's
department where they have, we might say,
so many dropouts. Why should it be the
hon. Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All departments have
dropouts.
Mr. Ben: Fine, we will find out from the
other departments if this is what our civil
servants are composed of. I refuse to accept
it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Industry has dropouts.
There are a lot of changes.
Mr. Ben: I refuse to accept that our civil
service is composed of those who have an
average education of grade 9l/2 or 10 and I
am sure that if we ask every Minister, as
each estimates come up, we are going to find
that this is not so. Why should the reform
department attract all these unless, as pointed
out by my hon. friend here from Woodbine,
it is the salary, the pittance that is paid to
these people so that they cannot even operate
with dignity down there?
Now it is fine for the hon. Minister to say,
—though it rather surprised me— that the
Treasury board were giving him what was
wanted, because I was under the impression
from information received that the hon. Min-
ister had no difficulty in getting whatever
funds he needed. It just goes back to what
I always suspected, that The Department of
Reform Institutions is a forgotten department,
that people do not see it, nobody cares about
the thing. The hon. Minister himself made a
statement before the John Howard society
that most of the public do not care how those
people are treated there. Maybe most of the
public do not but I suggest that the mem-
bers of this House, at least those that are
sitting on the left of the Speaker, do care.
They want something done about it
One way of doing it is not by lowering the
requirement to grade 8. Perhaps some of
the hon. members of this House may have
thought I was very nasty in implying that the
inmates have a higher educational level than
some of the correctional officers that are look-
ing after them, but I can see it is quite pos-
sible if the hon. Minister here is saying we
are recruiting them at grade 8.
Now, how in heaven's name do we expect
the people incarcerated there to have respect
for these people, as the hon. Minister so
bluntly pointed out in criticizing me for hav-
ing brought this to the attention of the public,
when they know the correctional officers are
no better off as far as education is concerned
than they are?
Furthermore, as the hon. Minister pointed
out in saying that these inmates are probably
smarter than both he and I, I would suggest
that if they are smarter— and a lot of them
are more clever than both the hon. Minister
and myself— how does he expect the correc-
tional officers to cope with these inmates?
I would respectfully suggest that when he
goes back to the Treasury board, he should
tell the hon. Provincial Treasurer that al-
though he may have forgotten that there are
people in the reform institutions, other people
have not, and he should also look at it from
the financial point of view if he will not
look at it from the humanitarian point of
view. If he is afraid to part with the almighty
dollar, remind him that as long as he is com-
ing back, and back, and back, the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer will have to raise more
and more and more money. If the hon.
Provincial Treasurer wants to save money and
stop increasing his budget all the time, per-
haps if he could find some way of keeping
968
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these people out of prison all the time; he
might do that.
Mr. Chairman: The Provincial Treasurer
wants to say something at this point.
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might bring a
message from one of the supervisors at the
boys school at Hagersville, whom I met in
Hagersville last night. He asked me to tell
the hon. gentleman that he had a great deal
more than a grade 8 education.
Mr. Thompson: We all waited with bated
breath and I notice the hon. Provincial
Treasurer-
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me, the member for
Scarborough West.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
it might be worthwhile for some of the hon.
gentlemen who are making the statements to
find out the truth of the matter before they
make the statements.
Mr. Bryden: We have been finding out.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, the hon. member has
not.
Mr. Bryden: Oh yes, we have.
Hon. Mr. Allan: No, you have not. The
civil service commission did not set the salary
that you are talking about; they were agreed
to by the civil service associaton and the
commission, and as far as I know, and I think
this is correct, they are entirely satisfactory
to those who are receiving them.
Mr. Bryden: We can perhaps deal with
the hon. Provincial Treasurer more fully
under his estimates, but I can warn him
right now that that sort of statement will not
do. We know the kind of bitterness in-
volved in negotiations between—
Hon. Mr. Allan: There was no bitterness.
Mr. Bryden: Does the hon. Provincial
Treasurer think we cannot read? You fellows
just tried to ram it down their throats and
then you have the nerve to get up and—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton): How does the
hon. member know that?
Mr. Bryden: I read their statements, as
the hon. member ought to, and he would
know if he read them.
I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman but—
Mr. Chairman: Well, I assume that the
Provincial Treasurer was on his feet on a
point of order. What was the point of order?
Hon. Mr. Allan: My point of order was
that there was no bitterness in these negotia-
tions, they were agreeable and the settlement
was satisfactory to both parties.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Provincial Treasurer likes to pretend that the
civil service association is entirely satisfied,
but he and his colleagues live in a dream
world; they do not know what is going on.
Hon. Mr. Allan: Yes, we do-
Mr. Bryden: We get the publications—
Hon. Mr. Allan: I get so tired of listen-
ing-
Mr. Bryden: —put out by the civil service
association, and those memos and other pub-
lications show a continuous story of griev-
ance, of dissatisfaction, on the part of the
association at the thoroughly arbitrary and
unreasonable attitude that the government
persistently takes in negotiations.
The government does not negotiate at all,
it lays down the law and says "This is the
way it must be" and then if they say they
would like it some other way, the hon.
Provincial Treasurer says, "You fellows are
unreasonable."
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order, I ask the hon.—
Mr. Bryden: No, I have the floor, Mr.
Chairman, and I am fed to the teeth with
the hon. Provincial Treasurer coming in here
with these bland assurances for the benefit
of his own backbenchers who apparently do
not read any of the material they get from
the civil service association—
Hon. Mr. Allan: I do not know whether
the hon. member can read or not but—
Mr. Bryden: —I will bring in some of it
and we will see how well satisfied these
people are. At almost every stage it is a
bitter fight; you trying to dictate to them
and they are trying to bargain; you say that
whenever they want to bargain they are not
reasonable, that the only way to be reason-
able is to accept what you dictate and I—
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order.
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
7 FEBRUARY 28, 1966-
969
Hon. Mr. Allan: The point of order is that
I have made a statement which is the truth
and I object to being told, that it is untrue.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer has put a certain interpre-
tation on facts which cannot be borne out
by the facts at all, and now he is coming
into this House with the suggestion that we
must accept everything he says as the gospel
truth. It was not a statement of facts, it was
a matter of interpretation.
Hon. Mr. Allan: It was a statement of
fact.
Mr. Bryden: As" far as I am concerned, the
hon. Provincial Treasurer's interpretation is
100 per cent wrong and anybody with any
brains can see that it is wrong. However,
Mr. Chairman, we will deal with this more
fully when the estimates of the civil service
commission are before this House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, while we
are talking on this point could I ask the hon.
Provincial Treasurer, is he aware that the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions has
said one of the problems that he has in fill-
ing his staff is because of inadequate salary?
Is he aware of that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order, please.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order.
The hon. leader of the Opposition is twist-
ing my words. I was asked the question
whether in fact I thought that salaries have
anything to do with my difficulty, in recruit-
ing staff and I almost remember word for
word what I said. I said I would be insults
ing the intelligence of the hon. members if
I said to them that the salaries were not a
consideration in recruiting any staff any
place. Of course they are. Obviously if I
paid more money I could get more people,
anybody could.
Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. Provincial
Treasurer aware that the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions has told us he is not a
shrinking violet when he approaches the
Provincial Treasurer in order to get more
increases for his staff?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order again. The hon. leader
of the Opposition is putting words in my
mouth.
Mr. MacDonald: That is exactly what the
hon. Minister said.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment. There
was an implication that this department was
being neglected in favour of others, and that
I should allow my voice to be heard. I
answered that he may rest assured that 1
am not known at the Treasury board as being
a shrinking violet. As a matter of fact, my
estimates this year are up 14 per cent.
Mr. Thompson: May I ask if the hon.
Provincial Treasurer is aware that the hon.
Minister of Reform Institutions wants an in-
crease in salary for his staff?
Hon. Mr. Allan: I am not aware of* that.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is not
bad for a shrinking violet.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. S. Lewis; Mr. Chairman, I suggest to
the hon. Provincial Treasurer, since he is now
sitting in this House, that he might have
attended the debate during the course of the
afternoon and recognize that the hon. Min-
ister of Reform Institutions desperately wants
an increase for his staff, and that the govern-
ment policy of bludgeoning civil servants into
submission on wage rates is no answer to the
present staff crisis.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I rise to a point of
order again, Mr. Chairman. I made exactly
-the same statement that the hon. Provincial
Treasurer made. I said salaries were the
subject of negotiations between the civil
service commisison and the civil service asso-
ciation. As "a matter of fact, I said it Was
improper for me even to discuss salaries with
my own staff. I did say it.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the civil
service association would appreciate a little
help from this side: we will give them all we
can.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bracondale.
Mr. S. Lewis: You interrupted me on a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. The member
for Scarborough West has the floor.
Mr. S. Lewis: I would like to follow up
the point because I think that what is happen-
ing in this sub-estimate is instructive for what
is going to happen in related fields of welfare,
education, health, the Attorney General, and
970
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
so on, and that is that the wage level the
government is prepared to set is systemati-
cally starving the social service personnel in
this province. Most important, it is systema-
tically starving them out of their own depart-
ment.
It is not only that the educational incentives
are low; that the retraining incentives are
non-existent; that the work conditions in
many instances are inadequate, but that the
salary level is destroying the social service
complement in our civil service. I suggest
strongly, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister
that we are bringing departments such as his
to a point of paralysis; five or six years from
now they will simply not be functioning
because of lack of adequate personnel. He
may not be a shrinking violet, Mr. Chairman,
but he is certainly going to have to exert
a much more dramatic and persuasive in-
fluence at the Treasury board, as will his
colleagues in these related departments, or
the departments will be undermined beyond
repair. That is what the members on this
side of the House have been driving at this
afternoon.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
points out that his budget this year is 14
per cent above last year's budget. I would
like to ask the hon. Minister why, therefore,
on page SI in the public accounts of the
province of Ontario for the period ending
March 31, 1965, is there shown to be un-
expended of the appropriation of $20,631,000
the sum of $4,011,276.06?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a very detailed
explanation. If we have time, Mr. Chairman,
I will be glad to go into that. There are all
these unexpended amounts in every depart-
ment.
Mr. Ben: Like 25 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, in some instances.
It depends on what they are set for.
Mr. Ben: Well, if that is the way the hon.
Minister does his calculations—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise and report a certain
resolution and asks for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report a certain resolution
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
Page
872
ERRATUM
(Thursday, February 24, 1966)
Column Line Correction
1 38 Change to read:
would have to pay $25,000 a year or more
for them.
No. 33
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Betmteg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, February 28, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, February 28, 1966
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Freeman,
Mr. Peck, Mr. Racine, Mr. Olde, Mr. Apps 973
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Apps, agreed to 1001
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1002
973
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday, February 28, 1966
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: First order, resuming
the adjourned debate on the amendment to
the amendment to the motion for an address
in reply to the speech from the Honourable
the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of
the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker,
when this debate was adjourned last Thurs-
day I was drawing to your attention, sir, the
sorry state to which the awarding of Queen's
counsels in the province of Ontario has
fallen during the tenure of the present gov-
ernment and particularly during the two years
during which the present hon. Attorney Gen-
eral (Mr. Wishart) has had the responsibility
to make the recommendations on this matter.
And as I have told you previously, sir, this
year 110 lawyers were elevated, if that is the
correct word, to this designation. A year
ago 107 Queen's counsels were awarded;
and the year before that in 1964 only 79.
Under the direction of the former Attorney
General, the present hon. member for Gren-
ville-Dundas (Mr. Cass), a much stricter
policy towards these appointments was fol-
lowed.
But I would like to bring to your attention,
sir, that the large number of QCs that are
presently practising in this province tend to
degrade the honour to some extent because
it has become common, and also for the
citizens who are looking for legal counsel
there is nothing in the award that assures
them of any extra responsibility or even any
extra competence.
Now I feel that there is a remedy for this,
and as a matter of fact it could be one of
several remedies. I believe that if the gov-
ernment severely restricted the number of
QCs awarded, and acted on the advice of the
legal profession itself through the Bar associa-
tions, the judges and magistrates, who surely
would have some opportunity to judge the
relative merits of certain lawyers, that these
awards could be put on a better basis. Fail-
ing this, I suppose the other method would
be just to award the QC to any lawyer who
stays out of jail himself for a period of five
years so that it would be on a perfectly
equal basis for all.
But I would say myself that I still feel
that the designation could be used to honour
and distinguish those truly learned in the
law. If the government would accept a
farmer's suggestion, I would think that the
next few lists should be those from whom the
QC designation has been removed until it
becomes reduced to a manageable number.
Mr. Speaker, there are two or three other
items that I would like to bring to your atten-
tion. The first has to do with a matter that
we followed very closely in the recent federal
election campaign a few months ago. The
hon. Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr. Robarts)
himself took an active part in this particular
issue. I want to bring it to your attention now.
I refer to the need for adequate old age
retirement pensions for the citizens of Ontario
and the fact that the prime responsibility for
making old age pensions available in this
province is a provincial responsibility by The
British North America Act. It is true that
down through the years this responsibility
has been taken over in some measure by the
federal jurisdiction so that the old age pen-
sion, the old age security pension as it is
known, is a federal pension. But there is
precedent in Ontario for awarding an amount
in addition to the basic pension.
During the tenure of office of my friend,
the hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver),
when he was Minister of Public Welfare,
I understand that in those days the govern-
ment of Ontario undertook to pay a premium
of 15 per cent of the basic pension to those
in the province of Ontario in receipt of old
age pension in those days. Now much has
been said about the need for a $100 pension
and I myself am firmly convinced that this
money should be made available to our pen-
sioners in Ontario.
974
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Sup-
port our subamendment!
Mr. Nixon: We certainly will support the
subamendment that the hon. member tacked
on to the amendment offered by my hon.
leader (Mr. Thompson), and when this de-
bate is finished I hope that this matter will
have been fully discussed by all parties be-
cause I feel that there is a general consensus
that for the senior citizens in this province
$100 is the amount that we should make
available to them and which would enable
them to live in some dignity in their old age.
There are many things that are going to
be done to assist these people from the
federal level. It has already been mentioned
in this House many times that The Canada
Assistance Act, when it comes into being as
it surely will, will provide the assistance for
this government to award additional pen-
sions on a needs test. We know that the
Canada pension plan itself will make avail-
able additional moneys and already premiums
are being collected. But this pension will
not really be available to those that need it
for another ten years, although the premiums
are already returning to the province of
Ontario. I understand that these will be
made available for a sort of basis of social
expansion; that is the money will be loaned
at a reasonable interest rate to the muni-
cipalities and school boards, and with this
I heartily concur.
But I very well remember some months
ago the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario said
that the pension should be raised to $100
and he felt that it would be quite in order
for the premiums collected in the Canada
pension plan to be applied for this additional
pension. Now admittedly this was only for
an interim period so that the extra pension
would be made available to everyone until
the Canada pension plan came into force at
its full amount. Nevertheless, the suggestion
was made by the hon. Prime Minister of
Ontario and I feel that there was a certain
amount of irresponsibility associated with
this. Since it has been decided finally that
it would be a funded plan, surely the funds
that are collected from the premiums would
be invested, as now we are evidently going
to do in Ontario, so they would be avail-
able to support the plan in the future.
So that the assistance that is available is
going to be augmented by The Canada
Assistance Act and finally by the Canada
pension plan. Another very useful suggestion
that has been made by the Senate committee
on aging is that for those over 65 years of age
the government should guarantee a mini-
mum income, and the amount suggested is
$105 a month. Now I feel there is great
promise in this suggestion. I am convinced
that in the years that lie ahead, this is the
type of plan that would eventually be
adopted in Canada and may be expanded
into other areas besides those just related
to our older citizens.
In the meantime, the citizens of Ontario
have to get along with the restrictions of the
$75 a month. Often there is considerable
need, not sufficient however, to warrant the
extra assistance that is made available by
the government of Ontario, under special
and exceptional circumstances. So it appears
to me that the increase to $100 will soon be
available in one form or another as Canada
grows and prospers under Liberal leader-
ship.
Nevertheless, until this is economically
possible all across Canada, we in this House
have the power— and I submit to you, sir, the
responsibility— to meet the immediate needs,
so that the amount can be raised in Ontario
to $100 monthly for old age pensioners and
all of the related categorical pensions. I
would heartily recommend this to the gov-
ernment.
Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks the
Parliament of Canada is going to be called
upon to decide on whether or not capital
punishment will be retained in this country.
This is obviously a federal responsibility.
Nevertheless, we in this province have been
talking just this afternoon, and we will talk
in the future, about the responsibilities that
our police, law enforcement officers, and
prison guards have and their changing
responsibility if in fact capital punishment
is abolished.
So it does concern us in this House. I was
interested to note at a fairly recent federal-
provincial conference the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral of Ontario recommended to the federal
government that capital punishment be re-
tained.
Now it is not made clear, as far as I am
concerned, whether he was speaking in a
personal capacity, or whether in fact he
was representing the opinion of the govern-
ment of this province. I suppose he was
speaking as an individual citizen. Neverthe-
less when the hon. Attorney General makes
a statement like that, it is widely reported
and it would appear to me that it would
represent the opinion of this government.
If this is so, I would like, as a citizen of
Ontario and a member of this House to go
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
975
on record as saying that I very strongly
favour the abolition of capital punishment
and I hope that this is the decision that is
reached by the government of Canada.
I want to say something about it, because
there is all sorts of information available to
those who would seek it out and read it.
For example, there were commissions and
committees in the United Kingdom in 1949
extending through to 1953. The govern-
ment of Canada itself had a committee look-
ing into this in 1956; there is a United
Nations study of capital punishment re-
leased in 1962, and the states of New York
and New Jersey have carried out rather
exhaustive studies recently on this matter.
Now having read the arguments for and
against abolition, I find that they rather boil
down to a relatively small number. There
are those who feel that capital punishment
is an effective deterrent and, on the other
hand, those who feel it is not an effective
deterrent. Search as I may, there are no valid
statistics to prove the case conclusively, one
way or the other.
The next one is that many people feel that
capital punishment is just retribution for
some of the ghastly crimes that are com-
mitted in this country. An eye for an eye
is the philosophy that would govern them
in this.
On the other hand, there are many who
feel that capital punishment in this form is
morally wrong and completely unjustifiable.
Many feel— and I am sure that there are
hon. members of this House who would
agree— that capital punishment is a real
help to the administration of law and order
in any jurisdiction, and an assistance in keep-
ing order in our penal institutions.
There are others, of course, who feel that
the risk of error in capital punishment puts
aside that argument. It seems to me that
after rational argument approaches exhaus-
tion, it tends to deteriorate to charges on
the one side that the opinion is vengeful and
sadistic and on the other that it is made up
of impractical bleeding hearts.
In other words, it tends to boil down to
a moral conviction held by the individual
and it is in this connection that I believe
that in the absence of proof that capital
punishment is an effective deterrent, that the
principle cf the sanctity cf human life must
prevail.
I favour the ab-lition of capital punishment
and I regret that the hon. Attorney General
of this province has advised the government
of Canada to the contrary. I am not saying
that we have the responsibility even for ad-
vising the government of Canada. Neverthe-
less, they requested this advice and it seems
that the hon. Attorney General has gone
ahead and offered it without consulting this
House.
It is for this reason that I feel quite
justified in going on record, Mr. Speaker,
with the opinions that I hold very strongly
myself.
Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in the
last session of this Legislature, a select com-
mittee was set up to deal with conservation
in the province of Ontario. This committee
is not, as I understand it, prepared to give a
final report and it may well be that our
deliberations and investigations will continue
for another year.
This remains to be seen. But it is true that
over the years there has been a lot of talk
about conservation and particularly about
measures that would combat increasing pol-
lution of our waters and the air.
A lot of this has been largely disregarded.
It is true that a reorganization of the Cabinet
some months ago has put all of the govern-
ment emanations that deal with conservation
and anti-pollution work under one Minister,
and I believe that this is a reasonable
thing to do. But it is also true that the On-
tario water resources commission that was set
up some years ago— and we are called on to
support with very heavy appropriations of
money— still permits some of the large cities
of the province of Ontario to flush raw
sewage into the rivers and the Great Lakes
of this country. It is almost inconceivable
that this is still going on, but the thing that
would bring the emergencies of pollution to
our attention more than anything else in the
last few weeks is the report of the joint com-
mission on boundary Waters that was made
public recently.
There is every indication from this report
that it is time we woke up and did something
more than talk and raise the alarm. We have
to spend more money; we have to bring
together the people concerned on an inter-
national basis to make plans to meet this
emergent situation that is coming upon us so
rapidly.
I am not going to spend time dealing with
the specific details of the international joint
commission report. It is true that they refer
to pollution coming from the American side
as being even worse than that which is
dumped into the Great Lakes system from
Ontario and the rest of Canada, particularly
Quebec and to a lesser extent right along
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence itself.
976
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But I well remember the last emergency
situation that occurred in the Great Lakes
and this had to do with a water level crisis
that was discussed in this Legislature in the
last two sessions. We heard all the talk
about how the shipping industry was going
to be seriously impaired unless action was
taken, and the hon. Prime Minister of On-
tario convened an international conference at
which representatives of the states bordering
the Great Lakes, with Ontario bordering on
this side, got together and discussed the
problem.
What all this did was to calm the fears of
the citizens until the prayers for rain were
answered and the levels of the lakes are
coming up.
I believe in the future that a plan has got
to be evolved to control the Great Lakes, but
for the time being the emergency associated
with this situation has passed.
But the emergency associated with the
pollution of the Great Lakes is not going to
pass as readily. This is a situation in which
we are going to be troubled for years, we are
going to be asked to spend tremendous sums
of money, and I am sure that the hon. Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management
{Mr. Simonett) and those who work with him
in this great responsibility, Mr. Speaker, are
going to spend a good deal of time searching
for solutions.
I would suggest that this is an important
international problem. I personally doubt
whether the international commission on
boundary waters has all of the powers and all
of the funds that are going to be needed
to solve it. Action is going to have to be
taken immediately, I would say at this
session, the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario
should once again convene an international
conference together with the hon. Minister
and the hon. Minister's counterpart at the
federal level. The governors of the states
which adjoin the Great Lakes system and
who, in my opinion, are largely responsible
for the greatest measure of the pollution,
should be called together. I think Ontario
can take the lead because Ontario borders
every one of the Great Lakes, and some
of the St. Lawrence river as well.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): We are, sir.
Mr. Nixon: This is a great thing.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): You will find out there is not a
meeting on the Montreal harbour at the same
time.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The hon. leader of
the Opposition is not speaking.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
the leader of this party has studied this and
has spoken on it before; and I add my voice
to his to urge the government to take im-
mediate and powerful action to begin the
alleviation of this crisis. I recall to your
mind, sir, that there are still cities in Ontario
putting raw sewage into the rivers and lakes
of this area, even after the years of operation
of the Ontario water resources commission.
I understand that certain studies of north-
ern waters are taking place with the co-opera-
tion of the federal government. This, of
course, is a great study. Indeed, the fact
that the waters now draining into the Arctic
perhaps in the future may be made available
to add to the flow to the Great Lakes is
not going to be a sufficient answer, even in
the years that remain in this century, to even
partly combat the growing pollution of the
Great Lakes— particularly Lake Erie, this small
shallow lake that has been described by ex-
perts as becoming an area of dead water be-
cause of the pollution in it. It is decaying,
and the growth of algae is using up all the
available dissolved oxygen. It is harming the
system for recreation, and also the basis of the
fishing industry. One of our most valuable
natural resources is very rapidly losing its
value and may be lost entirely as far as being
a natural resort and an asset to Ontario is
concerned.
There are already indications that the
Americans are taking the lead in this. They
have fallen behind for years, but already a
meeting of governors and authorities of the
states bordering the Great Lakes has been
convened and they are taking some of the
steps that we feel would be necessary.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That we took nine
years ago.
Mr. Nixon: Well, what I want to happen,
Mr. Speaker, is that on an international basis,
Ontario and the states bordering the Great
Lakes co-operate; and without co-operation
we are not going to get anywhere. For years
the government opposite has sat there with
eyes glazed as the members on this side,
and often their own members, have brought
this to their attention. Their arms have
been spread out, saying "Everything is
all right, and nine years ago we took the
decisions that would make this right." And
still raw pollution from Ontario is flushing
into the Great Lakes system.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that Ontario
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
977
must take the lead in this. The hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario has got to convene an
international conference. We may have to
give up some of our authority over this mat-
ter because of the international jurisdiction
that is required. It is going to cost us money;
we are going to have to put ourselves in a
position where people who are not directly
responsible to this government or any other
government are going to take samples at the
mouths of all the rivers and pinpoint the
pollution, say what its nature is, and what
must be done to control it.
Until this is done, the Great Lakes will not
be brought back. I submit this government is
not doing enough to combat pollution, and
that the emergent situation that is on us now
is their responsibility. Every member of
this House is ready to co-operate with the
appropriation of necessary funds; we are
ready to discuss this when the opportunity
comes up; and I submit to you, sir, that
the time for action is now. As a matter of
fact, it should have been taken some years
ago.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the NDP
(Mr. MacDonald) has referred to the pos-
sibility of our support for their subamendment
that the pensions in Ontario be raised to the
$100 level. This is something that will be
discussed again in this House, I am sure.
But I want to bring to your attention, sir,
the fact that the hon. leader of the official
Opposition (Mr. Thompson) has, before this
House, a well-constructed and well-thought-
out amendment which points out the short-
comings of this government in areas other
than the pollution I brought to your attention
a moment ago— the fact that the economic
development of the province is lagging; the
farmers of Ontario have not had an opportu-
nity to take part in development as they
should; the milk prices have already been
discussed from time to time here and will be
discussed again. And, on point after point,
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that this govern-
ment does not warrant the continued con-
fidence of the people.
It is my strong resolution and recommenda-
tion to every hon. member of this House that,
when they examine the amendment carefully,
they support the amendment and vote in
favour of the reforms that have been lacking
for the last 23 years on the part of this
government. With this in mind, sir, I would
strongly urge this action on the hon. members
here.
It has been an honour, sir, to bring these
matters to your attention. You were not in
the chair when I first began my speech, but
I want to assure you, in conclusion, of my
confidence in your direction of our affairs in
this House, and your impartiality and fair-
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, I would first of all like to add my
words of appreciation for the manner in
which you conduct the business of this House,
the very able and very fair manner in which
it is done. I am sure my appreciation is
echoed by all of the other hon. members. We
respect your fairness and your decisions as
well.
I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to add my
words of welcome to the new members
in the House this session, the hon. member
for Nipissing (Mr. Smith) and the hon. mem-
ber for Bracondale (Mr. Ben), and to wish
them well during the time they spend in this
House. I would hope that they will continue
as they have already begun, that they will
continue to add something to the affairs and
to the business of this House.
Mr. Speaker, within the last few days, as
a matter of fact officially I believe as of Fri-
day, and in a business approach as of Satur-
day, the east-west subway was opened in the
city of Toronto. While I have not had the
opportunity to ride on the new subway as
yet, I became as confused as some of the
other people, who were in the city over the
weekend, in trying to find my way in the
subway going north and south. However, I
think I have found that now.
One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I
appreciated very much on Sunday— Saturday,
rather, and Sunday— was to ride in the new
subway trains. And I particularly want to
express appreciation to the people who, in
our community, Fort William, built 164 of
these new subway cars.
(Applause)
There will be more reason for cheers as I
continue my remarks. I would like to call
the attention of this House to something that
may or may not have passed out of their
minds in the last two years— and so many
things do pass out of the minds of some of
the government people so quickly. I would
repeat again that the Canadian Car division
of the Hawker-Siddeley Corporation, which
is situated in the city of Fort William, the city
I have the honour to represent in this House,
was successful in tendering and getting the
bid for 164 of the cars which were used in
this new extension. The contract amounted to
some $17 million. Now this has been good,
of course, for the economy of the area which
I represent in Fort William, but it has also
978
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
been good in so many other ways. May I
point out just one particular area?
Four different firms made bids on this con-
tract and I can tell you, as recently as this
morning when I was in touch with Montreal,
with the head office of the Hawker-Siddeley
Corporation operation in this country— and I
believe this information is absolutely accurate
—that the German bid for the 164 cars in
question amounted to $150,000 per car. The
Japanese bid amounted to $140,000 per car.
The Montreal Locomotive Works which was
the next in line as far as bids were concerned,
lower down the scale, was $103,500 for the
cars involved.
Our people in Fort William saw fit to and
very successfully bid in the sum of $94,000.
They, of course, got the contract and I am
told by everyone who has been in close con-
tact with this operation of the building of
cars from the time the contract was let until
the cars were actually put into operation last
Friday and last Saturday that everyone in
connection with the total operation are very
happy about the way this contract turned out.
Now to add just a bit of information that
may be interesting to at least some of the
hon. members who are present this evening,
may I tell you that at the present time nego-
tiations are in progress in Mexico for a con-
tract which will involve 240 units of a
similar type of car and 16 countries in the
world are bidding for this contract.
We know that of the 16 countries in the
world which are presently bidding for this
Mexican contract Canadian Car is one of the
three lowest of the 16 bidders, and the other
two are Japanese firms.
Now I would hope that the people of
Mexico in their wisdom decide, of course, to
grant this large contract to a Canadian manu-
facturer. I think that we people who live in
Fort William and in northwestern Ontario
would look forward to the opportunity to
journey to Mexico in the not-too-distant
future and ride in vehicles made in Ontario
and in our own community.
I would also add that Can Car in Fort
William is presently building 48 units for the
projected subway system in the city of
Montreal and also that almost imminently,
I believe, a contract is about to be let for a
large number of cars in Montevideo, Uruguay.
We look forward also to having that contract
and producing this type of vehicle that we
have in Toronto, for use in Montevideo.
Now with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get into the main problem
that I would like to call to your attention,
sir, and to the hon. members of this House
and it is something that is concerned, very
seriously with all of us. It was only very
lightly touched upon, unfortunately, in the
Speech from the Throne, and that is the
Indian problem. Or as I sometimes think of
it, not as an Indian problem necessarily, but
rather as a white problem in this province
and in this country.
By way of approach to the problem I ask
the rhetoric question, of course: What is an
Indian? What are some of his problems in the
white world? And before giving an answer
to these questions, let me tell you a story
that happened not long ago, and it is a true
story, Mr. Speaker.
It happened up in our part of the country.
I know the man, although I was not present
when this episode occurred. I know the
Indian gentleman involved and a very fine
person he is, and I also know the person with
whom he was talking, very well indeed.
I do not need to give hon. members the
man's full name. Jake is his first name— I have
known him for years and been on fishing
trips with him and he is a very good guy.
He lives on a northern Ontario reserve. Jake
is not very healthy but he does get by. An
official of the federal Indian affairs branch
has been trying for three years to move Jake
into a better home on the reserve. At that
time Jake lived in a little old shack that was
a definite threat to his health. For three years
Jake simply shook his head and said "no."
He would not even explain why he did
not want to move.
Now this is an approach that is rather
strange to many people who do not know the
Indian people. This one particular day that
I speak of, the official saw Jake sitting in
front of his shack in the sun and he said,
"Jake, tell me, why do you not want to
move?" Jake reflected for some time and
then he said, "My mother would not like it."
And this is true. This is fact.
The point of the story is that Jake's mother
has been dead for 20 years. The rest is quickly
told. Jake was convinced that his mother
would not really mind and Jake was fine and
moved into a clean and rather better home.
I think that here we have the crux of the
so-called Indian problem. It is a problem of
communication of long pent-up distrust of the
white man, of a totally different cultural
background, of a significantly different phil-
osophy of life.
Which way of life is better, that of the
Indian or that of ours? We want the Indians
of Ontario to live, however, and think and act
as we do, but so far we have failed to con-
vince them that our way is superior.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
979
We all know that through the factors of
time and technology the old ways of the
Indian no longer exist. All cultural change is
continuous anyway, but what is to replace
the Indian philosophy? The largely vague
and undefined quest for knowledge, money,
a regular job, convertible, keeping up with
the Jones'? These are apparently not the
things.
One of the things that I would like to
call to the attention of you, sir, and to the
House is some excerpts and some remarks
made by a lady who is very often in the
news, Miss Kahn Tineta Horn, who was
recently in this city.
Among the remarks attributed to Miss
Horn and I quote here:
Money, power, possessions, influence,
education, comforts, luxuries, benefits and
so on are not what the Indians want.
These don't mean anything to an Indian.
He does not want a nice home; he does
not want money because he knows he is
going to spend it before the day is over.
He does not want progress because he feels
he has arrived. He does not want trips
because he is where he wants to be until
he gets up and goes somewhere else.
The things that we find of value are of
no value to the Indian. What can you offer
to Indians to make them work, worry and
suffer? The different kinds of punishment
you organize for yourselves through your
own intensive efforts to get ahead.
Miss Horn goes on, of course, to extol the
virtues of Indians and I am sure they have
many virtues. I do not necessarily agree with
all she says but certainly she is very forceful
and very anxious to get her part of the story
over to us.
I suggest that none of these concepts fits
into the thinking of the Indian at this time.
First, we must win their trust, their respect.
Only then can we think of programmes to
help Indians find their place in our society.
A man who has worked with Indians all his
life told me not long ago: "Now is not the
time for hysterics." And this was near Fort
William, just off the reservation. "Now is not
the time for crash programmes, we have to
move slowly."
I would go along with this statement to a
certain degree, Mr. Speaker. We certainly do
not want to resemble an Indian task force
and descend on the reserves or other places
where Indians live with an overwhelming
Indian programme, but a crash programme
is needed where money for Indians is con-
cerned and when we start thinking about the
Indian.
What is the Ontario government doing
about the Indian? It has initiated with the
federal government a crash programme to
help the Indians in far northern white com-
munities. That federal-provincial aid pro-
gramme reads wonderfully on paper— $500
million in aid, spread over the next 50 years.
But let us see, Mr. Speaker, what it means in
dollars and cents to the average Indian in
Ontario.
There are somewhat less than 50,000
Indians in this province. This glorious aid
programme, then, means almost exactly $200
per year per Indian, if we take a year's bud-
get to average out at $10 million, over the
50-year period.
How much economic opportunity can an
Indian buy for $200 a year? Spreading a so-
called crash financial programme over 50
years is ridiculous. The need for money is
now and in massive doses. Fifty years hence
we would hope that there is no longer an
Indian problem to be solved. My contention
is that we should establish the need and
apportion the money in whatever amount is
necessary, not in dribbles over a longer period
of time.
Let me say it here and now. The province
of Ontario, and I mean not only the govern-
ment, but most of its white people as well,
has taken a belated and sudden interest in
Indians. All of a sudden, it is fashionable to
sympathize with the Indians. It is the sort
of "hip" thing to do, somewhere along that
well-worn and hypocritical chiche: "Some of
my best friends are . . ." You have heard it
before, you have seen it.
But this sudden crash programme, a be-
lated attempt to right the wrongs of decades
is, despite its unquestionably good intentions,
a blundering effort to salve a nagging con-
science. We in the New Democratic Party do
not trust the basic thinking of such a pro-
gramme because it is not accompanied with
a statement of intent.
We hear flowery words from both the fed-
eral and Ontario governments. We hear
words like "co-operation," "federal-provincial
planning for Indians," "streamlining of ef-
forts" and above all, "co-ordinating all the
services for the Indians." There is still pre-
cious little co-ordination of these services.
And if they are co-ordinated, we do not be-
lieve these services are based on the philos-
ophy that Indians have as many rights as
we Caucasians have. When we talk to offi-
cials dealing with Indians, we often find the
right attitude; and progressive thinking is
gaining ground. But the policies that eman-
ate from the governments are still rooted in
980
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
old-time paternalism. Paternalism is like a
ragweed, it is difficult to stamp out. What
has this abominable paternalism done to the
Indians?
Actually, Mr. Speaker, it has turned them
into aliens of our white society. It has failed
to educate them, to provide them with the
only tools with which an Indian living today
can brave his future: knowledge and skill.
Paternalism has created a system of Indian
ghettos which are commonly known as re-
serves. And here I will quote from the select
committee on civil liberties and rights of
Indians in Ontario, 1954— a committee that
shows an abysmal absence of common sense
when it said, and I quote:
Generally speaking, the committee found
that Indians lack the healthy respect for
the future held by the rest of the popula-
tion.
There it is again, that old fallacy, also known
as ethnocentrism. It goes something like
this: "If only the Indians were like the rest
of us, we could handle them better."
This report by the committee proves that
its members resorted to pious pap in their pet
solutions. Let me give you an example:
There are numerous misunderstandings
and cases of plain ignorance as to the posi-
tion of the provincial government with
relation to the Indian population. The
committee would point out that Ontario
has ample cause to be proud of its Indian
population.
That is a quotation. So far, so good; but the
very next sentence is so hilarious that I can-
not refrain from quoting it. Why can Ontario
be so proud of its Indians? Because, the com-
mittee's report states flatly, and I quote
again "a majority are descendants of United
Empire Loyalists." This is no doubt a refer-
ence to those Six Nations Indians who fought
on the British side some 170 years ago.
On education, and I know the hon. mem-
ber for Brant (Mr. Nixon) would appreciate
this, the report said, and I quote again:
The committee cannot stress too
strongly the importance of education as
the eventual solution to the problem of
integration of the Indian. The goal of
such a programme must be that the
finished product will be able to take his
or her place alongside the non-Indian
neighbour, to compete freely in free
economy.
Of course, educating the Indian here means
to tell him the white way of life and how to
merge without fuss.
One recommendation of this committee
makes so much sense that it was never
implemented by this government. This
quotation reads:
Your committee believes that a per-
manent civil servant should be appointed
to act as liaison officer between the various
departments of provincial and federal
governments and the Indians themselves.
What is wrong with education for the
Indians? White teachers tell Indian children
about things and situations that are wholly
alien to an Indian child who grew up, more
often than not, in a world uncluttered by
civilization and technology. Indian children
are taught in English and are at a loss to
understand what that strange teacher is try-
ing to tell them.
This applies mainly to Indian children
living on reserves and out of touch with our
civilization. There is evidently a good case
for educating Indian children in English
when, and only when, they are sufficiently
urbanized to comprehend the language and
the environmental references of the cur-
riculum.
But no one has to take our word for that.
Here are the views of Professor Jacques
Rousseau, an anthropologist at University of
Laval's centre of northern studies. The pro-
fessor says:
When discussing the problems of the
natives, there is a strong tendency toward
oversimplification, as though there were
one problem and a single solution. To
solve the problem of the natives, two pro-
posals must be rejected. One would keep
them in a kind of zoological reserve and
prevent them from evolving. The other
would impose on them a uniform southern
pattern, which is utopic for any com-
munity.
And a quotation here:
The initiation of natives into our
modern technology is a matter of proper
teaching.
This is by Professor Jacques Rousseau:
The teaching of natives should be in
two languages, the first language obviously
their own, the second either English or
French. It is not our mission in life, not
our white man's burden, to force them to
abandon their own language.
The most urgent need for the natives is
the establishment of specialized schools in
which the prospective teacher would learn
some ethnology and at least the rudiments
of a native language. The curriculum
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
981
must be adapted to local conditions. We
must choose the more brilliant Indians and
bring them to universities, after proper
preparation.
And in conclusion, Professor Rousseau states:
I understand that the natives have to
be integrated in the national pattern but
their characteristics should not be lost.
I have quoted Professor Rousseau at length
for one reason. I am willing to trust his
judgment of the Indians, but I am not
willing to accept at face value the pro-
grammes devised for Indians by the federal
and by the Ontario governments. These
governments lack that degree of sensitivity
and understanding of the Indian that, in my
opinion, is a prerequisite to any policy. One
of these government officials, in this case a
senior civil servant of the Indian affairs
branch, recognizes this and he says:
Too few officials in governments under-
stand the Indian mentality.
In government administration of Indian
affairs, this lack of understanding the Indian
mentality is coupled with a constant, vicious
and ludicrous tug-of-war between provincial
government departments. And I am sure
that many of the hon. members in the House
this evening are well aware of this fact,
whether or not they will admit this is true.
A prime example of this petty war for
priority is the squabble that has gone on for
years between the Ontario Departments of
Public Welfare and Lands and Forests. Both
departments want to champion the Indian
cause. As a result, the Indians are caught
in a squeeze and very little gets done.
An example illustrates this. I maintain
these departments are largely ignorant of
each other's aims. Why else was it possible
not too long ago for one department to take
Indians from the job training programme of
the other department, thereby confusing the
Indians involved and nullifying the efforts
of both departments? The irony is that both
job training programmes are fair efforts in
themselves, and that they should be co-
ordinated.
How many Ontario government depart-
ments dabble in Indian affairs? As some, I
can name The Department of Public Wel-
fare, The Department of Lands and Forests,
The Department of Education, The Depart-
ment of Health, The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs, and The Department of Labour,
to some extent. The Ontario government
has failed to develop a cohesive and com-
prehensive programme for the Indians. Only
a few years ago did this government wake
up. The newest slogan is: "Co-ordination of
services for the Indians." ■
How does this government go about it? I
have earlier pointed out the inherent faults
that make the much-heralded $500 million
programme for the Indians a predictable
abortion. Here is why: A report entitled,
"The Indians and Metis of northern Sas-
katchewan" was prepared and written by
the centre for community studies in that
province. The authors are: an economist, an
anthropologist, and a research specialist in
community development. All three have
recognized status.
The report of this centre states:
Co-ordination of services is a relative
condition dependent upon: (a) The estab-
lishment of an administrative authority
with power to control and hence to co-
ordinate activity; (b) The acceptance of
common goals by the various agencies or
groups; (c) The provision of adequate
financial and technical resources; (d) The
establishment of an efficient division of
resources and responsibility among the
agencies or groups.
If we compare the activities of this gov-
ernment with the objectives set out in this
report, we see very quickly that none of
these objectives has even been attempted, let
alone recognized. This government should
commission an extended sociological, anthro-
pological, educational and economic study
into the Indians of Ontario.
Today we know barely enough about In-
dians in order to start action in certain fields.
But for a fuller understanding of what is
involved we must learn more about Indians
and their life and their behaviour.
Let me be more specific. This government
has finally sat down with federal government
officials to talk about what both governments
can do for the Indians. There is no reason
for this government to wait for brilliant pro-
posals from the federal government. It has
to take a bold and imaginative initiative
itself.
The federal government has severed the
Indians affairs branch from The Department
of Citizenship and Immigration and has ele-
vated the branch to a proper Department of
Northern Affairs and Indian Affairs. But we
cannot afford to hope for action on this
ground alone.
I propose to this government that it cast
aside its bureaucratic attitude toward Indians
and establish, within a year, a separate admin-
istrative authority to deal with Indian affairs.
982
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This authority must not be under the juris-
diction of any department. It must be set up
as a separate entity with power to act. This
authority must negotiate directly with the
federal Department of Northern Affairs and
Indian Affairs.
This authority should take the organiza-
tional form of a provincial agency under one
man with the status and the power of a
deputy minister. The government would, in
all likelihood, have to go outside the ranks of
the civil service in order to find a man of
outstanding qualifications to head this Indian
agency. And this man should then assemble
in his agency men from the six government
departments currently dealing with Indian
matters.
The agency's ultimate goal, of course,
would have to be self-elimination once its job
is done. But while the task is in its initial
stages, this agency must develop a core of
competent men and women who understand
Indians and their problems.
This new Ontario Indian agency would
have to look after the needs of four basic
groups of Indians in Ontario:
1. Those Indians who lead an integrated
life in their villages or reserves and go fishing,
hunting and trapping. Their livelihood is
scanty and erratic; they need the opportunity
of other industries.
2. Indians who have come to terms with
the industrial civilization and economy.
Many still live outdoors and work in the
seasonal industries. Many are unskilled; some
are skilled and work as cowboys and loggers
in various parts of the country.
3. Indians who have nearly completed
their adjustment to the white society and
work as high riggers, skilled labourers, long-
shoremen, particularly in British Columbia,
office workers here in Ontario, and even pro-
fessional men in this province and in other
provinces in Canada.
4. Those Indians who are lost in limbo.
They drift from trapping and hunting to the
fringes of towns and cities. Often they live
in shanty towns under conditions of squalor
and dejection. They are the victims of the
clash between an indifferent society and the
uncomprehending native who has no physi-
cal and mental resources to adapt.
Now, many Indians belonging to any of
these four groups develop nostalgia for their
reserves where they can live among their
own people. When they go back to live on
the reserve, they fall prey to the inherent
inertia of most reserves. There is no industry,
no job on the reservation for them.
One of the solutions thought up for Indians
in any of these four groups is community
development. But to quote the Saskatchewan
report again, Mr. Speaker:
The community development pro-
gramme, as it applies today, is a piece-
meal approach. While some programmes
are good, others are thoroughly indequate,
and their sum total is very far from supply-
ing the answers that are needed.
The federal Indian affairs branch has initiated
several community development programmes
in Ontario, with varying success, and the
Saskatchewan criticism applies to Ontario as
well.
In order to be successful, community devel-
opment needs these following conditions, ac-
cording to the Saskatchewan report and they
are listed as:
(a) Sufficient economic potential;
(b) Overall planning for economic and
social progress;
(c) Adequate capital investment in rele-
vant economic and social progress;
(d) Democratic participation and control,
including viable local government and a
network of vigorous voluntary organiza-
tions.
These four conditions are non-existent in this
province's Indian reserves and communities.
There is, in parts, a very limited economic
potential on reserves. Overall planning for
the Indians is in the baby stage at best. It
lacks, still, a definite commitment on the part
of this government.
There is no thought being given to capital
investment. In fact, whenever there are
efforts by Indians to start an industry, they
cannot get capital grants, nor are there plans
to interest industry in developing new enter-
prises in northern Ontario from which the
Indians could benefit.
Democratic participation and control by
and for the Indians is an idea on paper, but
this government has not yet made clear that
it considers going along with federal efforts
in this field; voluntary organizations have
formed but have not received substantial or
any help from the government, and there is
no network of such organizations.
But it is not only a question of what has
to be done, Mr. Speaker. The question is,
who is to do it. The division of federal and
provincial authority is the crucial factor.
Let me propose, therefore, that this gov-
ernment, after setting up a specific agency
for the Indians, approach the new Depart-
ment of Northern Affairs and Indian Affairs,
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
983
with the goal to establish a unified, single
Indian authority involving both levels of gov-
ernment. But unless this federal-provincial
Indian agency is equipped with a competent
staff and given funds it, too, will be doomed
to fail. And much more than just funds is
needed.
As a third measure I suggest to the Ontario
government, the establishment of an Indian
development fund. I remind the House of
the ill-fated attempt of Cape Croker reserve
Indians to manufacture furniture without ade-
quate credit and grants— and this matter has
been mentioned in this House on previous
occasions.
As a fourth measure I propose that this
government start thinking seriously how it
could foster self-government for the Indian
reserves with the stipulation that pace and
decisions be left to the Indian councils.
A federal programme is in progress here,
and in the case of the Walpole Island reserve,
there has been initial success in encouraging
Indians to run their own affairs.
The Indian affairs branch has the right
idea, but this branch cannot move on a broad
scale for lack of money and lack of staff. But
here is a splendid opportunity for the Ontario
government to throw in its resources and
develop, with the new federal Department of
Northern Affairs and Indian Affairs, a well-
planned, well-staffed and well-financed pro-
gramme to foster self-government for Indian
reserves.
This, of course, means an amendment of
The Ontario Municipal Act that does not, in
its present form— as I understand it— provide
much incentive for Indians to administer their
own affairs as independent municipalities.
This, incidentally, proved quite a frustration
for federal officials in the Indian affairs
branch when they helped the Walpole Island
Indians.
We certainly do not adhere to the view
that the federal government should abolish,
ipso facto, all reserves which would mean
denuding the Indians living on reserves of
their vestige of ethnic security and familiar
comfort.
Instead, we favour according the Indians a
chance to be their own guides in future life
with help and understanding. In most cases,
it is not only the reserves that lack economic
opportunity. It is more a regional problem
involving the surrounding white communities
as well. Any development, therefore, that
would benefit the Indians would have to
benefit the entire region as well.
In northern Ontario, where this lack of
economic planning and opportunity is most
prevalent, Mr. Speaker, the reserves could
easily grow into self-governed communities
or municipalities.
This is obviously not a concept that should
be hoisted on the shoulders of the Indians. It
would be the culminating chapter in a long
novel of adaptation and of integration along
the lines of my speech this evening. The
initiative must come from the Indian and
he has to be in full charge of the speed of this
adaptation and integration with, at most, a
guiding and helping hand from an Ontario
Indian agency.
To envision such an initiative on the part
of the Indians is by no means Utopian. We
have seen it happen on the Walpole Island
reserve, on the Cape Croker reserve and on
many other reserves. The reason that these
initiatives have not been more successful or
more speedy is simply that the Indians, by
and large, are not equipped with the know-
how.
And I would hope at this juncture that the
hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Knox)
had a great deal to do with the establishment
of the scheme on Walpole Island.
I think that the onus to provide them with
the know-how is on us. Were it not for the
settlers in Canada, the Indians would no
doubt be still masters in their own house.
Because we Caucasians pushed the Indian into
the role of the social outcast we have an
obligation to make up for this betrayal of
confidence.
Let me stray here for just a moment, Mr.
Speaker. One of the barriers to Indian
achievements is a well-justified sense of griev-
ance about the wrongs done to Indians in the
past. Let me suggest what I think the gov-
ernment should do to remove the basic cause
for this long-held grudge.
This government must set up a broad and
generous programme of compensation for
land lost by Indians, hunting and fishing
privileges lost by them and redress for other
injustices, such as the purchase of large
tracts of land owned by Indians and bought
for absurdly low prices from them by the
government.
This government, together with the federal
government, must initiate a just and honest
system of compensation that would go some-
way to satisfy the Indian claims. In my
opinion it would pay to be generous and
forget the restraints of narrow legalistic
thinking. By removing this grudge, the gov-
ernment would encourage the Indians to act
for themselves and give them more financial
resources to work with.
984
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
May I point out the criticism made last
year by members of the federal New Demo-
cratic caucus in regard to the federal Bill
No. C-123, An Act to provide for the dis-
position of Indian claims? If such mixed
Caucasian-Indian settlements, or communi-
ties, or municipalities, will develop within the
next 30 or 40 years in Ontario, the Indians
could rest assured that this kind of integration
would never eradicate their own cultural
heritage. On the contrary, we have every
reason to believe that it would bring in its
wake a renaissance of Indian culture, tradi-
tions and customs.
Self-governing Indian communities, instead
of strangled reserves, is the concept then.
But how does a government agency for
Indians inject economic life into these under-
developed areas? There is room for a series
of feasibility studies for economic oppor-
tunities, a series that should be initiated now
for the coming years. There is plenty of work
to be done. This is a golden chance for
scholars of nearly every description; for
students and for voluntary organizations; all
under the firm and inspired leadership of a
government Indian agency.
Rather than drag Indians off their reserves
and hang a big sign on the gates reading
"Closed for lack of imagination"; we should
ask Indians and friends of the Indians, young
people and older people, to advise the agency
on what is needed.
The main aim of community development
has been described as a programme to involve
people living in substandard conditions in the
improvement of their lot, and that this pro-
gramme should include an effort to change
the mental outlook of the Indians by devel-
oping in them ambitions for higher standards
of life, and the determination to work for
such standards. I am opposed, Mr. Speaker,
to this kind of protestant work ethic, a hang-
over of the Victorian era that is still the
dominating factor in our whole white society.
Its false credo is that to work is an end in
itself.
If community development should mean
that Indians must assimilate with our ideas,
then I say that is wrong. If it means that
Indians should integrate with the white
society on Indian terms, then I am prepared
to accept this type of integration to a limited
extent, but it would have to be very carefully
carried out. I believe it would be highly desir-
able to attack the so-called Indian problem
on this or a closely similar basis.
Those Indians who wish to adapt to us and
who want to integrate fully should be given
every possible assistance to do so. Those
Indians who prefer to live on their own,
who want to fish and hunt and trap animals,
should be allowed to do so with financial
assistance by the government. But I am not
thinking of degrading welfare payments. I am
thinking of guaranteed incomes that would
keep them independent of any necessity to
rent out their bodies and minds to employers.
Can we afford to do that, financially and
morally? Will that not set a bad precedent?
I am thinking of enough guaranteed income
so that Indians can hunt and fish and trap
the year round. The same principle holds for
those Indians who would want to engage in
full-time production of handicrafts.
Indians who would want to establish a co-
operative should be given grants to do so.
They should be given the education or voca-
tional training they require. The co-opera-
tive union of Canada has worked out a
suitable system for Indian co-operatives. And
I need not go into details here, for I am sure
it is within the knowledge of many hon.
members; they are well aware of it.
Indians who wish to come to the cities in
Ontario should be given advice on the pros
and cons. And this is something I am afraid
has never been done in the past. Their
chosen road to integration, in other words,
should not necessarily be paved, but it
should at least be graded so they can pave
it themselves.
This government must learn how to de-
velop compassion and must forget the dollar
symbols as a cure-all. This government must
act on humanitarian faith rather than on
the principles of the capitalistic manifesto.
This government must substitute fratern-
alism for paternalism.
I challenge the government to issue a
statement of intent about the Indians of
Ontario— a statement of intent that can serve
as a blueprint for the next ten years. The
government should study our proposals, com-
pare them with the ideas set forth by many
other bodies, for example, the Indian-Eskimo
association, and come out with a truly
meaningful document. And I believe firmly
that this can be done. The government
must live, not just preach, the Ontario
human rights code. It must declare to the
people of Ontario that the Indian is indeed
our brother and that every one of us is his
brother's keeper.
If the government, and the people who
elected it, did not believe in this premise
we would not have medical insurance— of a
sort as it is— hospital insurance, welfare pay-
ments, and the many other transfer payments
that make life bearable for millions of Cana-
dians.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
985
But unfortunately we keep hearing, from
the government, grandiloquent monologues
written in 19th-century English; we hear
bombastic generalizations; we see our sacred
cows grazing in the middle of Bay street.
The result is a gelatinous attitude toward
Indians, and the Indian has been a perennial
victim of such government sterility. But only
the government, Mr. Speaker, has the power
and the money and the means to help the
Indian. The job, hon. members of this
House, is ours.
Mr. G. H. Peck (Scarborough Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate
on the Speech from the Throne with three
subjects uppermost in my mind. In order
to give some idea as to the scope of my
remarks, I will first make some reference
to the topics I intend to discuss. I do not
intend to dwell on them at great length but
I feel they will be of great interest to hon.
members of this House and to the govern-
ment.
The first topic is the Royal commission on
Metropolitan Toronto, a subject of much
interest to that most important area of On-
tario in terms of population and wealth.
The second topic is the important part that
education must play in the war on poverty;
and I hope to touch on the question of car
insurance.
I have spoken at length in previous de-
bates on the necessity of an equitable re-
organization of the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto, in such a way that it would
eliminate the glaring inequities that exist in
the corporation without at the same time
eliminating those things that have made it
strong. I might say that in my opinion the
Metro concept has been a very good one. At
the time the Ontario government imple-
mented the recommendations of the (Hum-
ming report it created a viable system of
local government, in a large growing metro-
politan area, that laid the groundwork for
the growth and the prosperity we have
enjoyed in this area. However, the report
and the ensuing legislation failed to provide
for the population explosion that occurred
in the areas suburban to the city of Toronto.
As a result, those who lived in the so-
called bedroom suburbs were providing the
labour force that made possible the high
industrial assessments of those municipalities
which enjoyed a comparatively low tax rate
in an overall area that is basically one econo-
mic unit. The population explosion of these
suburbs has created another inequity. The
concept of representation by population, a
keystone in our heredity British democracy,
is sadly lacking when a municipality like
North York with 300,000 people and Scarbor-
ough with 250,000 people, should have the
same voice on Metro council as Swansea or
Weston with under 10,000 population.
Arising out of this point, and the fact that
the suburban areas in total now have a
larger population than the city of Toronto,
has been the continuous friction that has re-
sulted between the city and the suburban
representatives, both on Metro council and
Metro board of education. While the repre-
sentatives of the city on the whole have been
very understanding of the problems of the
metropolitan area, there have been times
when, to say the least, they have been very
parochial. This has happened in the past,
and we have no assurance that under the
present organization it will not happen again.
The third and perhaps most important flaw
is the lack of equality of educational oppor-
tunities in Metropolitan Toronto. This is a
point which has been accepted in most quar-
ters and I do not intend to pursue it at great
length. It should be sufficient to say that
Scarborough, with a per capita assessment
base of $1,969 in 1964, cannot compete in
education services with Leaside which has a
per capita assessment base of $4,178 in the
same year. Or, to put it on an elementary
per pupil basis, Scarborough had $9,700
assessment per elementary pupil in 1964
compared to Leaside with $45,700— four-and-
a-half times as much assessment basis— to
pay for educational facilities and opportuni-
ties. Yet Leaside's high industrial assessment
would not be possible without the large pool
of labour, much of which comes from Scar-
borough, and the large market for the goods
which are produced.
So we find that, basically, we have only
three changes necessary to make Metro a
strong system of local government: One, the
need for equal educational opportunities;
two, representation by population; and three,
the elimination of the friction between the
core city of Toronto and the surrounding
suburbs. The third I consider of least im-
portance as we can live with that quite easily
if the other two are corrected.
There has been much comment in the press
in recent months that the government Metro
members were widely divided on these three
questions. This was not the impression I had
from the meetings which we held. I feel that
we were agreed on the basic changes and the
only difference of opinion was how this could
be best translated into legislation.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to go on record as agreeing
completely with the government's intentions
as to the new Metro. The hon. Prime Minis-
ter's (Mr. Robarts') report in my opinion has
opened up new horizons for this most im-
portant region and will lead to local govern-
ment which will be the envy of the whole
world, as indeed our Metro organization has
always been.
There has been criticism that the white
paper is a compromise. But what political
decision is not a compromise? If it does the
greatest good for the greatest number of
people then our democracy is well served. I
intend to support the bill wholeheartedly. I
feel that it will adequately correct the three
failings that I have mentioned in the present
Metro organization and still give the core
city of Toronto the authority that it should
have by giving it half the seats on the execu-
tive while the council membership itself is
based on the population of the city and the
boroughs.
It is the right answer. Perhaps minor
amendments will be necessary but it is basi-
cally the answer to the problems of creating
a very strong system of local two-level gov-
ernment for this area.
Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns of our
modern society, an expression we hear fre-
quently, is the war on poverty. President
Johnson of the United States has made it a
major concern of his. The federal govern-
ment in Canada has put itself on record as
being concerned, with promises of legislation
to erase some of the poverty that exists in
our affluent society in Canada. And the
Speech from the Throne in Ontario which
we are presently debating has made many
provisions which when enacted into legisla-
tion will have a major effect on the pockets
of poverty which, while we may decry them,
are still with us even in this most prosperous
province of Ontario. It behooves us to go to
great lengths to eradicate this cancer in our
society.
There are many things which can be done,
Mr. Speaker, to wage the war on poverty but
more welfare handouts are not the main an-
swer. While it may alleviate things in the
short term these handouts in effect only
perpetuate the problem and could be carried
on from generation to generation and never
really come to grips with the problem.
With older people, the sick and the infirm,
this may be the only thing possible, but with
the middle-aged and the great mass of our
young people, the real answer to the war on
poverty lies in education and retraining.
In an age of automation and cybernetics
this is a necessity, for most people must make
a decision in favour of life-long education.
First, because the contents of jobs keep
changing under the present pressure of tech-
nological change, there must be a constant
updating. Second, there is considerable
evidence that adults can learn as well as
the young.
Thus it must be a never-ending process to
train our young in those skills which give
promise of the greatest longevity.
An example of this in its simplest form is
that there is every reason to learn and memor-
ize the multiplication table because it is
reasonable to believe that the decimal system
will survive. On the other hand, there is less
incentive to memorize such facts as 16 ounces
to the pound and 5,280 feet to the mile, as
non-decimal pounds and miles may all very
well be abolished in the foreseeable future.
In vocational training we often tend to
devote too much time to particular methods,
procedures and specific models, rather than
arriving at a general understanding of under-
lying principles. The sign of a good basic
education is not the mere acquisition of facts
but the ability to proceed independently to
investigate problems. There is a marked shift
away from what we know as the blue collar
jobs to the white collar variety. There are
fewer jobs requiring manipulation and there
are more jobs requiring records, thought and
data. This means that we must increase our
teaching of abstract things and decrease our
emphasis on material things.
Many people talk of the age of automa-
tion as one in which there are fewer jobs
constantly being competed for by one or
more job applicants. But this is not really
the case and I take issue with the so-called
experts in this field, as it is becoming more
and more obvious that on the contrary job
opportunities are increasing, but only for
those who prepare themselves for them.
Any war on poverty must be concerned
primarily with providing the means, and
if possible the motivation, so that all can
obtain the necessary education in the case of
the young and retraining facilities in the case
of the middle-aged to fit them for the oppor-
tunities that do exist.
In this country there has come an under-
standing that the cause of poverty which still
remains is not the mal-distribution of wealth
but a shortage of education.
The province of Ontario has made great
strides in a few short years in providing our
children and our adults with the education
they so badly need. The more we study and
ponder the nature and changes of poverty in
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
987
our society, the more we have to face the
fact that with some exceptions our system of
education, public, parochial and private is
starved. We must educate and convince
the voters that a second-rate system of edu-
cation is just not acceptable, and in our war
on poverty is indeed a poor investment.
The children of the poor are often hard to
educate, often because their homes are so
cramped and meagre and they have to go to
schools that have fewer skilled teachers than
the schools attended by the children of the
more fortunate families. If this nation and
this province is to succeed and flourish as it
ought to do and it well can do, we must be
willing to tax ourselves to provide the very
best education facilities and opportunities
that it is possible to provide. We must con-
vince our citizens to dread ignorance more
than they dread taxation.
I feel the time is here when our federal
government must make a positive move into
education, not to take away the cherished
provincial rights in this field but to set up a
department here to assist the provinces, to
percolate down to the local school boards
and to give an overall sense of purpose of
the educational system across our nation.
The knowledge explosion has put an end
to the mythology of the self-made, self-
educated man, as well as the self-sufficient
local school or school board. With the rapid
moving of our families and our nation, the
interlocking economy— and in spite of many
of our differences, the growing sense of a
national economy— it is archaic to think that
education is not a federal responsibility. The
homeowner should have some relief from
education taxes and local authorities are
often loath to tax real estate for educational
purposes for fear of driving away industry.
Federal aid should be equal for public and
parochial schools and combine local
autonomy with a great deal of federal initia-
tive, and leave latitude for the play of
creative ideals.
I firmly believe in local control of educa-
tion but with some reservations, for local
control also means that a community can
allow its education system to be as poor as
it wants to be, and we cannot afford that
any longer.
Mr. Speaker, before finishing my brief
remarks I would like to say a few words
about automobile insurance. In March, 1963
the select committee on automobile insurance
tabled its final report in this Legislature.
With all due respect to the chairman and
members of this committee I feel that they
did not make an attempt to solve the real
problems of automobile insurance— the avail-
ability and the reasonable cost to all citi-
zens of our province. Perhaps because it
was not spelled out as such in the terms of
reference. During recent years it has be-
come apparent that many insurance com-
panies that write automobile insurance have
found it to be a very unprofitable business
owing to the high cost of automobiles and
automobile repairs and some of the judg-
ments that have been handed down by the
courts.
In order to compensate for this they have
arbitrarily cancelled the insurance policy of
any person or persons whom they suspect
might be in the least accident-prone.
I have in my files, Mr. Speaker, letters
from many people who have had their in-
surance either cancelled or the premiums
doubled and even tripled because of some
slight infraction or minor accident. Indeed 1
know of one case where a person was in-
formed on a Saturday afternoon that he would
not be insured as of Monday morning.
I am sure you will agree this is hardly
sufficient time to arrange a new insurance
policy, and indeed once having had car in-
surance cancelled, the rates greatly increase
and it becomes virtually impossible to obtain
insurance from any other company. The
applicant comes up against a stone wall. In
most cases they cannot even find out why they
have lost their insurance.
In one case, after having written to the
president of an insurance company, I was
able to find out that a constituent of mine
had lost his car insurance because he was a
little late in paying his premium the previous
year and so he incurred a record of having
had his insurance cancelled and it made it
extremely difficult to obtain insurance else-
where.
What of the problems of the young people?
A young man under 25 or a family with a
young driver finds the premiums soaring to
astronomical heights. It is claimed that males
under 25 have a proportionately higher acci-
dent rate than any other group. But there
are many fine young people who are careful,
competent, conscientious drivers who are
forced to suffer because of the few who are
careless. It may be, as some authorities sug-
gest, that driving a car on our highways is
not a right but a privilege; but I submit that
driving a car to many, if not to most, of the
people of our province is almost a way of life.
To many it is certainly a means of earning
a living, or of getting to or from a place of
employment not readily accessible by public
988
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
transportation. And to incur an accident while
not covered by insurance is often a disaster
much greater than to have a serious illness
while not covered by medical insurance.
The government of Ontario has proposed
legislation that guarantees everyone in the
province the right to medical insurance at a
reasonable cost. I feel it is imperative that
automobile insurance also be a basic neces-
sity that should be available to all responsible
people; and, if the insurance underwriters are
not prepared to offer it, it may be necessary
for the government to execute an automobile
insurance scheme similar to medical insur-
ance to ensure that it is available for all.
I would insist that I am not by any means
suggesting a system of compulsory, govern-
ment-operated automobile insurance. This has
been in effect for nearly 20 years in Sas-
katchewan, and I feel it significant that while
literally dozens of other jurisdictions have
investigated this system, none have seen
fit to follow Saskatchwan into the extensive
bureaucracy and endless juggling of figures
which are necessary to give this plan an ap-
pearance of success. I do not pretend to know
the answers to this problem, but to many of
our people it is a real problem, and one that
affects many people.
I would like to urge that the government
appoint a select committee on automobile in-
surance to begin where the last committee
left off, to study this matter and bring in
recommendations that will cure a problem
that is growing more serious every year for a
great many of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as other hon.
members have done, I would like to con-
gratulate you on the fair impartial manner
in which you conduct the affairs of this
House. I would also like to congratulate
the two new hon. members of the House who
gained their seats in the by-elections last fall.
They replace two very fine members who have
passed on. Mr. Leo Troy was a man very
highly regarded throughout Ontario. I was
very much privileged to have served on the
select committee on youth with Mr. Troy;
he made a very great contribution to the
committee and, as we all know, to this
House.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to repeat some of my
previous remarks about your great fairness in
presiding over the debates of this Legislature.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) for his elec-
tion as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the
committee of the House.
This Legislature was fortunate in having
two new hon. members elected last Septem-
ber. I would like to congratulate them for
their success at the polls, particularly in
view of the tremendous campaign by Con-
servative candidates who had the full force
of the Cabinet behind them in the election.
Both of the new hon. members have already
made their presence felt in this House. I am
quite happy to have been closely associated
with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr.
Smith) during his campaign.
In speaking in this Throne debate, I would
ask the indulgence of the hon. members if I
make my introductory remarks in my mother
tongue.
May I at the outset, sir, express the
wish that I do not have to read in tomorrow's
papers that I was allowed to speak French
through the courtesy of the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts). I believe it to be the
right of every individual to do so in this
country, and more particularly so in this
province.
Mr. Speaker, before starting my remarks
in French, could I ask a special privilege?
I have translated the few remarks, that I am
to make in French, into the Shakespearean
language. Could I have permission to have
the page boys distribute the English copy be-
fore I start my remarks?
Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that people
will not understand my remarks in French.
I think the majority of hon. members in
this House could follow my remarks in my
language but I thought, just to make matters
a little easier for everybody, I might have
this part translated.
Mr. Speaker, since the last session of this
Legislature, many things have happened in
our country and in our province. I would
like to make some observations on two
speeches delivered last fall in Montreal by
the hon. Prime Minister of this province on
the rights of French-Canadians in this prov-
ince and on the problems of Confederation.
As reported in he Droit on November 15
last, in an editorial signed by Marcel Gingras,
entitled "French in Ontario," I quote:
Once again, the Prime Minister of On-
tario has asked the rights of "Franco-On-
tarians" to a "certain equality" with their
English-speaking compatriots. We have
read "a certain equality."
The expression is in quotes, not because it
was made by Mr. Robarts but because we
must thus interpret the recent speech to the
members of the council of Christians and
Jews.
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
According to the Canadian Press, Mr.
Robarts is reported to have said:
It seems to me that the equality of op-
portunity between Canadians of French
descent and Canadians of English descent
as regards education in Ontario must, to be
really significant, consider the needs and
the desires of Ontario residents who speak
French and who reside in localities which
are predominantly French.
The hon. Prime Minister of Ontario believes
he is showing a lot of honesty and justice
and we have seen a sign of satisfaction on the
part of his counterpart in Quebec, the Hon.
Jean Lesage, but the truth of the matter is
that his justice is restrictive, even though he
later talked of a "realistic and intensive" pro-
gramme to give justice to the French-Cana-
dian:
We will not doubt his sincerity, but it
is evident that his programme will not give
total satisfaction to those he promises to
serve. Luckily, he intends to consult them
[still quoting the Canadian Pressl. He is
reported to have said that measures to be
taken must be determined by the real
needs of the French-speaking population
itself. In this sentence can be seen a
hope for justice because one cannot be
satisfied by his first statement.
The editorial mentions the fact that, with a
population of more than 50,000 French-
Canadians residing in Toronto, only two
French schools were available; and I quote
another paragraph of the same editorial:
Mr. Robarts should try to serve the total
French population of the province. One
cannot demand the teaching of French
to three or four families totally lost in
a sea of Anglo-Saxons. But, when their
number justifies it, French Canadians in
Ontario should have the right to French
instruction, even if they are in a minority.
Mr. Claude Ryan, editor of Le Devoir, com-
ments on a speech by hon. Mr. Robarts at
the Montreal Canadian club, in which he
gave his views on Canadian federalism. Time
will not permit me to read Mr. Ryan's edi-
torial entitled: "Mr. Robarts' position in the
Canadian dialogue." I will simply quote some
paragraphs which I believe will make you
understand his thoughts:
Let us note that Mr. Robarts did not try
to define his complete philosophy on feder-
alism. A man of measure, the visitor from
Toronto limited himself to the examination
of certain economic problems related to the
functions of our federalism. It would be
unjust to judge him by using arguments
which were not part of his subject.
Mr. Ryan would have liked Mr. Robarts to
say in a more precise way what he thinks of
the complex problem of co-ordination be-
tween the federal government and the prov-
inces. This problem is the one in which
Quebec affirms itself as a distinct unit in
Canada.
I will quote in full the last paragraph of
Mr. Ryan's editorial:
Mr. Robarts, in his brief speech to the
Canadian Club, appeared to be a realistic
man with an open mind. His speech, how-
ever, was too general and too compact to
understand the profound articulations of
the political thoughts of the speaker. It
was a sort of a methodical speech for sin-
cere Canadian politicians. It was not the
political expose one would have the right
to expect from Mr. Robarts if he wanted
to exercise his action on a larger scene.
I have quoted these two editorials in order
to tell the hon. Prime Minister that the
French and the Catholic population of On-
tario would now like to see him do some of
the things he has been preaching. The
French population of this province has the
right to expect instruction in its own language
and the province itself would benefit consid-
erably if this were done.
It seems to me that the economic council
has said in the past year that the progress of
this province would slow down because there
was a shortage of skilled workers; not enough
technicians to fill the openings in industry.
And yet there are many areas in this prov-
ince, particularly in the eastern and northern
areas— where one find a large proportion of
French-speaking persons— where we find a
larger number of unemployed than anywhere
else, and also a large number of low-income
persons. One has to consult the report on
poverty in Ontario to learn these facts.
In a speech in the last session of this Legis-
lature last year, I mentioned the fact that if
the government of this province did not give
to the minority the facilities for education to
which it is entitled, it should demand that
the federal government do so.
My idea has just been supported in a
speech by Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube, member for
Restigouche-Madawaska in the House of
Commons, in which he suggests a federal
department of education and culture. This
federal department would have a double
function: 1. To protect the rights of minorities
in Canada; 2. To co-ordinate the complex
ramifications of federal initiatives in several
990
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
departments which have to do, directly and
indirectly, with culture and education.
In his address Mr. Dube mentioned that it
is the responsibility of the federal government
to "protect the constitutional rights of the
minority" even though, according to Section
93 of the BNA Act, each province may pass
laws regarding education.
He speaks about the inglorious history of
provincial legislatures regarding the rights of
minorities. He mentions two exceptions: Que-
bec and New Brunswick. Commenting on this
speech Mr. Marcel Gingras, in Le Droit of
January 28, 1966, says:
The situation, fortunately, is improving
but there is much to be done. If New
Brunswick and Ontario, for example, are
waking up to do justice to their people of
French descent, conditions are quite differ-
ent elsewhere. Furthermore, even in the
two provinces mentioned, especially in On-
tario, equality of education does not exist
at the secondary school level.
And I could add that, even with the tre-
mendous progress in the past few years, much
remains to be done to bring our separate
schools to the levels of other schools.
In closing my remarks in the French lan-
guage, may I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to
repeat remarks I previously made: that, in
the not-too-distant future, the debates in this
House be permitted in the two official lan-
guages of this country?
End Of Translation
Mr. F. Guindon (Stormont): Mr. Speaker,
may I ask a question of the hon. member?
I just wanted to tell the hon. member that
two or three years ago his own party voted
against French in the high schools, in this
very House. Is he aware of this?
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
answer my hon. friend from Stormont, but
the opinions that I have expressed here are
my own and I have not cleared them with
the caucus, but I am sure that if I did I
would have the assent of the caucus.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. I hesitate to
interrupt my colleague, but could the hon.
member give us any citations as to where
we voted against the teaching of French in
high schools?
Mr. Guindon: I am speaking from memory
but I will give the hon. member the citations
tomorrow.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I would like at
this time to make a few comments on the
report of the Ontario economic council, re-
garding human resource development in the
province of Ontario.
First, let me quote one of the two para-
graphs of the summary of this report:
The Ontario economy is experiencing a
major expansion and a need for pro-
fessional and technical skills is evident in
many areas.
In another paragraph we read:
This survey clearly shows that there
are skilled-labour shortages in all areas of
the province, and in almost every occupa-
tional category. There were indications
from some employers that the uncertainty
of obtaining trained workers was causing
them to hesitate about expanding.
On pages 4 and 5 of the report, mention is
made of the profound effect on the growth
of the country by a large number of immi-
grants who came to this country, particularly
between 1896 and 1913. I think I would
like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that those
were good Liberal years. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
was elected in 1896 and was Prime Minister
of this country until 1911.
This was a period during which there was
a lot of immigration that came to this
country to settle in the Canadian west. It
was relatively easy for an immigrant to adapt
to the predominantly agricultural Canadian
economy. A lack of skill, education or
language training was not a serious obstacle
in establishing a farming operation in the
prairies, Mr. Speaker, or supplying physical
strength in factories, mines, forests and con-
struction work.
Then, and now, immigrants with a high
degree of personal motivation have made,
and are making significant contributions to
this country's economic and cultural develop-
ment.
However, conditions in the latter half of
the 1960's are likely to be different. The
rapidly changing state of technological de-
velopment is progressively making employ-
ment prospects less promising for those who
have little academic or skill training. An un-
skilled immigrant without a working knowl-
edge of the languages of the community,
English or French, has less geographic and
occupational mobility and therefore less
favourable prospects of obtaining long-term
employment.
Further in the report there are several
paragraphs dealing with language require-
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
991
ments. In order to make my point, may I
be permitted to read some parts:
It is stressed that the learning of the
language of the community, English or
French, is an essential part of an immi-
grant's preparation for successful competi-
tion in the labour market and full
participation in community life. Without
knowing the language of the community,
his employment opportunities are more
limited and his skills may be only partially
utilized.
I will quote another sentence:
It is recommended that instruction in
English or French, whichever is relevant,
be given to certain immigrants where
possible prior to their departure to
Canada, because at that time they are
highly motivated.
And a final quotation from the same report:
It is also recommended that skill
training courses be conducted so far as
possible in the language of the community,
English or French. For those people now
in Canada whose command of the lan-
guage of the community, English or
French, is limited, some bilingual in-
structors in the skill training courses might
be advisable. The programme should,
however, have as its basic objective, the
training of workers with a basic fluency
in English or French and enough power of
adaptability to ensure not only their own
safety, but that of their fellow workers.
Some hon. members might ask why I should
be quoting this report dealing with immi-
grants coming to this country. My answer is
that the same problem exists in areas I
mentioned previously where a large part of
the population have French as their mother
tongue.
Let me mention some of the facts I am
aware of in Ottawa and eastern Ontario.
For instance, according to very reliable
information, a much larger proportion of
French-speaking students fail in their exam-
inations in the trade schools sponsored by
The Department of Labour than their
counterparts speaking English.
I do not believe this situation exists be-
cause of a poor IQ on the part of these
students. I honestly believe that it is due
solely to the lack of qualified French-speak-
ing instructors in these schools who could
give their courses in their own language to
these students.
I am sure that the hon. Minister of Educa-
tion (Mr. Davis) understands this situation and
will try to remedy it as soon as possible. At
the beginning there might be an increase in
costs which would be more than offset by a
very substantial reduction in the cost of
welfare and other services provided to the
unemployed and the partially employed
people in the areas mentioned, and a sub-
stantial increase in skilled labour in eastern
Ontario might also draw there a number of
industries.
Later in the session— possibly during the
estimates of The Department of Education
—I intend to bring to the attention of this
House, the very great problem of secondary
education for the French and Catholic
students in this province. This is an area that
weakens our entire educational system. It is
not only an injustice to a large part of the
population of this province, but deprives our
own economic resources of many thousands
of trained people so badly needed.
The hon. Minister of Education is aware
of this problem and I am sure that he is
trying hard to find a solution which, I hope,
will be included in his estimates later this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to
refer to the very fine debate which took place
a few days ago on the resolutions introduced
by the hon. members for Forest Hill (Mr.
Dunlop) and Downsview, respectively. How-
ever, the very high plane on which this
debate had been kept was somewhat lowered
by the remarks of the hon. member for
Russell (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence), particularly
by his unwarranted attack on the hon. Min-
ister of Welfare of Quebec. I hold no brief
for the Minister, who is quite able to defend
himself. I would also like to say that quite
often I disagree with some of his declara-
tions-
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell): Which
declarations?
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I might at some
time during another debate mention some
of the things I disagree with.
What I would like to say, however, is that
had minorities been treated as well in other
parts of Canada as they have been treated
in Quebec, many of our present problems
would not exist. Those remarks from the hon.
member for Russell were doing exactly what
these resolutions wanted to eliminate.
I would like to draw to the attention of this
Legislature, and more particularly to the
hon. members sitting on the government
benches, that in my view one of the worst
offenders in the dissemination of hate litera-
ture in this country is none other than their
992
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
own national leader, the leader of the Oppo-
sition in the federal House.
This man, for whom nearly all Tories
in this Legislature worked so relentlessly and
with so little success in the November 8
election, has the habit of attacking one special
group of people in this country, the French-
speaking members of the federal Cabinet,
notwithstanding the oft-repeated remark that
he was a firm believer in national unity.
He has done more to destroy understand-
ing between the various groups that form
this country than any individual since Con-
federation. And I would particularly ask the
hon. members of this House-
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: What about the
ones Pearson fired?
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): Yes, what
about Favreau and some of those other
mobsters?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
is a good comment from a fellow Canadian.
Mr. Letherby: Well, I cannot help it, he
had it coming to him.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to end this paragraph here by asking the
hon. members— and this I use as a proof of
what I have said— just to read last year's
flag debates and they will see that what I am
saying is the truth.
My final remarks, Mr. Speaker, will be on
the Jones report for Metropolitan Ottawa.
The headline in an article by Peter Jackman
of the Ottawa Journal a few days ago reads
as follows: "Jones' p]an Is Dead."
Mr. Jackman says that this is the all but
formal verdict of the provincial officials in the
face of the almost unanimous opposition to
the proposals.
It seems to me [he goes on] that the
Minister is far too busy to make a recom-
mendation to the Legislature. In the mean-
time there is plenty of argument going
on in the entire Ottawa area, many sug-
gestions being made but no action is being
taken by the government. Why? Because
the government does not want to lose votes
in the Ottawa area. It appears to me that
too many decisions taken by Ministers or
by the Cabinet itself are taken in view of
the next election and not with a view of
doing something that will benefit the
majority of the people.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a
complete waste of the people's money not to
implement a report of that kind as soon as
possible after its presentation. The lack of
decision on the part of the government is
causing a lot of unrest in the entire area.
Furthermore, it prevents the municipalities
from doing some of the pressing things the
public is waiting for.
Because of almost instant protest from
councillors and communities involved, the
report was immediately shelved at Toronto.
Mr. Jackman continues.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): May I ask the hon. member a ques-
tion? Is that his own statement or is he still
quoting that newspaper man?
Mr. Racine: I am quoting Mr. Jackman.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Oh, yes.
Mr. Singer: Is he right?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: He is not a member of
the Legislature.
Mr. Singer: But is he right?
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Oh, he is not right at
all, I will answer this in due course of time.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: May I ask the
opinion of the hon. member himself? That
is what concerns us very directly. Is he of
the opinion that the Ontario government
should adopt the Jones report forthwith?
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Let him continue his speech.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: It is a simple ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, and it requires a "yes" or
"no" answer.
Mr. Thompson: Listen to his speech and he
will develop it.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that
I have an answer for the hon. member for
Russell but I may have some comments later
on in my speech.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Racine: Now, just for the hon. Minis-
ter, I was just getting to the stage where I
am reading the last of that paragraph:
Because of almost instant protest from
councillors and communities involved, the
report was almost immediately shelved at
Toronto.
Mr. Jackman continues. He then quotes one
provincial Minister as saying:
You can't say it has been a complete
waste of time, it has stirred up a lot of
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
993
interest and discussion in the Ottawa area
and this could lead to an acceptable solu-
tion. However—
and I still continue the the quotation:
—everyone, Ministers, members and civil
servants familiar with the Ottawa situa-
tion say privately that the Jones plan
hasn't a hope of approval. So why not
say so officially?
Last August when the hon. Minister invited
all the interested parties to attend a meet-
ing at which the Jones report was presented,
he brought upon himself, I believe, some of
his present difficulties by asking all those
present to offer their criticisms to the report.
Who should take the decision in matters
such as these? The local municipalities or
the government? The Jones commission had
received briefs from all interested parties
during its sittings. It might also be said that
comments from municipalities about the
recommendations should have been encour-
aged.
But the recommendations in the report
have now been completely torn apart and
now the implementation of that report has
been rendered almost impossible by the lack
of decision on the part of the government.
One of the main reasons for the present
situation is the lack of sufficient guidelines
given to the commission. For instance, noth-
ing was said about bilingualism in the
Ottawa area. I believe many of the objec-
tions stem from the fact that Murray Jones
did not make any recommendations along
those lines and, because of that, antag-
onized some 30 per cent of the population of
the area.
I also believe that in view of the fact that
the city of Hull and the surrounding district
in the province of Quebec are so closely asso-
ciated with Ottawa any decision by the On-
tario government would considerably affect
the Quebec municipalities on the other side
of the Ottawa River.
I realize that it was beyond the jurisdiction
of the government to conduct a study of the
Hull area. It seems to me, however, that our
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs should
have communicated with the Quebec counter-
part and told him about the study. This would
have prevented a lot of difficulties that will
be encountered whenever, if at all, the On-
tario government takes a decision in the
matter.
Perhaps this state of affairs will bring to a
head the matter of a federal district for
Ottawa. According to a usually well-informed
person, it would seem that the federal gov-
ernment on recommendation of Mr. Greber,
will organize a federal district, possibly within
the next 25 years. If so, why not now?
My own suggestion would be— and there
are a number of persons who think likewise
—to form an eleventh province extending on
both sides of the Ottawa river with a pos-
sible population of some half-million people.
This new province would be a really biling-
ual one, being divided almost equally be-
tween English- and French-speaking people.
It would have its own premier, it would have
representatives from various areas, it would
have the power to tax federal buildings in
order to be able to give the necessary services
to the area. Two excellent universities,
Ottawa University and Carleton, would be-
come institutions with a special status. The
new federal district would really become the
cultural centre of Canada.
Other schools would be on an equal basis
and consequently the numerous problems now
facing the separate schools and other schools
in that area, would automatically be solved.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Speaker, may I
interrupt again? Is the hon. member still
quoting that newspaper man?
Mr. Racine: No.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: When did the hon.
member cease?
Mr. Racine: I told the hon. Minister at
the time. I am quoting my own thoughts,
Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: When did the hon.
member stop quoting the newspaper then,
would he mind repeating that? What was the
last sentence of the newspaper man's quo-
tation?
Mr. Singer: Read it in Hansard.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: No, I will not read it
in Hansard. I want to know it now. Read
it, please.
Mr. Racine: The last sentence of this news-
paper article is: "so why not say so offici-
ally?" This is the last sentence which I
read-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: And hon. members will
remember, Mr. Speaker, that I made a state-
ment in this connection before.
994
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, if, as I have
said earlier, the federal district is inevitable,
why not do it now? It would help the pres-
ent local government and possibly the pres-
ent administration out of its present impasse
and undoubtedly the residents of Ottawa-
Hull and area, would have a government
which could serve as a model to the rest of
the country.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, could
I ask the hon. member a question: That is,
whether or not his last utterance in favour of
an eleventh province is the policy of the On-
tario Liberal Party or not?
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe
that in a Throne speech you can give the
policy of your own caucus, but I am sure-
Mr. Thompson: He is bringing forth some
bright ideas.
Mr. MacDonald: Everybody speaks for
himself in the Liberal Party.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, the ideas I have
expressed here are my own ideas, but I am
sure I can sell them to my party in due
course. Thank you.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The debate is getting
somewhat out of order.
Mr. N. L. Olde (Middlesex South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate,
I would first like to congratulate the hon.
member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) on his
selection as Deputy Speaker. We all know
that the hon. member is well qualified for
this position of utmost importance, and he
will carry out his duties fairly and in accord-
ance with the practices of this Legislature.
I would also like to join the other hon.
members in congratulating the Speaker of the
Legislature who, since the very beginning of
his term in the Speaker's chair, has reigned
over this House in a dignified and capable
manner.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
draw to the attention of the House that, in
the last session of the Legislature, during the
debate on the Speech from the Throne, I
mentioned a noxious weed menace on dis-
banded railroads in southwestern Ontario.
Hon. members will recall this problem, or
more precisely this nuisance, came about
mostly because of the discontinuance of the
operations of a branch of the New York Cen-
tral railroad. At the time I raised the issue,
it was very much a troublesome one in re-
gard to farmers who had land adjoining the
old abandoned railway. Today, I am happy
to report action has been now taken in the
area which I represent.
The weeds were sprayed last year and I
am sure this weed menace has now been well
taken care of. This, of course, reflects very
substantially on the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture (Mr. Stewart), whose interest brought
about this quick action. It also reflects great
credit on this government, inasmuch as it
shows again that no problem is too small or
too large for it to move rapidly in solving a
private member's concern for the wellbeing
of his constituents.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to an
area of great importance to me. This is a
problem which concerns all of us, for those
who have regard for the first citizens of Can-
ada, the Canadian Indians. I noted with in-
terest the remarks of the hon. member for
Fort William (Mr. Freeman) on this impor-
tant subject.
Probably the most significant step in the
history of Indian affairs was the agreement
signed last month by the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare (Mr. Cecile). This committed
Ontario to a joint programme, with the fed-
eral government, of developments which will
lead to the provision of equal opportunity for
Indians and the extension of a full provincial
service to their communities.
You must know, sir, that in my riding there
are three Indians bands. The constituent
population of these bands now exceeds 2,500
persons. The signing of this agreement is a
further move on the part of this government
in relieving the poverty and squalor that is
far too widespread among the Indian citizens
of this province, and is welcome news to me.
I would hope these Indian leaders, who are
more vocal than others, quickly discover this
agreement contains within it a realistic hope
for the future of their people.
The usual conjectures as to the aims and
purposes of this new undertaking could be
detrimental to the programme. One such
surmise would warrant stressing; this is that
Ontario has no desire to abolish— reserves.
Furthermore there is no design on the part of
the province, even though this was possible,
to cancel ancient commitments and treaties
which were made with the Indians, some of
which go back long before Confederation.
These must be honoured by the federal gov-
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
995
eminent, in respect of any desire by the prov-
ince to develop the social and economical
potential of Indian people.
The agreement imposes acceptance of the
reserves as Indian communities. Its aim is to
bring them to approximate social and eco-
nomic parity with non-Indian communities
and eliminate segregation. It is my under-
standing that this agreement does no more
than set out the broadest possible outline of
the programme that is ultimately to emerge
from it. In my opinion, it is exactly this kind
of flexibility that holds out most of the prom-
ise. The joint features of the agreement mean
that the financing arrangements will provide
for generous federal help.
Another important aspect is the premise
that all Ontario Indians, whether on or off
the reserve, will be eligible to participate in
this programme. There are many Indians,
particularly in the younger age groups, who
want to accommodate in outside communities
and are unable to do so owing to insufficient
means and training.
What can this agreement accomplish that
was not possible under former programmes?
The answer is in fact that almost all the
problems of Indians are susceptible to treat-
ment under legislation common to this prov-
ince as a whole. Furthermore, the plans and
programmes tentatively proposed are both
intelligent and practical. They appear to be
aimed at the root of many Indian problems.
Some of these, such as the establishment of
nurseries and day-care centres, will teach
Indian children English and the capability of
self-care. Homemakers' training to help In-
dian women, and treatment centres for ex-
cessive drinkers, should produce results. Other
plans include adult education, job training,
provision of near-home sources of employ-
ment, and large-scale relocation of Indians
through areas with opportunities for employ-
ment, will contribute towards closing the gap
that now exists between Indians and non-
Indian cultures.
One important feature in the agreement is
that plans will be developed in consultation
with the Indians, and these will proceed at
the pace dictated by their own awakening
and interest. This will not be easy; the skep-
tism of the Indian will have to be overcome.
Their mistrust of non-Indians, our way of liv-
ing and doing things, is deep-rooted. How-
ever, I am sure this agreement will work out
once the people on reserves are made to feel
this plan belongs to them and they are in
command of it.
During the past ten years the province has
progressively advanced a wide range of spe-
cial benefits and welfare services to Indians.
Old age assistance, mothers' allowances, child
welfare services, rehabilitation services, dis-
abled pensions, disabled persons' allowances,
are available to them in an identical manner
as to other citizens of the province.
As one measure of assistance to band coun-
cils, the province has recognized 38 bands
as municipalities and reimburses them di-
rectly for 80 per cent of their expenditures
under The General Welfare Assistance Act.
The councils of these bands now direct and
control their welfare programmes. These ac-
tivities indicate The Department of Public
Welfare has acquired experience and under-
standing in dealing with Indians and their
problems. This knowledge, combined with
social development, education, housing and
employment should provide them with new
opportunities, sir, to advance their living
standards.
Turning to another subject of importance
to my constituency, I would like to mention
the United States-Canadian automobile pact.
Much has already been written and spoken
on this agreement and I do not intend to go
into it in any detail. My purpose in mention-
ing it at all is simply to express the general
approval of the residents of Middlesex South
in their support for this plan.
While the new $75 to $100 million Ford
assembly plant is being constructed in Tal-
botville, outside my riding, its effects on the
purchasing power for the whole area, includ-
ing Middlesex South, will be enormous. On
the whole, the only unfortunate aspect of that
agreement as it affects Canada was the lack
of consultation by the federal government
with the provinces.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to men-
tion ambulance services. As you know, the
hon. Attorney General's (Mr. Wishart's) re-
port on ambulance services was released on
February 23, 1965. Just how far the hon.
Attorney General has progressed with this
report I do not know. After reading the
report myself it became very apparent that
this is indeed an extremely complex subject.
Be that as it may, ambulance services are
a very important necessity, particularly in
rural and semi-rural areas. In the past, these
services were managed mostly by funeral
homes. However, since the hon. Attorney
General's report was made public, many
funeral directors have decided to discontinue
services in this field. The reason for this is
the possibility of general regulations upgrad-
ing before the service is reformed and the
new equipment that will be required.
996
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This, of course, places an even more im-
mediate problem on the shoulders of both
the province and the municipal governments.
It has been suggested that the provincial
police or The Department of Highways take
over the responsibility for ambulance services.
However, these suggestions have not met
with any widespread approval for obvious
reasons.
At the same time, few municipalities pro-
vide ambulance service. One major reason
is the cost of these services. It should be
noted that the hon. Attorney General's re-
port points out that only 81 out of 181 oper-
ators had more than 100 calls per year. Sixty-
one had less than 50 calls. Then again out of
the 50,000 calls made by ambulance operators
in 1963, only about 7,800 were related to
traffic accident calls. Obviously ambulance
services are presently operated on a part-
time basis. And from the figures I have just
quoted, there is good reason for this.
Mr. Speaker, while I realize the complexity
of this problem, I would suggest that maybe
the provincial government should study or
even draft legislation, firstly implementing
the minimum standards for equipment as
recommended by the report of the hon.
Attorney General so that this province can
be assured of proper ambulance facilities,
and secondly, that the province should pro-
vide 60 per cent of the cost of operating
ambulance services within a municipality,
leaving to the municipality 40 per cent, along
with the responsibility of the municipality for
the cost of the ambulance and its equipment
and the training of qualified staff.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston): Mr. Speaker, as
I rise to take part in this debate, I, like many
who have gone before me, wish to congratu-
late you on the way in which you conduct
the proceedings of this House.
You may remember that two years ago
I compared your position with that of a
hockey referee, indicating at that time that
you had to know the rules, you had to be
impartial and you had to have the respect
of all the members of the Legislature.
I would like to tell you now that I am
still of that opinion and I think that you are
doing the job excellently and that you have
a much tougher job than that of a hockey
referee.
Hockey players usually know the rules
pretty well and in observing the conduct of
the Legislature over the last six weeks it
appears to me that many of us need to know
the rules and procedures of this House
much better than we do. And I might respect-
fully suggest that perhaps among your many
duties you might have time to hold a few
classes for us to explain the rules and pro-
cedures of this House so that the business
may be conducted much more quickly and
easily. I know we would all appreciate the
opportunity of hearing from you the many
rules and procedures which I am sure many
of us do not really understand.
I would also like to congratulate the new
members of the Legislature, the hon. member
for Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and the hon. mem-
ber for Nipissing (Mr. Smith). At this time I
would also like to pay my respects to the late
member for Nipissing, Mr. Leo Troy.
Mr. Troy served on the select committee
on youth and I would like to pay a tribute
to him tonight in saying that he made an
outstanding contribution to this committee.
His wealth of knowledge, his patience and
the effort that he put in while helping the
committee I think will be long remembered,
not only by the members of the committee,
but also by the people to whom we hope our
recommendations will be of great help. I
regret very much his passing and I would like
to pay my respects to him at this time.
Now the riding of Kingston and the islands
which I have the privilege of representing
is made up of the city of Kingston and the
three main islands of Howe, Wolfe and
Amherst, the largest of which is Wolfe. Lack
of adequate transportation between Wolfe
Island and Kingston has in the past made life
very difficult for these year-round residents
who are forced for several weeks during the
winter to cross over the ice, which is a
rather dangerous procedure at any time.
Through the fine co-operation of The Depart-
ment of Highways, the service so far this year
has been excellent. Almost without exception
the ferry schedule has been adhered to and,
for the first time, the island residents can
look forward to fast, comfortable transporta-
tion throughout the winter.
I would be derelict in my duty if I did
not convey to the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. MacNaughton) and to those civil servants
who worked so hard to make this possible,
my thanks and the thanks of the residents
of Wolfe Island, for the fine job the depart-
ment officials are doing in maintaining this
ferry service in such an excellent manner.
The purchase of the second ferry, the
"Romeo and Annette," which has now been
renamed the "Upper Canada," for use during
the spring, summer and fall, will I am sure,
help to solve the very overcrowded conditions
which have been prevalent during the last
few years. I would like to extend to the hon.
Minister of Highways a very cordial welcome
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
997
to come to Kingston to officially open this
two-ferry service when it goes into effect
this spring. I can assure him of a very
enthusiastic welcome from a group of fine,
warm-hearted and appreciative people.
One of the problems facing the people of
Amherst Island which I mentioned in a
speech to this Legislature last year, was the
fact that for approximately six to eight weeks
during the winter, the ferry, "Amherst
Islander," was not able to break its way
through the ice from Amherst Island to the
mainland.
This, I am told, was due to the under-
powered motor recently installed in the ferry.
Last fall, this motor was replaced and a more
powerful one installed, and I am happy to
say that up until a few days ago, when
unfortunately it broke down too, it was doing
a tremendous job in providing service to the
people of Amherst Island.
However, despite this unfortunate mishap,
The Department of Highways has given every
consideration to the residents of Amherst
Island in an effort to provide them with the
best possible transportation at a reasonable
cost. I am sure I speak for these people of
the island, when I express my thanks for the
understanding way in which the department
has tried to solve their very pressing trans-
portation problems.
I would also like at this time, to make a
few comments on the role the Ontario
housing corporation is playing as it affects
my riding of Kingston and the islands, par-
ticularly as it affects the city of Kingston.
Kingston is a combination of the old and
the new. Fine new subdivisions are built
around the perimeter, with many beautiful
old houses in the heart of the city; and it
also has its share of old, rundown areas
where new housing is urgently needed. At
the request of the Kingston city council, a
housing survey was made by the Ontario
housing corporation; and, once the report
was submitted, immediate action was taken.
Thirty housing units are now under con-
struction, a contract for 30 more has recently
been awarded, and plans are under way for
an additional 70 units to be built during the
coming year— making a total of 130 units
which are planned to be built in a period
of approximately one year's time.
This is the kind of direct action, with a
minimum of delay and red tape, that is re-
quired to overcome the problem of adequate
housing and to meet the very pressing needs
of many very deserving people in the city of
Kingston. As you may know, the province
pays the initial ten per cent down payment.
The balance of 90 per cent is financed
through an arrangement with the central
mortgage and housing corporation. Rents
are graduated according to income and full
taxes are paid to the city. Any deficit in
operation is divided equally between the
city and the province.
In Kingston, the availability of this type
of housing now is limited only by the ability
of the city to designate the land where these
housing units will be built. They have very
correctly decided that this kind of rental
accommodation must not be concentrated in
one area, but should be distributed through-
out the city; and I am sure they are making
every effort to find suitable areas for these
badly needed housing units.
In the area of housing for elderly citizens,
the Ontario housing corporation has already
asked the city for their recommendations for
property where 30 units can be built, bear-
ing in mind that the area should be large
enough to accommodate additional units that
could be constructed in the near future.
This also is a very pressing need in our city,
and I am confident that a suitable location
will be chosen and that this unit will be
approved very shortly. May I take this
opportunity, on behalf of those citizens in
my community who will benefit directly
from the building of these housing units, to
thank the Ontario housing corporation for
its quick response to help us start and
solve one of our most pressing problems, that
of improving the housing standards in our
community.
I am sure that many other areas in On-
tario have had a similar experience, and it
is gratifying to know that in the Ontario
housing corporation we have a department
that is doing such a fine job in this field of
housing in Ontario. I personally, as far as
Kingston is concerned, think the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Randall) should be congratulated for this
outstanding contribution that his depart-
ment is making in helping us solve this
most urgent problem.
I know the people of Kingston and sur-
rounding district will also be very pleased
to know that the government of Ontario has
appointed consulting engineers, De Leuw
Cathers & Company (Canada) Limited, to do
a full-scale feasibility study on the proposed
Kingston- Wolfe Island-Cape Vincent bridge,
which will mean so much to the economy of
this whole section of eastern Ontario.
I have also made available to those in-
terested hon. Cabinet Ministers a copy of
a study made by Syracuse University on this
998
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
bridge, which I think illustrates the poten-
tial that such a structure would have for
our whole district. It is a rather sad com-
mentary on our initiative when a foreign
study has to point out to us what could be
done, if we would just show a little imagina-
tion, a little foresight and a little faith in the
economic future of eastern Ontario.
I believe there is a gradual awakening
in the rest of Ontario that eastern Ontario
has, to some extent, been overlooked in the
industrial expansion of this province. True,
certain areas are prosperous and I am happy
to say that Kingston is one of these. How-
ever, many other areas are not, particularly
in the rural areas north of Kingston, where
farming is marginal and the one hope for a
better life and a higher standard of living is
conditional on two things: one, a large in-
crease in industrial development; and two,
far greater promotion and help for the tourist
industry. In many of these rather im-
poverished areas of eastern Ontario, there is
a tremendous potential for a large increase in
tourist activity— a whole vast, relatively
undeveloped tourist paradise is ready and
waiting to be developed.
For these reasons, I was delighted to learn
that, at long last, a serious attempt is being
made to make a full-scale feasibility study of
this proposed bridge. I am confident that
such a study will show, beyond a doubt, that
this bridge is not only feasible, but is a
necessity. It should be built with the least
possible delay.
Mr. Speaker, there is a slow awakening to
the tremendous economic possibilities along
the eastern shore of Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River. It was very gratifying
for me to learn that this bridge development,
which I am confident will prove what my
people have contended for many years, that
the Kingston-Wolfe Island-Cape Vincent
bridge must be built, will be the beginning
of a new era of prosperity for many people,
who have waited patiently, for a long time.
I would like, at this time, to bring to the
attention of the hon. members of this Legis-
lature an experiment which has begun in
Kingston, and which I think foreshadows
great development in the area of our bail
system in Ontario. In so doing, I would like
to read to you a short article which appeared
in the Kingston Whig-Standard of Tuesday,
February 22, which illustrates this idea very
well. It is entitled: "Bail system experiment
proves a resounding success." I am quoting
here from the Whig-Standard:
A revolutionary new bail system, de-
signed to put the poor on an equal footing
with the rich, has proved a resounding
success in Kingston and Frontenac county.
Basically the plan allows some accused
persons without money for bail to remain
free at least until the trial date.
The accused person, after the circum-
stances of his arrest are examined by a bail
assessment committee, is released on his
own recognizance, his word that he will
show up on the trial date. Results so far
have pleased the architect of the plan,
Frontenac county Crown Attorney John E.
Sampson and the two members of the bail
assessment committee.
Of the 68 arrested persons released on
their own recognizance during a six-month
period from June to December, only one
failed to turn up for his scheduled court
appearance. He had been arrested for
another offence in another city, prior to his
appearance in the Kingston court, and
when arrested he had a copy of the re-
mand date in his pocket.
The experiment was born after pro-
vincial Attorney General A. A. Wishart
requested the advice and assistance of On-
tario's Crown attorneys in modernizing the
bail system. Mr. Sampson volunteered to
handle the experiment. He indicated that
it was a professionally worked-out plan
under professional supervision. He re-
cruited Lieutenant-Colonel L. J. Flynn
and Lieutenant-Colonel O. A. Earl, both
retired, to serve on the bail assessment
committee.
He said, "I feel that without men of
their calibre the experiment could not have
been successful."
The function of the committee is to
examine each case referred to it, decide
whether the accused should be released
on his own recognizance, or cash bail, or
whether he should be remanded in custody.
"Essentially, the system is to make the
law equal to all," Mr. Sampson said. "We
are trying to ensure that a man is not
unduly penalized by serving time because
he comes to trial just because he has not
the money to raise bail.
"But the results of the experiment indi-
cate that it is not only beneficial to the
accused; there is a substantial saving of
money to the community. Some families
do not have to go on welfare because the
breadwinner is not jailed before his trial.
He may be working but that does not ne-
cessarily mean that he can afford bail,"
Mr. Sampson pointed out in the interview.
Statistics indicate that there is also a
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
999
saving because of the reduced number of
mouths to feed at county and city jails.
During the three months previous to the
beginning of the experiment, the number
of prisoner days for Frontenac county jail,
was 574. During the first three months of
the experiment, it was 439.
Mr. Sampson said that it also avoids any
suggestion that magistrates get a precon-
ceived opinion of the accused, because the
bail procedure does not have to be con-
ducted by him. He can hear the case with
an open mind.
The experiment is under study by the
provincial Attorney General's office and by
Crown attorneys around the province.
I am very happy to see that it was in the
city of Kingston, in the county of Frontenac,
where this experiment which can mean so
much in this connection to the people of On-
tario is being conducted.
During the last few weeks there has been
a great deal of controversy in connection with
the national hockey league's expansion
plans and many harsh words have been said
both in the federal House of Commons and,
to a lesser degree, in various provincial Legis-
latures, because Vancouver was not granted
a national hockey league franchise.
No one is sorrier than I am that this deci-
sion was made. Vancouver has already proven
by its support of football that it is one of the
finest sporting centres in this country and if
it had been granted a franchise, I am sure it
would have supported a national hockey
league team in the same manner.
However, I think we must realize that the
national hockey league is a business which
apparently leaves very little room for senti-
ment or, if you will, patriotism. The fact
that St. Louis was granted the franchise-
even though they did not apply for one at
the time— was in large measure due to the
influence of men on the board of directors
who have special interest in St. Louis and
who were certainly bound to influence other
directors to this end.
This is being done all the time in many
other businesses and I do not think that the
national hockey league directors can be criti-
cized for their action, even though our pride,
as Canadians, is hurt. I think we must re-
alize that for many years, the national hockey
league has been dominated— commercially at
least— by American interests. This being the
case, and realizing that the national hockey
league is big business, and is run as such,
we are left with very little hope that pro-
fessional hockey will be of much help to
Canada in developing amateur hockey teams
which will be able to regain the position of
prominence that we once held in international
competition.
We have heard great wailings and crying
that professional hockey has ruined our ama-
teur hockey players and that young hockey
players are slaves to the professional hockey
teams. Why, even the hon. member for
Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) has expressed himself
on this very subject a short time ago— which
I am sure is a subject about which he knows
very little.
If young amateur hockey players of this
country are slaves to the professionals, they
are the most willing slaves that have ever
been known. I listened with interest as the
hon. leader of the New Democratic Party
(Mr. MacDonald) announced in this House,
the victory of the Weston peewee hockey
team in the recent Quebec tournament. He
went on to say that many of these boys hope
to some day play in the national hockey
league.
I am sure that this is the wish of thousands
of young amateur hockey players in Canada
today. To be a professional hockey player
is the ambition of a great many young Cana-
dians and I, for one, wish them good luck,
for any young hockey player who attains
such a goal, deserves a great deal of credit
and he has entered on a very worthwhile
career.
Regardless of how many professional teams
there are in the United States, as long as we
can produce hockey players of major league
calibre to play on those teams, we are bring-
ing honour and prestige to this country and
we, as Canadians, should be very proud that
we have developed a truly Canadian game
that has such a tremendous appeal to millions
of people in other countries.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Apps: So let us not be too hasty in
criticizing the national hockey league and the
players who play on those teams. Admit-
tedly they are not all perfect, but they have
done a far better job of selling our national
game as professionals than we have been able
to do as amateurs.
I was, however, rather disappointed that
the president of the national hockey league
for whom, by the way, I have a great admir-
ation, that he said in a recent national tele-
vision show that because Vancouver spends
so much money supporting the B.C. Lions
football team, that there would be nothing
left for national hockey league hockey.
1000
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He was certainly downgrading the appeal
of our national hockey league hockey, as
well as being a little insulting to the people
of one of Canada's outstanding cities.
So now what happens to amateur hockey in
Canada? The expansion to 12 teams in the
national hockey league will certainly drain off
most, if not all, of the good amateur players
in this country and make it much more diffi-
cult to field good amateur teams for interna-
tional competition.
There will be some who will say: "Let us
not send any more teams to play in these
international tournaments." I do not think
that we, as Canadians, are built that way
and I hope that we will never admit to any
country, let alone ourselves, that we no
longer wish to compete with international
teams in playing our national game. We must
not only continue to send our teams to inter-
national competitions, but we must develop
and send teams of the highest calibre in both
playing ability and sportsmanship. It is obvi-
ous that the Canadian amateur hockey associ-
ation has not been able to do this— at least,
that is certainly what it appears like.
Our hockey teams can make a great con-
tribution to Canada in the area of goodwill,
national pride and prestige. If we really
want to and if this so, and I am sure it is,
is it not worthwhile to try to do something
about it?
If this game of hockey in which we take so
much pride is important to us, then I would
like to ask our governments what they have
done about it? What has the federal govern-
ment contributed toward our national game?
For that matter, what has the provincial gov-
ernment contributed?
The answer is, of course, very, very little.
We send telegrams of encouragement and
congratulations to our national teams; we bask
in reflected glory when they win and look
for excuses and people to blame when they
lose and sometimes even contribute a little
to their expenses. But overall, very little help
is given.
I think our game is worth a better effort
and I would like to make a suggestion—
particularly to the federal government; this
is rather popular at this time so I might as
well join the crowd in this regard. I would
like to see a group of 25 to 30 good young
amateur hockey players recruited and on-
rolled at the Royal military college at Kings-
ton as cadets, or in the army at Barriefield, or
even as students at Queen's University.
They would have an arena in which to
practise and play at all times; they would
certainly be physically fit; they could have
the best of coaches and over a period of
four years, could develop into a hockey team,
that would certainly regain much of our di-
minished prestige in international hockey.
I am sure that this team would receive
the utmost co-operation from amateur and
professional hockey associations alike. I
know that the city of Kingston would wel-
come them with open arms because where
else would it be more fitting than in the
birthplace of hockey to have this hockey
team developed? I have reason to believe
that if given the opportunity, the Royal mili-
tary college would be only too happy to take
on this project.
I would like, for a minute, to say something
about the young hockey players that we
have here in this province today.
We hear so much about hockey going to
the dogs and the kids are being spoiled, and
so on, and so I am going to relate to you a
little experience I had about two days ago.
We happened to entertain the junior B
hockey team— the Kingston Frontenacs— for
lunch yesterday, Sunday. There were 16 boys
there and I do not think you will find a better
bunch of 17- and 18-year-olds in this prov-
ince than the members of that junior B Fron-
tenac hockey team. Most of them are in grade
12 or 13; they are fine clean-cut young fel-
lows, polite, well-spoken and a credit not only
to themselves and to their parents, but to this
province. Of those boys in grade 13, there
v/ere four of them who were trying college
entrance examination papers, to apply for
enrolment in American colleges.
That seems to me to be a pretty fine state
of affairs, when the finest young athletes in
the city of Kingston, as far as hockey is
concerned, are planning to go to American
universities to study.
Now these young fellows have to pass
their grade 13, they have to come up to the
entrance standards of American universities,
and they are doing that, because it has been
indicated to them that they will receive some
financial help in going to those colleges.
I am sure that the same thing is taking
place in many other areas throughout this
province. It seems to me that we, in Ontario,
should take another look at our scholarships
here, and try to keep these fine young
Canadian athletes here in Canada. We
should promote our game here through our
own universities, much more than we are
doing at the present time.
It seems really a crying shame that these
young fellows even have to contemplate
FEBRUARY 28, 1966
1001
trying American college entrance examina-
tions in order to go to university in the
United States, when they should really be
going to university in Canada. But you can-
not blame them. If they are going to get
help, they are going to go on, and I do not
think anyone can blame them for their de-
cision to do so. The only people we should
be blaming is ourselves, because we do not
give them the same opportunity.
Also, I would like to say just a few words
in connection with the young people of this
province. As you know, in our travels with
the select committee on youth, we have had
the opportunity of visiting many areas in
Ontario, and discussing various problems
with the youth of this province. Unfor-
tunately, many of the adults have a poor
impression of the young people in Ontario,
and they get this impression from the day-to-
day reading of the newspapers, listening to
the radio and looking at television. Because
it appears that most of the stories that you
see in the newspapers are sensational stories
of those few, that small percentage of young
Canadians, or young people in Ontario, who
are getting into trouble and the newspapers
are playing up this sort of sordid story in a
sensational way. The result is that many
adults in this province are getting the im-
pression that most of the young people here
are delinquent. This is very far from the
case.
The more young people you talk to, the
more you realize that the great majority of
the youth of this province are pretty fine
people. I think that the press of this prov-
ince, the radio and the television, could
render a tremendous contribution to the
youth of Ontario. Instead of playing up
these sordid tragedies that a few of them get
involved in, they should go out and look, and
see some of the fine contributions that a
great many of the young people of this prov-
ince are making.
There has been a great deal of discussion
about the voting age and whether the voting
age should be changed. I have my own
opinions on that. I feel that the young
people in Ontario are much better educated
on the average than they were 20 or 25 years
ago. I feel they are a pretty fine bunch. I
think it is almost time now for us to con-
sider reducing the voting age of the young
people in this province, and give them an
opportunity of partaking in many of the
decisions that are going to affect them in
this country. When we realize that over half
the population of Ontario, in the next few
years, will be under 24 years of age, then
we must realize that we are going to have to
pay a lot more attention to the youth of
Ontario than we have done in the past.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, two years ago in
this legislative building, a very moving cere-
mony was performed by the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) when he presented certifi-
cates of achievement to a number of dedicated
people who had made a significant contribu-
tion to amateur sport in Ontario. I thought
it was very fitting that our government
should recognize, in this way, some of those
who had done so much for the young people
of this province. I was keenly disappointed
when the ceremony was not performed last
year. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will
not be overlooked again this year.
During the work with the select committee
on youth, we had the opportunity of visiting
several areas in Ontario and talking with
many people who are working for and with
the young people of this province. I think
I can say that we were most impressed with
the great number of adults who were giving
of their time, their money, along with a
great deal of effort, to provide our youth with
sports facilities, coaching and training.
They receive very little credit for what
they are doing. As a matter of fact, they are
not looking for any credit, because they are
genuinely interested in making a contribu-
tion to the youth of their community. I
believe that the least this government can
do is to publicly recognize their efforts by
having this ceremony again this year and
presenting, to another group of dedicated
individuals, a small token of recognition for
their efforts, to let them know that our gov-
ernment is sincerely appreciative of the
contribution they have made to the youth of
this province. Mr. Speaker, may I urge as
strongly as I can, that the least we can do is
to say, in this way, "Thank you for what you
have done."
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of
this debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the
estimates of The Department of Reform In-
stitutions and, from five to six, private mem-
bers' resolutions; then back into estimates,
the estimates of The Department of High-
ways, when we are finished with Reform
Institutions.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could
ask the hon. Prime Minister about the private
1002 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members' bills. Are there any particular bills Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
being taken tomorrow? Is there any order of the House.
in their appearance? w ... w
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: It has been settled by
the Whips; resolutions No. 8 and No. 12 can The House adjourned at 10.50 o'clock,
be dealt with. p.m.
No. 34
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
Fifth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 1005
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 1008
On notice of motion No. 9, Mr. Spence, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. McKeough, Mr. Paterson,
Mr. Knox, Mr. Gisborn, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Bukator, Mr. Henderson 1026
Recess, 6 o'clock 1036
1005
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests in the west gallery,
students from Gravenhurst high school,
Gravenhurst.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills,
presented the committee's fifth report which
was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment:
Bill No. Pr21, An Act respecting the city
of London.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr36, An Act respecting the town-
ship of North York.
Your committee would recommend that the
following bills be not reported:
Bill No. Prl, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Saltfleet;
Bill No. Pr31, An Act respecting the town
of Hespeler.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
I beg to inform the House that the Clerk
has received from the commissioners of estate
bills their report on Bill No. Pr3, An Act
respecting the board of education of the
township of Toronto.
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay
The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelly
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
February 28, 1966
Roderick Lewis, Esq., QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: Bill No. Pr3, 15 Elizabeth II, 1966.
The undersigned, as commissioners of estate bills,
as orovided by The Legislative Assembly Act, RSO
1960, chapter 208, section 57, having had the
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
above noted bill referred to us as such commissioners,
now beg to report thereon.
We have examined the petition and the draft bill;
there has also been submitted to us:
(a) Photostatic copies of the original grant from
the Crown dated November 9, 1833, whereby the
Crown granted to William Thompson, James Mc-
Grath, and Joseph Gardiner, the east and west halves
of lot 3 in the first concession west of Hurontario
street in the township of Toronto, in trust for the
endowment, support and maintenance of a school in
the township of Toronto, reserving one acre thereof
for the purpose of a burial ground;
(b) Photostatic copy of an order of the court of
chancery dated February 6, 1864, whereby the said
lands were vested in the trustees of school section
No. 12, township of Toronto, county of Peel;
(c) Evidence that the said lands became vested
in successively the board of trustees of the public
school board of the township school area of Toronto
No. 1 and the board of education for the township
of Toronto, by statutes of Ontario, 11-12 Eliz. II,
chapter 190, section 4;
(d) Letter from the office of the Deputy Minister
of Health dated June 5, 1964, evidencing that The
Department of Health has no interest in the matter
of the said lands on account of the fact that the
cemetery referred to was not established, and disclaim
any interest in the lands for cemetery purposes.
We recommend that the preamble to the said bill
be amended by adding thereto the appropriate
recitals to indicate the successive ownership of the
lands, as indicated above.
With the amendments set out in this report we
are of the opinion the provisions of the bill are
proper for carrying into effect its purposes and that
it is reasonable the said bill should pass into law.
The bill duly signed by the commissioners and a
copy of the petition for the same are accordingly
returned herewith, together with the material to
which we have referred.
Yours truly,
(signed)
J. G. MacKay, ja,
A. Kelly, ja,
Commissioners of estate bills.
It was therefore ordered that the bill,
together with the report of the commissioners
of estate bills thereon, be referred to the
standing committee on private bills.
Mr. H. J. Price (St. David): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I would just like
to say that there are a few members of
the House, like myself, who have the honour
to represent a riding which is named after
a patron saint. On the occasion of St. David's
day, which is today, March 1, I wish that you
would join with me in extending our very
best wishes to the Welsh people on their
national holiday.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart), notice of which has been given.
1006
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
whether one of the bean companies has
rented office facilities and furnished same? If
so, whose money was used to finance the
operation?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. mem-
ber whether he said "a" bean company, or
"the" bean company?
Mr. Caunt: I said "the" bean company.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The answer is "no."
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett), notice of which he has had for 24
hours.
Would the hon. Minister comment on the
charge made by Thomas W. Kierans that the
United States Public Law No. 89298 may
have the effect of cutting water levels on
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river,
resulting in damage to Canada's downstream
interests?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
have not had the opportunity to study the
United States legislation to which the hon.
member for Yorkview refers. I am advised
however, that so far as Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence river are concerned, the
legislation would appear to deal only with
tributary waters flowing into Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence river. Such waters are
not boundary waters, as defined in the boun-
dary waters treaty of 1909.
I would like to remind the House that
under that treaty, each country reserved to
itself and to its states and provinces, exclu-
sive jurisdiction and control over the use and
diversion of all waters on its own side of the
line, which in their natural channels would
flow into boundary waters. It is also provided
that any interference with, or diversion of,
such waters which result in injury on the
other side of the boundary shall give rise to
the same rights and entitle injured parties to
the same legal remedies as if such injury took
place in the country where the diversion or
interference occurs.
It should be borne in mind that one of the
very important objects and purposes of the
boundary waters treaty is the preservation of
free and open navigation of all navigable
boundary waters for the inhabitants and ships
of both countries equally.
Consistent with this purpose, it was pro-
vided specifically in the treaty that neither
Canada nor the United States surrenders any
rights they may have to object to any inter-
ference with or diversion of waters on the
other side of the boundary, the effect of
which would be productive of material injury
to the navigation interests on its own side of
the boundary.
I am advised that what would appear to be
contemplated by the United States legislation
would not result in any such interference or
diversion.
I would like also to remind the House that
United States interests bordering the Great
Lakes are equally concerned with Canada
and Ontario about any proposed prejudicial
effects on the levels of these lakes.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minis-
ter of Transport (Mr. Haskett), notice of
which has been given.
Is it the intention of the hon. Minister to
make available permanent licence plates for
vehicles that are classified as a "vintage"
vehicle? If so, how soon will these go on
sale, and what will their cost be?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to issue
any permanent licence plates at this time,
neither is there any provision in our regula-
tions for special plates for so-called "vintage"
vehicles.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond),
notice of which has been given.
Could the hon. Minister inform this House
whether there is a graduate dietitian em-
ployed in the Ontario hospital in Kingston,
Ontario, and would he also inform this
House whether special diets are prescribed
for a patient suffering from diabetes? Are
there lounges placed on the various floors of
the hospital in order that a patient could have
a sitting room, rather than be retained in the
ward? Are any funds made available or travel
warrants issued to a patient who has been
discharged from the hospital from out of
town?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the
hon. member's question, yes, there is a grad-
uate dietitian on a part-time basis. Her duties
are to provide special diets required for medi-
cal reasons and to give general supervision
to the food service.
To the second part of the hon. member's
question, the answer again is "yes." Food
MARCH 1, 1966
1007
preparation in Ontario hospitals is, of course,
for the most part hotel or restaurant type of
(operation. A very good system has been de-
vised by our food service consultants to pro-
vide a variety of standard diet schedules in
three-week cycles to avoid monotony. For
the most part, patients in Ontario hospitals
do not require special diets for medical rea-
sons but in a typical hospital of 1,000 beds
an average number of 100 to 150 patients do
require special diets. These are principally
salt-free diets, diabetic, reducing diets, occa-
sional low-fat, high-calorie diets and others
for relatively uncommon conditions.
Again to No. 3, the answer is "yes," Mr.
Speaker. Lounges, sitting rooms, recreation
rooms and other day space are an essential
part of any facility providing in-patient psy-
chiatric care and must be available to all
ambulatory patients. Part of the space is pro-
vided in the wards separate from dormitories
and bedrooms and part of it is located in
other parts of the hospital devoted to special
activities and not absolutely essentially on
the floor on which the patient happens to be
sleeping.
Increased emphasis has been steadily
placed on the provision of additional day
space in new construction and the renovation
of older buildings. As the patient population
is reduced, much of the dormitory space is
converted to these purposes.
Then to the fourth part of the question, the
answer again is "yes," on an ad hoc basis
when required. When a patient is to be dis-
charged from an Ontario hospital, every effort
is made to have the relatives or interested
friends come to the hospital to take him
home. When there are no interested relatives
or friends or where a special placement is
being made, it may be necessary for a mem-
ber of the staff to transport the patient to
his new place of residence. In some cases
where neither of these measures is possible
or appropriate, where the discharged person
is capable of making his own arrangements,
funds or transportation tickets or both may
be provided on an ad hoc basis.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. Minister would accept a supplemen-
tary question?
When the hon. Minister says a "part-time
dietitian," could he clarify that for us? Is
that for three days a week or just what does
that mean?
Mr. Dymond: I am sorry, I cannot answer
the question. Had I had knowledge of this,
I would have had the answer.
Mr. Thompson: Can I get an answer to
that?
I have another question, Mr. Speaker, to
the hon. Minister of Health. Could the hon.
Minister inform this House what progress is
being made in regards to policy of day care
hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, there are
no special day care hospitals as such, but
day care is run in conjunction with outpa-
tient and inpatient programmes. Now most
of our psychiatric hospitals and units can
provide day care for individual patients in
this manner without a separate day care pro-
gramme.
As a matter of policy, sir, the develop-
ment of day care programmes is encouraged
but our experience to date is that the utiliza-
tion of day care is not great.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask a supplemen-
tary question, Mr. Speaker? Is it the policy
of the hon. Minister to encourage day care
hospitals where there is a cultural back-
ground of the people in that they do not
want anything of psychiatric care? I am think-
ing of medical care which would not require
a long period in the hospital in which they
might be able to get some minor operation
and go to their homes, where from a cul-
tural background they feel more secure and
safe.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: In the context the hon.
leader of the Opposition refers to, Mr.
Speaker, the answer would have to be "no."
This is a matter that we have looked at very
carefully and very thoroughly and there is a
great deal of controversy about it.
There are those who would have us estab-
lish a hospital type of accommodation for
patients who do not need to remain in hos-
pital. We believe that they are better at
home. Of course, we run into difficulties when
patients visit a large central hospital from out
of town and living can become a problem for
them.
In our outpatient service, of course, as
much as possible is done in this regard, as
many procedures now as possibly can be done
without the patient being admitted as an in-
patient is followed, and I suppose in a sense
this could be looked upon as day care. The
patient may stay in hospital from some hours
to the better part of the day and go right
home, but to say we have established day care
hospitals as such is not so.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
1008
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lands and Forests (Mr. Roberts), but he is
not in his chair so I will save it for tomor-
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day
I should like to introduce a distinguished
visitor to the House today, and former occu-
pant of my chair, the Speaker during the
terms of the Legislature from 1948 to 1955—
the Reverend M. C. Davies of Windsor. He
is accompanied by his charming wife Mrs.
Davies.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 25th order, House
in committee of supply; Mr. L. M. Reilly in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(continued)
On vote 1903:
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, under vote 1903, in looking
over the annual report of the Minister on
page 61 under the heading of "Mentality of
pupils committed or admitted," I notice two
categories: Morons, IQ 45 to 59, and high-
grade morons, 60 to 69. Why would the 38
people involved there be committed to this
type of an institution? Why would they not
be hospitalized? They would need psychiatric
treatment rather than this type of treatment.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Well, it may very well be that
many of these, if not all of them, at some
stage during the year were certified.
Mr. Newman: Does the hon. Minister mean
that some time during the year they were
taken out of the institution and hospitalized?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of them, yes.
Mr. Newman: They were? When the indi-
vidual first comes to the training school, is
his IQ taken at that time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it is, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Newman: Well, why is he not sent to
a hospital at that time rather than keep him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: When he enters the
system he is examined by our own psychia-
trist and as a result of that, at that stage, it
may very well be that then certification is
applied for.
Mr. Newman: How long a period of time
would he stay before he is eventually sent to
an institution other than there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told it varies. I
could not tell the hon. member what an aver-
age is, if that is what he wants.
Mr. Newman: Okay, I will drop that, Mr.
Chairman. I wanted to sympathize with the
hon. Minister when I looked at the bottom of
page 60 and saw that factors contributing to
delinquency of those committed or admitted
under "fair home but no control" we have
291 people. Under "poor home and no con-
trol," 177. We have 468 who are committed
or admitted to training schools simply because
the home has broken down. I can see that the
hon. Minister's problem would be most diffi-
cult if there is no control at home. How in
the dickens can the hon. Minister do a good
job later?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I will agree with the hon. member that it is
most difficult.
Mr. Chairman: On 1903, if the members
will recall, we had decided that when 1 to
6 had been completed we would go into the
estimates of the adult institutions. There
were two groups; first the adult institutions,
and then the juvenile institutions. If it is the
wish of the committee we can do that now
on pages 115, 116 and 117 under the adult
institutions.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
I have a question of the hon. Minister regard-
ing Mercer. A couple of years ago he in-
dicated—and these were his words:
Mr. Chairman, I inform the member
and I hesitate to do so because this has
been said before for a number of years, I
do not want it to sound like a repetitive
record, there are plans afoot, I am going
to do everything possible to bring this to
fruition this year, to replace this institu-
tion.
This was in 1964, March 13, in reply to a
question which I had raised. Last year the
institution was also going to be replaced. This
year we did hear that it is going to carry the
name of the Governor-General and that plans
are again afoot.
I wonder if the hon. Minister can give us
any more definite information as to timing,
when we might look for the new Mercer to
emerge in all its glory?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member will recall, I am fairly certain,
MARCH 1, 1966
1009
it was mentioned in the Throne speech that
construction would begin this year. It is now
in the hands of The Department of Public
Works. Preliminary sketches have been
drawn and I think the hon. member would
be well advised to ask that during the esti-
mates of the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Connell). We are fairly certain con-
struction will begin this year.
Mr. Young: Well, is there some assurance
by a year from now that the institution may
well be complete?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
how long it takes to construct the building,
all I can tell you is that we expect to get it
under construction this year.
Mr. Young: There is one other question I
would like to direct to the hon. Minister re-
garding the statement in the Toronto Globe
and Mail, December 2, 1965, following the
incident at Millbrook.
The statement was that eight sex offenders
are going to be shifted to the Alex G. Brown
memorial clinic. I wonder if the hon. Minis-
ter at this time can give us any further in-
formation on that experiment; whether it is
going to be enlarged; whether more offenders
are going to be involved in this experiment,
and whether any signs of success have been
achieved.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that there
has already been a second group sent there,
totalling 17 in all. Of course, the experiment
is still in its early stages, and I am also told
that it looks very promising. As this develops
there is to be a meaningful programme that
will be extended.
Mr. Young: And is there staff there to
handle a larger group?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes, quite right.
Mr. Young: What staff is there, Mr. Min-
ister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Four psychologists,
two part-time psychiatrists and two social
workers.
Mr. Young: The social workers are full
time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, full time.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria): Mr. Chair-
man, I wonder if I might have your indul-
gence for a few minutes? I have received a
letter from the Elizabeth Fry society and I
would like to read it into the record, because
it is worthwhile.
Mr. Chairman: Is this under the adult in-
stitutions?
Mr. R. G. Hodgson: It covers institutions.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why
don't you have the hon. Minister read his
thank you letter?
Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Well, you objected to
that the other day.
It starts off, "Dear member and friends,"
and I believe each hon. member in the House
has received a copy of this.
As a number of changes have been made
in the provincial institutions for women
during the past year we thought our report
of these activities would be of interest.
The Elizabeth Fry society has been criti-
cal of The Department of Reform Institu-
tions in the past, so we feel that when
praise is in order we have an equal re-
sponsibility to bring the improvements to
the attention of our members and the com-
munity.
In June, 1965, Miss Aideen Nicholson,
AAPSW, was appointed administrator of
adult female institutions. Miss Nicholson
received her diploma in social science from
Trinity college, Dublin, and a certificate
in mental health from the London school
of economics. Since coming to Canada in
1957, she has been a psychiatric social
worker at the Toronto psychiatric hospital.
For several years she provided group and
individual therapy at the forensic clinic
for persons referred from the courts. She
is an instructor at the University of To-
ronto school of social work.
In November, 1965, Mr. Glenn Thomp-
son was appointed superintendent of the
Mercer reformatory for women. He re-
ceived his BA and MSW degrees from the
University of Toronto. Mr. Thompson
joined The Department of Reform Institu-
' tions in 1960 and for three years was a
social worker at the maximum security re-
formatory in Millbrook. He gained further
experience as a psychiatric social worker
in Henderson hospital in Great Britain, and
on his return to Canada was appointed sup-
ervisor, social work for four of the depart-
ment's institutions in the eastern section
of the province. He is married and has a
daughter.
Under the guidance of Miss Nicholson
and Mr. Thompson, an assessment and
1010
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
treatment programme for the female offen-
ders in Mercer has been going forward.
This programme is geared to the individ-
ual needs of the inmates.
Upon entry to Mercer an inmate with a
sentence of over 30 days may be placed
in a separate corridor where she can be
screened by social workers, psychologists
and sometimes a psychiatrist. Correction
officers who are good observers, intelligent,
factual and firm are chosen to work with
these inmates, as an understanding officer
can do much to lay the foundation for ac-
ceptance of the institution's programme of
training and treatment. A decision is made
as to whether an inmate should be trans-
ferred to Ingleside treatment centre or
remain at Mercer.
Weekly case conferences of the super-
intendent and staff are held and recom-
mendations are made about the work and
educational programme for each woman.
Some thought is given even at this early
stage to the kind of after-care agency most
suited to the needs of the individual in-
mates and their families.
Mr. A. Douglas Mackey, MSc, has been
appointed director of educational pro-
grammes for the department, both voca-
tional and academic. The teaching staff
at Mercer reformatory consists of Mrs. J.
Steinburgh, BA, home economics; Mrs. E.
Lum, BA, commercial; Mr. J. Miller and
Mrs. J. Drutz, AOCA. At Brampton, the
teaching staff is Mrs. J. B. Millar, MA and
Miss I. Leneghan.
Emphasis is placed on up-grading educa-
tion and commercial training. The methods
used are geared to adults, and are compar-
able to those used at the adult training
centres. Mr. Miller is responsible for a new
course for functional illiterates which has
been introduced into the education pro-
gramme.
An NCR business accounting machine
was installed at Brampton guidance centre
in 1965, and this is proving a valuable ad-
junct to the existing training in typing,
shorthand and other business procedures.
Home economics classes are geared to
training, and courses in restaurant services
are planned.
Miss A. Wright, BA, formerly head of
the circulation division of the Toronto pub-
lic library, joined the Mercer staff in
November and is working in close co-oper-
ation with the teaching staff in guiding
inmates' reading.
Additional education opportunities are
provided by the community. A staff mem-
ber of the visiting homemakers association,
Mrs. Brooks, is a nutritionist and she talks
about budgeting, nutritional needs of chil-
dren, and other family oriented topics.
Sewing instructions, arts and crafts
courses, and a highly popular drama group
are being conducted by staff and well-
trained volunteers.
In January, 1966, a recreational and
games programme was started and is con-
ducted by two volunteers who are profes-
sional physical education instructors.
The use of trained volunteers is an
important aspect of this programme, as it
is essential that inmates have contact with
stable people, with varied interests and
sound values, who can provide a good
influence.
A committee has been formed of repre-
sentatives from each corridor in the Mercer
reformatory and weekly meetings with
the superintendent are held to discuss
requests, suggestions and problems.
Weekly staff meetings are held at Mercer
and Brampton, under the supervision of
the superintendent or administrator. A
series of lectures was given last fall for the
staff and a further series was begun in
February of this year. Several of the staff
members are attending university extension
lectures on related subjects.
A programme of research under the
direction of Dr. T. Grygier has been
initiated by The Department of Reform
Institutions. It is hoped to make the in-
stitutions more available to universities and
to encourage students to join the depart-
ment staff after graduation.
We think you will agree that this adds
up to a new look in the treatment of the
inmate, and we should like to congratulate
the Honourable Allan Grossman and his De-
partment of Reform Institutions for devel-
oping these plans.
There are other changes which have
been proposed, such as alcoholics being
sent to the hospital now opened by the
alcoholism and drug addiction research
foundation; increased prerelease opportu-
nities; and more participation by com-
munity groups in the evening activities. We
will bring you news of these as they occur,
and hope you will join with us in making
Ontario a leader in the field of penal
reform by your continued interest.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. L. R. Weinrich,
for the board of directors of the
Elizabeth Fry society of Toronto
MARCH 1, 1966
1011
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to make a few comments
on this vote, and particularly wish to refer to
the Millbrook reformatory. The village of
Millbrook lies within the boundaries of my
riding and any matters which concern that
community and any of the events which have
transpired or will transpire, in connection with
that community, have my attention and my
interest.
This community has a population of ap-
proximately 1,000 people— law-abiding citizens
—a community that over the years has prided
itself on the beauty of its location and the
integrity of its people. As in similar hamlets
throughout this province, the activities of
everyday life seldom reach the front page of
our metropolitan press, but as you will recall,
a few months ago, a fire occurred in the
reformatory at Millbrook. That fire was
caused by certain inmates who were desirous
of being moved to the larger environment
of Kingston penitentiary where, I may say,
their sentences would automatically be re-
duced because the federal statutes give
greater remission to inmates of this type of
institution.
In provincial institutions, I am advised, the
sentence remission is 52 days for each year
of sentence.
In federal penitentiaries, Mr. Chairman,
an inmate receives an immediate remission
of one-quarter of his sentence, plus an addi-
tional 30 days per year. Now, my statement,
Mr. Chairman, is supported by the interim
report of the committee set up by the Bishop
of Toronto, the Anglican Church of Canada,
to study statements concerning Millbrook re-
formatory by the Reverend S. G. West and
the Peterborough Examiner. May I say that
I had a long, and I think profitable discussion
with the Reverend Mr. West this morning,
and I would like to refer to paragraph 6 of
that statement:
The Minister of Reform Institutions is
to be commended for his attempts to get
the present system of consecutive sentenc-
ing abolished. Yet church and public need
to bring increasing pressure to bear on
the Minister of Justice to have that Act
amended. The system of giving a man
three consecutive sentences of two years
less a day which results in his spending
six years in Millbrook should be abolished.
Anyone sentenced to over two years,
should be sent to the penitentiary, and not
a reformatory. Two inmates who are serv-
ing consecutive sentences at Millbrook
started the fires in the summer of 1965.
They did this to get themselves sent to
Kingston.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the important
factors bearing on the Millbrook situation
and I will refer to it a little later in my
remarks. Suffice it to say at this point, that
the standardizing of remission is long over-
due and federal action is badly needed to
remedy this situation.
The fire, however, did provide an incentive
for outside groups to take a keen interest in
this reform institution. Several flying visits
were made to the institution by various
groups including the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben), and members of the
clergy. The Peterborough daily newspaper
ran a series of articles criticizing penal in-
stitutions in general, and Millbrook in
particular.
Strange tales began to emerge from that
usually quiet community. Reports of the
inadequacy of the facilities and the staff;
tales which told of inmates being shackled
and handcuffed for days at a time— punched
in the face, kicked in the side of the head,
faces pushed into broken glass on the floor,
heads bounced off the walls, beaten while
shackled and handcuffed— indeed, the institu-
tion was described as a "punitive hell."
Mr. Chairman, I am not, at this time, go-
ing to defend The Department of Reform
Institutions. The hon. Minister is perfectly
capable of answering any criticisms levelled
at his department. May I simply state that
I have the highest respect for the hon.
Minister and his officials. His is a difficult
department as we all know and I wish to
commend him and his dedicated staff on its
efficient operation. He and his predecessors
have been able to assemble within that de-
partment the most highly qualified personnel
in the field of penology.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this province, as
you know, and as the hon. member for
Bracondale knows and as we all know, is
outstanding in the field of penal reform on
the North American continent. But I am
concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the manner
in which the community of Millbrook and
the families of the officials at the reformatory
are being maligned and slandered by the un-
justified statements of certain individuals
and the press.
Great emphasis has been placed on the
alleged persecution of the unfortunate in-
mates of that institution but little has been
said of the abuse and attacks made on the
officers whose duty it is to protect human
beings as members of a responsible society
from the unlawful actions of these indi-
viduals. The irrational statements with
respect to the Millbrook reformatory reflect
1012
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a complete misunderstanding of its opera-
tion and its role in the reform programme.
The fact that some 190 individuals find
themselves residents of that institution is
proof in itself, Mr. Chairman, that they have
been unable to adjust themselves to the
programmes in other institutions, institutions
where more advanced rehabilitative meas-
ures are used.
The hon. member for Bracondale is quoted
in the Peterborough Examiner of October 8,
1965, as stating that the $3 million prison
was a bad mistake: "It does nothing," he
said, "to reform or train the 200 men it
houses."
Mr. Chairman, the residents of this in-
stitution are individuals who refused re-
habilitation in other centres. They are as
children starting to school and must acquire
a basic discipline before advancing and this
basic discipline, may I say, is supplied at
Millbrook through the operation of machines,
such as in the making of licence plates, the
Braille shop, and other tasks.
Here is taught the concept of a job and
if the response is positive advanced rehabili-
tation can take place.
The hon. member for Bracondale is also
quoted in the same press release as saying
that: "Treatment for the behaviour prob-
lems of inmates is virtually non-existent."
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the hon.
member and the House, I would like to list
again the professional staff of this institution:
1. A registered nurse with psychiatric
specialization who is employed full time and
on call after hours as well;
2. A full-time psychologist, who holds a
PhD degree;
3. A full-time psychometrician, who holds
a master's degree in psychology;
4. A qualified teacher who supervises an
educational programme for inmates from
illiterates up to and including grade 13;
5. A part-time teacher who assists with
the above programme;
6. A consulting psychiatrist, who spends at
least a day a week at the institution;
7. An experienced social work consultant,
who holds a master's degree in social work
and who is at the institution one day per
week;
8. A qualified dentist who visits the insti-
tution regularly;
9. A qualified physician who visits the in-
stitution regularly and is readily on call;
10. A Salvation Army chaplain who con-
ducts services there and visits the institu-
tion during the week as well, and a Roman
Catholic chaplain with a master's degree in
social work, who conducts mass, confessions
and spiritual counselling on an individual
basis each Sunday.
Until several months ago, Mr. Chairman,
Millbrook had the services of a full-time
Protestant chaplain. The position became
vacant when the chaplain accepted a posi-
tion as superintendent of one of the Ontario
training schools. I understand that he is
being replaced. In addition to the above
specialized medical and paramedical services
located in Peterborough are made available
to the inmates on medical recommendation.
The hon. member, because of a lack of
knowledge of penology, may feel that the
institution should have a staff of several
psychiatrists and several psychologists. The
responsibility of a psychiatrist, as I under-
stand, is to analyze the individual's par-
ticular problems. It is completely impractical
to keep a psychiatrist permanently stationed
in any one institution. The psychologists's
responsibility, I am advised, is to develop
a programme to meet the needs of the in-
mates. This is the manner by which the
basic programme at Millbrook reformatory
has developed.
From a layman's point of view, Mr. Chair-
man, I consider the greatest problem in-
volved in rehabilitation is related to the
period of imprisonment. Certainly a sick
person is not confined in a hospital for a
pre-stated period of time. The length of
stay depends on the nature of the illness and
the patient is not discharged until every
effort has been made by the doctors and the
hospital staff to restore him to full health.
I think we all appreciate that no longer is
the punitive aspect of the reform programme
emphasized in this province. We all recog-
nize this fact, I am sure. Although some
individuals, because of political or other
personal reasons refuse to admit it, it is
generally recognized that these individuals
are sick, socially sick. The day may come
when society will recognize this fact. The
courts will no longer determine the length
of the sentence. Then and then only can
these individuals be treated in a manner and
within a period of time to meet their needs.
I have tried to show, Mr. Chairman, how
unjustified and irresponsible have been the
statements made about Millbrook reforma-
tory. The very serious consequences of these
actions, however, is something else.
During the past few weeks I have had a
number of officers from the reformatory
MARCH 1, 1966
1013
contact me asking for my assistance in
having them transferred to another depart-
ment of government. It is not for economic
reasons; it is not for lack of confidence in
the superintendent, who is very highly re-
garded not only by his staff but by the
community at large; it is not because of dis-
pleasure with the hon. Minister or his offi-
cials.
It is because they are subjected daily to
physical attacks and personal abuse by the
inmates of that institution. Their children
are laughed at and taunted at school, then-
wives are being subjected to abusive tele-
phone calls. And why? Simply because of
the actions of certain individuals. These
officers are portrayed to the general public
as sadists and persecutors.
It is perhaps difficult for the residents of
large metropolitan areas such as Toronto to
appreciate the impact such allegations make
on a small community such as Millbrook.
Instances have been brought to my attention
that illustrate the effect of such actions on a
community of this size.
The other day it was reported that a lady
refused to buy certain articles in the city
of Peterborough because they were manu-
factured by a Millbrook industry. Why?
Because in that town they beat people, bash
their heads against walls and throw them
shackled and manacled into solitary confine-
ment. Another wife refused to allow her
husband, I understand, to be employed in
that institution, and I understand the reason
was that her husband was not in the habit
of attacking other people and she would not
agree to his working in a place where he
would be required to beat people up.
This may seem a little ridiculous, Mr.
Chairman, to the people in the city of
Toronto—
An hon. member: It does to us all right.
Mr. Carruthers: It may, but in a village of
the size of Millbrook it takes on an immense
significance.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is not
exaggerating.
Mr. Carruthers: No, I am not. Frankly, I
am not, I am just reporting these incidents
as they have come to me. I have no basis
for the facts of these last two, I am just go-
ing by stories that have been brought to me.
But on the other hand, this is the type of
report that is being circulated throughout
the Millbrook community and the effect is
disastrous on a community of this size.
Statements have been made that the Mill-
brook reformatory was a mistake, that it
never should have been built in an isolated
community.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): The hon.
Minister said that himself.
Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Chairman, if this was
a mistake, then the federal government is
making a bigger mistake in building the new
federal penitentiary at Warkworth, which is
a more isolated area.
This one fact, Mr. Chairman, the report
that Millbrook is an isolated community, has
had a very serious reflection on that whole
area. Millbrook, may I say, is located at the
junction of two modern county roads, both
paved, is immediately adjacent to Highway
115, approximately five miles from Highway
28, between ten to 15 miles from the large
centre of Peterborough, and approximately
the same distance from Port Hope. May I
say the community in no way can be classified
as being isolated.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, the circumstances
that have forced me to speak at this time but
I cannot allow the good name of Millbrook
or the people of Millbrook to be tarnished.
I would like to say that the re-establishment
of the inmates at Millbrook to their proper
place in society should be, and I am sure
it is, the concern and the aim of society
as a whole.
Perhaps isolation in any institution is not
the answer, perhaps there should be more
contact with the outside world through visit-
ing committees, and so on, but I submit that
this can be accomplished as well, perhaps
better, in a community such as Millbrook as
in a large metropolitan area such as To-
ronto. But I suggest that it cannot be done
by unjustified and unproven allegations that
reflect on the personnel of the institution and
on the community in which it is located.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking that steps be
taken to clarify the position of the custodial
officers in the Millbrook reformatory, to re-
establish the reputation of these officers in-
side and outside the community as the
conscientious, honest, dedicated individuals
that they are, and that some form of discipline
be established to protect them from personal
and physical attacks.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman,
it had not been my intention to speak on
Millbrook because this matter has been pretty
well covered in the press and other news
media, and I frankly had been hoping to
mention it in the Budget debate if it was
1014
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
necessary. But I was so shocked by the
statements made by the hon. member who
just sat down when he professed to know
what went on in that institution, that in-
stitution being in his riding, that I felt I had
to rise.
The hon. member is casting aspersions on
others, saying that they know nothing of what
goes on in that institution. Then he comes out
and makes the bald statement that these
people who are in this particular institution
are there because they could not adapt them-
selves to other institutions. I would suggest
to the hon. member that if he had taken
the trouble to investigate, he would have
found out that many in that institution had
not been in other institutions before. As a
matter of fact, a good third of them are not
troublemakers at all.
Inmates in there fall in three categories:
one category, which they call behaviour prob-
lems, is in group one; then there is another
group which consists almost exclusively of
pedophiles, those that are in on moral
offences, sexual offences— most of them are
pedophiles involving offences with children;
and in the other category we have the
alcoholics and the drug addicts. And those
last two groups, the pedophiles and the alco-
holics and the addicts, are not there because
they were behaviour problems in the sense
that they were disturbing other institutions,
but they were there because they had no
place else to put them.
And they are not unreformable, as the hon.
member intimates. As a matter of fact, that
is the shame of this institution, that at the
time we visited the institution, there were 64
in group two and 19 in group three, for a
total of 83 out of 197 inmates who had no
business being there. They were not what
they call the ones that cannot be reformed
or anything else. They were simply there be-
cause they were mentally sick.
Mr. Carruthers: I did not say that any of
the inmates in the reformatory were un-
reformable.
Mr. Ben: And I might ask, Mr. Chairman,
in October when this institution was visited,
what was the practice so far as those un-
fortunates in groups two and three were
concerned? At that time it was only with
reference to the alcoholics and addicts. For
the last 37 days of their sentence, they would
send them to Mimico alcoholic centre and
drug addiction centre for treatment— for the
last 37 days of their term— and they were
supposed to be treated and sent back to the
streets, ready to take up right where they left
off after 37 days of treatment for a problem
like alcoholism and drug addiction. It was
not until after we visited the institution,
Mr. Chairman, that they also started to send
the pedophiles to Millbrook. These are the
people that the hon. member intimates are
hardened criminals, and had a chance in
another institution and failed.
And then he talks about the training that
they get in this wonderful institution that he
knows so much about, because he is the
member for that particular riding. What is
the biggest source of employment there? The
manufacture of licence plates. And how many
people did they have manufacturing licence
plates at the time of the visit in October?
Seventy-nine. And why did they have that
great number of 79? Because they were
operating two shifts.
If it had not been so close to the time of
issuing of licence plates, they would have
been operating on only one shift. And if
these figures here are correct, I believe the
one shift would consist of 51 people who are
so employed. Eleven worked in the laundry;
ten in the job shop; seven on the inner per-
imeter; two in the library; three in the barber-
shop; two in the clothing reception; seven in
segregation; two in the outside hospital; six
in the mail shop; 19 on scrub teams; nine
in the wing cleaners; 27 cleaning the cells;
three in detention. This is the wonderful
training they were getting there, to adapt
them to come out into civilization again.
Now I am not going to read some of these
sworn statements that I have here, because I
am not going to take the time of the House
to do this, but if my hon. friend wants to
know what is going on in the institution in
his riding, he is welcome to read these. And
as I say, they are sworn statements.
In the report that was made by the hon.
Minister's department, they say they did not
shoot gas at everybody. If the hon. member
knows what this institution is like, he would
know that there were 25 people in a wing
and that the gas was shot into these cells and
the gas could not help but spread to the -rest
of the wing. On July 6, 12 inmates received
gas. That is almost half, in fact you might
say it is half of these inmates in that particu-
lar wing. On July 7, they state two inmates;
July 8, two inmates; July 9, five inmates;
July 10, seven inmates, receiving tear gas.
Now how about the others who were in
that wing that were not doing anything and
had to suffer from the gas that was shot at
these particular individuals? You heard the
hon. Minister say that the only damage was
to some dishes and from banging on doors.
MARCH 1, 1966
1015
Gas is justified for an offence like that? And
you are getting up and defending that in this
House?
And then there is the inspection, when the
psychiatrist of the department admits that he
did not question any of the inmates and I
quote: "Mr. Penfold said the investigator
spoke to about ten guards" at the institution
in a "random survey" and some of them
were placed under oath. The guards, he said,
refused the brutality charges and quoted the
present psychologist who would have smelt
something if it was there.
I point out to you that the present psy-
chologist was appointed after this happened.
And what the chief psychiatrist is intimating
is that with his educated nose he would come
in there about a month or two after this
occurred and he would be able to smell that
something happened a couple of months ago.
A psychologist states: "When I was there
I saw force being used but not brutality."
Well, the decision between force and brutal-
ity is a question of law. I would suggest that
the hon. member read the report that was
published and question some of the inmates,
and not be like the hon. Minister's depart-
ment there. When we ask them why they
did not question any of the inmates, they say,
"Well, we know what they are like."
As a matter of fact, I will quote you a
statement by Mr. Penfold when he was asked,
were any inmates interviewed: "No," said Mr.
Penfold. As a psychologist, he said he knows
the nature of the Millbrook inmates and "if
there was brutality the guards would have
known about it." I suggest to you the guards
say, "Sure, we knocked the bejabbers out of
these people."
Mr. Carruthers: Will the hon. member per-
mit a question?
Mr. Ben: Yes, the member for Bracon-
dale will permit a question.
Mr. Carruthers: I would like to ask the
hon. member how often he has visited the
Millbrook institution?
Mr. Ben: I only visited the institution once,
but I interviewed enough people and if you
want to read their sworn statements here—
Mr. Carruthers: There you are.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: I will read one of the statements
here. This is a sworn statement that was not
signed in front of me—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order! The member
for Bracondale has the floor, please.
Mr. Ben: Now all of these statements are
here to be used and they were sworn; this
particular statement was sworn in Hamilton.
We have permission to use his name and the
hon. Minister can take it down and investi-
gate it.
I, Ross Gells, 357 McNab street north,
in the city of Hamilton, in the province of
Ontario, do solemnly declare that:
1. In June, 1957, I was convicted for
assault and robbery and sent to the Ontario
training school at Bowmanville. After a
month I was transferred to Guelph—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, could
I make an appeal to the hon. member? I
had an idea that he had affidavits and things
of that nature, and I hope that I can make
myself understood by the hon. members, and
I hope the hon. member for Bracondale will
take me at my word.
I would ask him to attempt to make his
case on individuals by not using their names.
Perhaps he can say Mr. A and Mr. B and I
could handle them in that fashion, because
there are implications involved in this once
these names are publicized which makes a
problem for our staff either now or later when
they have to meet with them. It makes it
difficult for rehabilitation later, if they are
publicized in public, and there are other
implications as well.
I wonder if I can prevail upon the hon.
member not to use the names?
Mr. Ben: I have no objection to that. As
a matter of fact, I had no intention of
mentioning the names of the staff that are
in there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am talking
about the inmates. In the interest of the
inmates or ex-inmates themselves.
Mr. Ben: All right, I will. This is another
one.
I, Blank, presently of no fixed address,
having just been discharged from Mill-
brook reformatory do solemnly declare
that:
I was born in Blank, Ontario [and the
date].
My experience with reform institutions
started when I was 14 when I was placed
in Bowmanville training school for being
1016
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
unmanageable. From 1950 to April, 1961,
I was in Bowmanville training school and
from there I was transferred to the Ontario
training school in Guelph. In January,
1962, I was released and went back to my
parents for five months.
I then stole a car and was sentenced to
six months definite and six months in-
determinate in Guelph reformatory in
August, 1962. In June, 1963, I was re-
leased from Guelph reformatory. From
there I went to Hamilton and lived there
until February, 1964, when I was sen-
tenced again to 15 months definite and
six months indeterminate for car theft.
I was taken back to Guelph reformatory
where I was placed in lockup. The super-
intendent did not want me in the institu-
tion and was going to keep me locked up
so I asked to be transferred to another
institution, whereupon I was sent to Mill-
brook. It was upon my own request that
I went to Millbrook reformatory.
Upon my arrival there I was given a
pair of pyjamas and three blankets, and
put in solitary confinement. I was in
solitary for eight days and they took me
in the front of 5 wing, which is the
segregation area, where I spent another
eight days. I was on a special diet at the
time.
After 16 days they released me from
solitary and gave me a job scrubbing
floors on my hands and knees. I had this
job for ten months. The inmates, when
they are released from confinement, have
a choice of either scrubbing floors or be-
ing locked up for 21 days.
They are allowed ten minutes in the
morning for smoking in the yard, and
again in the afternoon for ten minutes in
the same yard.
At 6 p.m. they are allowed out of their
cells for recreation facilities into a dark
narrow quarter where the only recreation
facilities are six decks of cards for 26 in-
mates, a pingpong table which can be
used only by two at once, and nothing
more. Inmates doing any great amount of
time in this institution soon lose interest
in cards and start sitting around doing
nothing.
This unhealthy confinement saw no let-
up except for a period of 7% hours from
November, 1964, to May 1, 1965, when
they went out skating six times.
After doing three to six months on the
scrub team, the inmate goes before the
captain. The captain tells him he has a
choice of working in the laundry or the
marker plant.
The inmates are forced to work on the
punch presses in the marker plant by
threats of transfer of good conduct re-
mission. The environment breeds hatred,
violence, homosexuality, drug addiction
and fills the inmate with revenge. He is
continually brooding about his time be-
cause he has nothing on his mind.
The public labours under the impression
that the purpose of imprisonment is to re-
habilitate. This, to my way of thinking,
would include helping the inmate to re-
ceive an adequate education so that he can
compete with today's high standards or
teach him a trade so that the inmate can
have a chance to get a decent job in the
world, despite his record.
Millbrook reformatory does not provide
any of these opportunities. Mr. X and Mr.
Y and the higher-ups at Queen's Park
have given the newspapers the impression
that inmates at Millbrook are incorrigible.
Millbrook reformatory was designed in
1957 for unmanageable inmates at Oak-
land institution. Yet what kind of inmates
do they have at Millbrook? Escapees from
other institutions; drug addicts, homosex-
uals, and 17- and 18-year-old boys from
Guelph who ask to be sent to Millbrook
with the hope of coming out with a better
reputation.
Mr. X also stated that there is no bru-
tality in Millbrook. I know this to be
untrue as I was present when many in-
mates have been beaten in Millbrook. In
January, 1965, Mr. X-
This would identify him so I will leave it—
They brought Mr. so-and-so to take over
the job. Mr. so-and-so stands 5 feet, 11
inches, and weighs about 190 pounds.
Upon his arrival he wanted to set an im-
pression on the inmates to show how rough
he was. He would go around to the cells
with two or three guards and walk up to
young boys 17 to 18 years old and ask
them if they would like to lose their teeth.
This turned the inmates against the man
because he was trying to show his author-
iry-
Incidentally, where the name is involved I
am just saying "man":
He thought he was another who was
thrown out in 1962 and the guards started
praising him. The guards began writing
out phony charges against the inmates,
such as talking in the corridor, having a
blanket on their mattresses in the morning,
MARCH 1, 1966
1017
swearing, and so on. The staff then began
showing their authority too and began
pushing inmates around.
It all began in the yard at smoke-up one
day when X was out at smoke-up and a
guard called him a "no-good so-and-so" and
X grabbed the guard. Two guards then
jumped on him from behind and got him
down on the cement. He was then taken
to 5 wing. The next morning before the—
I will have to read ahead to make sure that
I am not embarrassing anyone here, Mr.
Chairman, by identifying some officials.
A guard there was told to take this fel-
low to 5 wing. "I do not care how you
get him there; use all the force you want
on him." X then started walking down the
corridor at a slow pace. Y hit him in the
back of the head and told him to get mov-
ing faster. X kept walking slowly; Y kept
pushing him. X got to the first grill, turned
around and hit Y in the mouth. Z, a guard
coming out of the squad room, went to
jump on X from behind; X grabbed him
by the tie and gave him a black eye.
He then brought the goon squad in;
six guards grabbed X and threw him on
the floor, put handcuffs on him, put shack-
les on his feet, kicked him in the ribs,
punched him a couple of times until X
lay on the floor putting up no resistance
at all.
Then S came out of the squad room, saw
X lying on the floor and kicked him in the
head, cutting X's head open. He was then
picked up and carried to 5 wing. I do not
know what happened after that because
I was still down there waiting to see the
superintendent.
6. M came to Millbrook, a very quiet
person. He would hardly speak to inmates
and he would never talk to guards. The
guards took it for granted that M was
afraid of them.
They started laying phony charges on
him. Every time there was any noise,
anything wrong in the wing, M was charged
for it. They pushed him until finally he
rebelled. He was charged one morning for
something called "making unnecessary
noise in the wing." He was taken to 5
wing where he went willingly and was
locked in a cell.
I believe M just got mad, tore his sink
off the wall, smashed it, tore the toilet off
the wall and smashed it. Three guards
came into the wing, opened his cell and
told him to come out. He came out with
no resistance, took his clothes off, put his
pyjamas on, picked up more blankets and
started walking back toward the hall.
The guy in charge of 5 wing came in
and rather than from the front, went up
behind him, grabbed him by the shoulder
and then hit him in the mouth. The
captain came running in with handcuffs
and M was handcuffed and shackled. He
was left on his stomach on the floor.
S sat on M's back, grabbed him by the
hair and started banging his face on the
cement floor. M could not open his eyes
for about four weeks after that.
When he was let out of 5 wing on dis-
charge after he was let out of the hole, he
was put on the garden gang to work. He
only had a couple of weeks left and Mr.
Blank began riding him. He was going to
charge him one day for not turning the dirt
over correctly. He told M to go inside and
M just stood there. Mr. Blank grabbed M
by the shoulder and M hit Mr. Blank in the
mouth, whereupon he fell to the ground.
M walked over to still another guard. Mr.
Blank took him inside and M was placed in
5 wing. He was later charged with "assault
with a deadly weapon causing bodily
harm."
Mr. Blank stated that M hit him with a
shovel, which is an outright lie. This hap-
pened on April 30, 1965.
I went back to my wing that day from
the marking plant where I was working
and went into my cell where I had a pic-
ture of my wife with a plastic frame on it.
The plastic frame was ripped and also my
picture was ripped. I came out of my
wing, got my tray and told Mr. So-and-so
I wanted to see the . captain. I thought I
was asking him in a nice way. He answered
by swearing at me. Then I swore at him
and went back into my cell. After dinner
they opened my cell, told me to get my
blanket, that I was going to 5 wing. When
I asked "Why?" they answered, "Never
mind." I took my things and went.
When the captain came to see me, he
told me I was charged with using profane
language before a senior officer. I went the
next morning about my charge. Mr. So-
and-so was not there. I told Mr. So-and-so
that I did not swear at the captain and that
Mr. So-and-so had sworn at me. He called
this guard in my office and he called me a
liar to my face. I was remanded for one
day.
I went back to 5 wing and told Mr. So-
and-so that he had given me a phony
1018
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
charge which had better be straightened
out. To my way of thinking that was not
a threat, but I thought things had gone too
far.
The next morning I went back before
Mr. So-and-so who sentenced me to indefi-
nite detention. I left his office. I will admit
that I was angry and Mr. So-and-so was
the guard taking me back to 5 wing. He
thought this was a big joke and while I
was walking down the corridor he pushed
me. I turned around and hit him in the
mouth.
He backed up against the wall and
started saying, "I don't want to fight." He
was doing this to distract me because a
couple of guards jumped me from behind,
got me down in the corridor and put hand-
cuffs and shackles on me and Mr. So-and-
so started kicking me in the side. He carried
me into 5 wing and put me on the floor
where again Mr. So-and-so kicked me in
the side of the head.
D, another inmate, was in his cell at this
time in 5 wing and he witnessed it. He is
back in Millbrook now doing more time
and is still quite willing to testify to this
matter. This was Friday. They then put
me in the hole, still in handcuffs and
shackles and the following Wednesday the
superintendent still had not seen me as
he was not back yet.
On that weekend, two more fellows
were also in the back with me when they
started smashing windows with scrub
brushes and put things in the toilets until
they started overflowing. I did not take
part in this because I felt that I was already
in enough trouble.
In the hole there are two steel doors
before you enter the cell. This was at
cleaning time in the morning. My door
was open and I could see well through the
keyhole. Mr. So-and-so came with two
other guards and opened up So-and-so's
cell, went in and started fighting with So-
and-so. I did not see too much of this
fight until it was over and So-and-so was
sitting on the bed with handcuffs and
shackles on him. •
They then put him in a cell with no bed
and they went to get this other chap. The
same thing happened to this other chap
and he was put into the cell with no bed.
There are no windows in these cells.
On Tuesday of the next week, the super-
intendent came back to the hole. I did not
know he was back there. I was standing
up on my bed calling out through the
window at still another person.
I will be very happy to give this to the hon.
Minister afterwards. It is very difficult not to
mention names here.
So-and-so ran into the cell and punched
me in the mouth while I was still standing
on the bed and this blow knocked me in
the corner. He said something to the effect
that I was a "no-good punk" and this
would cost me all my good-conduct remis-
sion, which was roughly 61 days. He then
punched me in the mouth a couple of times
again, grabbed me by the head and
bounced my head off the wall, cutting the
side of my head open. He told still another
person that if I opened my mouth he was
going to go back and fix me so that I could
not open my mouth again.
He left my cell and—
This is just hearsay— this is what it says:
—he punched so-and-so in the mouth along
with still another fellow.
I lost 61 days for slapping a guard in
the mouth because he was abusing me. I
was kept in handcuffs and shackled for
five days and nothing more was ever said
about it. This is the kind of justice the
inmates get at Millbrook.
On July 5 of this year five inmates at
Millbrook— Dave White and his brother,
and I don't know his first name but
this is public knowledge, it was in the
newspapers— set two fires in Millbrook
reformatory as a last resort to get to
Kingston penitentiary as they were doing
from three to five years.
These fires concerned nobody else in
the institution. While they were going
on none of the inmates caused any com-
motion. They did as they were told. At
noon on July 6 we were taken back to our
wings from the scrub team and before
going into our cells the guards asked us
for our lighters. We did not question
this as they said they would give us the
lighters back later and would give us lights
for our cigarettes.
When a wagon came in with the meals
I was released from my cell and asked
one of the guards if this was authorized
by Queen's Park and he said it was. About
half an hour after lunch three guards
came in with tear gas masks and guns
and put about 30 shells on the table. They
yelled themselves hoarse saying, "Get
away from your doors." At the same time
they went around shooting tear gas at
inmates' cells, not all at once. They
carried it out for six days.
The reasons for the tear gas were not
MARCH 1, 1966
1019
known. One of the inmates decided he
got it for lying on his bed reading a book.
The inmate on the other side of me was
standing at his door waiting for a light
of a cigarette. The inmate across from me
got it while he was using the washroom.
Another inmate got it when he was told
to stand at attention at his door and say
"sir" three times. He got two doses at
once. Three weeks later we read in the
newspaper that we got tear gas for a riot.
We were then locked up in our cells
for three weeks after. Mr. So-and-so came
around the wing twice in all that time.
I asked him why I got the tear gas and
he said, "On account of your past record."
He added that I had a charge in my
record of assaulting one of the staff. I
reminded him that I had been assaulted
too.
We were never allowed outside our
cells except for one shower a week during
this time. This had an extremely bad
effect on the inmates during this time.
One was taken to a mental institution
for a month, another to a mental hospital
and he has not been seen since. Another
inmate woke up in the middle of the night
screaming; he was taken out and the re-
maining inmates were left extremely
nervous. Many of them are not over it
yet.
There was an investigation after the so-
called riots. There were no outside people
there. They were strictly investigators
from Queen's Park. The five inmates who
saw these people were the five inmates
who set the fires. They were threatened
to keep their mouth shut or get the maxi-
mum sentence for arson. After the in-
vestigation, the investigators sat around
having tea with Mr. So-and-so.
When I was at Mimico clinic in Sep-
tember, 1965, Reverend West came over
and saw me. He asked me questions about
Millbrook and I answered them for him,
whereupon a week later I was sent back to
Millbrook. No reason was given for this
except that I failed to respond to treat-
ment.
So-and-so, an inmate at Millbrook, gave
me a signed statement to be given to Mr.
George Ben upon my release but as a
result of Mr. So-and-so's influence in Mill-
brook the statement never reached Mr.
Ben. So-and-so called me down, advising
me not to make trouble for them when I
got out on the street. I told him he was
in no position to advise me while I was
in there or on the street.
There are only about ten or 15 inmates
at Millbrook who would talk to an in-
vestigation committee because they are
afraid of the superintendent and the
captain of Millbrook.
This is describing somebody:
He has only punishment in mind. If
you are an informant, a good boy, a homo-
sexual or a drug addict you can be sure
that you are going to make your parole,
not lose any good time and get along
with Mr. So-and-so fine. If you are a
group 1 inmate, a so-called incorrigible
who is not afraid to speak your mind
about the lack of recreation facilities, im-
proper work programmes and many other
items needed at Millbrook, you can be
assured that you are in for a hard time at
Millbrook.
In May, 1965, Mr. X came into the hole
and assaulted me, in order that the ven-
tilation be taken out of the hole so that
the inmates could not call through the
windows. The people who came to investi-
gate some time in August arrived in the
front office when Mr. So-and-so phoned
another so-and-so and told him to place
mattresses, sheets and pillows outside the
inmate's cell in the hole. So-and-so
brought this committee around himself
and told them that the bedding had been
there for the last couple of months. Imme-
diately after the committee left these
things were taken away and were not
brought back for some weeks.
At the moment of this writing there is
an inmate at Millbrook, who I think is one
of the youngest ever to go into this in-
stitution. He is 17 years old and his name
is So-and-so. He has problems and he
needs help from a psychiatrist. He
frequently cuts himself with razors and
smashes his cell, and nothing is being
done for him. He wants to go to Kingston
as he is doing six years and he will not
benefit doing this time at Millbrook.
There are no recreational facilities at
all at this institution. Inmates sent there
are doing anywhere from one to six years
at present. There is one teacher to meet
the requirements of almost 200 inmates.
He has to teach grades 1 to 12. Those
students who cannot get assistance from
the teacher soon lose interest in what is
going on and drop out.
Money given to an inmate released
from Millbrook is $40 regardless of time
served over the year mark, and it is less
for any time served under the year mark.
1020
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He is patted on the back and told they
will see him soon. This sum of money is
hardly enough to get the inmate living
quarters, buy him clothes or keep him for
a decent length of time to find suitable
employment.
For the amount of work an inmate is
required to do at Millbrook this should be
considered illegal. The inmate should be
permitted to do hobby crafts, which most
other provincial institutions have. These
crafts could be sold on the market and the
money placed in his personal belongings.
The rules and regulations at Millbrook
state there is a facility for hobby craft
available but I have never seen this. It
is not true that if you have money you
can buy a paint-by-number set.
There is no way for an inmate to keep
in good physical condition, and as most
inmates work in manual labour after a
couple of years in Millbrook they find it
almost impossible to do this kind of work
upon release. Calisthenics are not per-
mitted in the quarters nor in the sports
field. The only facilities in the sports field
are baseball and football. Inmates have
no interest in these as there are no in-
structors there and they just lie around on
PT period. A gymnasium would solve this
problem. As this is considered too costly
or impractical some substitute should be
given in its place.
Recently they brought a Dale Carnegie
course to Millbrook and it is doing the
inmates a lot of good, but X in Queen's
Park is considering having it taken out
because the inmates were discussing in-
stitutional problems too much.
Mr. X has often had inmates before
him calling them liars and every other
name, but a letter to Queen's Park com-
plaining about a health problem or an
injustice is not permitted to be let out by
Mr. So-and-so. It is amazing how Mr. So-
and-so and the rest tried to work against
still another So-and-so.
For this last person, it is difficult to read it
this way, Mr. Chairman. This last person, to
my way of thinking, goes out of his way to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I suggest to the
hon. member that I know he can go on in-
definitely like this. He has pretty well made
his point that he has a lot of inmates who
have made charges of brutality against staff.
I think this is the point he is attempting to
make, and he has, you might call it, docu-
mented it with statements by inmates or
ex-inmates. Is that the point?
Mr. Ben: Well, not quite, Mr. Chairman.
Although I visited that institution only once,
I spent all day in there from about eight
o'clock in the morning until almost six
o'clock at night. When I came out after
having interviewed about 13 inmates, I made
it quite clear to the reporter that I was
making no charges as to brutality, and to
this date I have not, Mr. Chairman. I stated
I was satisfied that force was used, but I
pointed out the force should be such force as
necessary to enforce the normal regulations
of the institution, and that the force could
also be force in excess of that used to en-
force the rules of the institution, or that it
could be what is called brutality— completely
inconsistent with any force that may be
needed to enforce the rules. I said I had not
been able to satisfy myself into which cate-
gory this fell and I refused to make any
allegations that there was brutality. All I
wanted to point out— what I was trying to
work around to after I received a sufficient
number of these statements— is the need to
have an independent commission go in there
and investigate.
I am quite as aware as anyone else is
that these people are in there for having com-
mitted some offence, and that they may be
trying to support their own position in it.
When I asked officials why nobody believed
the inmates, they just said "Well, who
believes them, they are criminals. We have
to believe our guards. We have to maintain
discipline." But when the hon. member for
Durham gets up and tries to completely
deny these things, I consider it completely
inconsistent with the duty of a man who has
such complaints brought to his attention.
I am not alleging that what this affidavit
states is true. I have got a lot of these
affidavits. A lot of them state the same
thing.
All I am asking, sir, is that there be an
independent judicial inquiry into what is
going on in this particular institution.
Certain things are quite clear— that there
is no rehabilitation programme in there. I
have had complaints from people who did
want to take a course, and did not want to
work in the plate shop, and they were told it
is a privilege to work in a plate shop and
there it is, otherwise you just about do
nothing. So this person, in order to have
extra time to study, had to refuse to work
in a plate shop so he would be put in the
hole so he could then be put on a scmb
team so he would have more time to study.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber believe that?
MARCH 1, 1966
1021
Mr. Ben: I neither believe nor disbelieve;
I question everything.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber should not make a statement like that.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I neither believe
nor disbelieve. I had not mentioned this until
the hon. member rose because I am still in
the process of investigating this. I am still
getting more statements and trying to find
out what is the truth. I do not have the
facilities of the hon. Minister at my disposal;
I do not have about 20 or 30 people sitting
there to do my work for me.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, they
are all at the disposal of the hon. member.
All he has to do is ask a question and he will
get an honest answer.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, one of the things
that is quite evident here is that if I did
ask somebody from that particular staff to
go and investigate they would not speak to
the prisoners because it would be a waste of
time. Your own staff member says this. I
want somebody to go and speak to the
prisoners, not just to the guards. I believe in
the rule of law that both sides should have
their day in court. Evidently the hon. Min-
ister's department does not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will deal with that
in a moment.
Mr. Ben: The hon. member for Durham
speaks of the wonderful staff. I do not know
whether he was in his seat or not the other
day when I pointed out that at the time I
was in this institution they had one full-time
psychologist, who was taken on a year ago
last September; one part time on the average
of three times a month, and who gave a day
to a day and a half at a time; and that they
had just then appointed a psychiatrist and
how much time he was going to spend there
they did not know.
I asked how many people they had in this
institution when it first opened. They had
one supervising psychologist, two full-time
psychologists, two full-time social workers,
one part-time psychiatrist who gave eight
consecutive days a month, and one part-time
psychiatrist who gave a half a day a week.
And the last time they had a comparable
staff was three years ago— that would be three
years ago from last October. Is the hon. mem-
ber for Durham suggesting that this is pro-
gress, that things are becoming better there,
that they have more facilities, when the staff
is cut completely in half? It may be in his
humble estimation, but it is not in mine.
I would suggest that perhaps the hon.
member do spend some time there and
speak with some of those inmates to find out
exactly who is in that institution. Some of
them may be hardened criminals— I do not
deny that for a second, a lot of them may
be hardened criminals— but when he tries to
imply that those in group 2 and group 3 fall
into the same category, then I say, shame,
shame, shame. Because it is not so, Mr.
Chairman.
There are a lot of things, and if my hon.
friend wishes to come and see me after the
House adjourns, I will be more than happy
to whet his curiosity by showing him a lot of
material that I have at my disposal. Perhaps
he will not feel so eager to get up the next
time and praise the work that the department
is alleged to be doing at this particular insti-
tution.
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa): Would the
hon. member permit a question? Mr. Chair-
man, he made a big issue of how fair he
wanted to be. I would like to ask the ques-
tion: He has all sorts of affidavits from pris-
oners and ex-prisoners, I take it. Is that what
he was reading?
Mr. Ben: Yes, I was.
Mr. Walker: Has the hon. member made
any attempts whatever to get any type of
affidavit from guards or supervisors?
Mr. Ben: My people have spoken to quite
a number of guards and we have statements
from guards, too, for the hon. member's infor-
mation.
Mr. Walker: Why not read them in the
House, just as well as the statements and the
affidavits from the prisoners?
Mr. Ben: I am afraid to say they would be
just as damaging.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a comment on the issue that has been
raised by the hon. member for Bracondale
and I will go back for a couple of brief com-
ments on the observations of the hon. mem-
ber for Durham.
I suggest to the hon. Minister that if any
member of this Legislature — indeed, if any-
body — becomes persuaded and is able to
secure through sworn affidavits the allegations
that there has been brutality in any institu-
tion, it becomes an obligation— in the interest
of the running of these institutions— of the
powers-that-be to resolve this issue.
So that I can deal with it as dispassionately
as possible, let me go back to try to make my
1022
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
case in another context altogether. Many
hon. members of the House may well have
seen "This Hour has Seven Days" and its
portrayal of what goes on in Kingston peni-
tentiary, about two or three weeks ago. In
a subsequent programme, they brought Com-
missioner McLeod onto the programme and
they queried him with regard to the allega-
tions of brutality that went on in that insti-
tution.
Commissioner McLeod's comment was that
if there was an allegation on the part of any
prisoner that he has been treated in a brutal
fashion by a guard, this was investigated.
Then the query quite rightly was put to him
by the interrogator, "Well, who does the in-
vestigation? Is it done by somebody in the
institution or is it done by somebody who is
not involved on one side or another and
therefore conceivably is going to come up
with some objective assessment of the va-
lidity of it?"
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that with the kind
of evidence that has been presented in the
House here, if the hon. Minister really wants
to resolve this, if the Minister really wants
to find out, perhaps unbeknown to himself,
that brutality has been going on among his
staff— because this happens in institutions if
you have a staff who are of a grade 8 or
9 level of education, and I speak now in
an academic sense; sometimes people are
attracted to these positions because they have
sadistic tendencies, they like to exert author-
ity, and there are many books, many studies,
that indicate that this kind of thing happens
in institutions— I suggest that when the hon.
Minister is presented with evidence and sworn
affidavits, it is his responsibility to get to the
truth of the matter because he may discover
that more of it is going on than he thinks is
the case. I think it is in his interest to make
certain that it is not going on. That is all I
want to say about that.
I want to go back for a couple of brief
comments on the observations of the hon.
member for Durham. I was interested in his
assertion, which apparently is now not true,
namely, that Millbrook is an institution filled
with people who are misfits from other insti-
tutions and have been moved there because
they represented a serious behaviour problem
and were troublemakers in other institutions.
Mr. Chairman, historically the hon. mem-
ber is correct. Millbrook was built as a monu-
ment to the bankruptcy of this department in
earlier years. This department had so many
troublemakers in other institutions because of
their punitive approach, because of their com-
plete failure in rehabilitation, that they had
real problems. They had riots in Guelph;
every third or fourth year there was another
riot. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, they
thought, "Perhaps we are going to solve our
problem by getting the worst behaving in-
stances and cases in the other institutions out,
and we will put them all in one high-security
institution." And they built Millbrook as a
high-security institution, to which they could
bring all of the bad actors from other insti-
tutions.
That was the historical explanation given
to us in this House for the building of Mill-
brook in the first instance. It is interesting
that now apparently it is not true. One-third
of the people in Millbrook are there because
they were bad actors in other institutions and
were causing trouble. The other two-thirds
are in categories that are sent there directly,
because apparently the institution is being
used more and more for these specific pur-
poses—alcoholics, addicts and so on.
Mr. Ben: One-third are sent directly.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is still, then, liv-
ing up to little better than half of its his-
torical purpose, if I have the fractions now
correct.
But, Mr. Chairman, in my view— and I am
only expressing what many people said at
the time Millbrook was built— Millbrook was
a mistake. I think we were on the eve of a
report from Ottawa, the Fauteux commission
—indeed I think the Fauteux commission was
down, if my memory serves me correctly at
that point, and therefore if it were going to
be implemented, all of the longer sentences
would be separated out for high-security
incarceration under federal jurisdiction and
we in Ontario would have, in effect, the less-
than-six-months or short-term offenders treated
in provincial institutions.
I personally think it was a mistake that
Millbrook was built at that time. It was an
institution built for a bygone period, and if
Ottawa and Ontario could ever get together
and implement the Fauteux commission re-
port, then in my view Millbrook should be
handed over to the federal government. Mill-
brook is a high-security institution and it
would therefore be the kind of institution that
will be required for the kind of inmates they
are going to attempt to cope with. We will
be left with training schools and the short-
term offenders. That is the first observation I
v/anted to make on the comments of the hon.
member for Durham.
The second one is this question of putting
an institution in an isolated community. Un-
wittingly the hon. member for Durham may
MARCH 1, 1966
1023
well have proved once again that Millbrook
was a mistake. I am not persuaded that it is
•wise to put an institution of this nature out
in a rural community.
As a matter of fact, the hon. Minister
-earlier has indicated that they made a mis-
take when all of the hon. Cabniet Ministers
jumped up like jacks-in-the-boxes when we
had a crisis in Elliot Lake a few years ago.
They all came up with a solution, and in that
crash programme The Department of Reform
Institutions announced an institution in Elliot
Lake, which the hon. Minister says was a
mistake because they have not got the facili-
ties. So they have closed it down.
You may recall a year or so ago that quite
a storm broke all across the country with re-
gard to a federal government decision that
they were going to build a female institution
in Cornwall. What was the focus of the pro-
test, Mr. Chairman? It was that Cornwall,
if the hon. member from that area will not
he too shocked, was too isolated for this kind
of an institution.
Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Politics!
Mr. MacDonald: No, it was not politics.
A few minutes ago you had a colleague to
your right, who got up and extolled the
Elizabeth Fry society. The Elizabeth Fry
society quite rightly said that if you are going
to have a female institution that is going to
attempt intensive rehabilitative work it should
l>e close to universities and larger hospitals
which have large staffs of the various services
that are required on a part-time basis; be-
cause you cannot, in a relatively small insti-
tution, have a big staff of psychiatrists and
psychologists.
Mr. Villeneuve: The Hon. Lionel Chevrier
mentioned Cornwall could be a chosen area.
This was political only.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I am not sure what
the hon. gentleman said but let me not be
distracted from my point at the moment.
The point was made by professionals in the
picture, dispassionate observers of the scene,
that Cornwall was too isolated a community
—not in the sense that it was isolated like
Millbrook but that it was away from the faci-
lities and the modern disciplines that are re-
quired to do a job. I think, if you are going
to have a relatively small institution of 200 to
which you cannot attract these top disciplines
on a full-time basis, that inevitably it has got
to be close enough to universities and larger
hospitals which have psychiatrists and other
professional staff.
The reason why I said the hon. member
unwittingly proved the case that Millbrook
was a mistake was that I think it may also be
a mistake to put it in a small rural com-
munity. I grew up in a small rural community,
and I know that in a small rural community
everybody knows everybody's business down
to some of the most intimate details— much
more so than an individual getting lost in
a big metropolitan area. I can quite under-
stand that there may well be a good deal of
validity in the proposition of the hon. member
for Durham, that when these stories get out
—and there may be more truth in the stories
than we would like to believe— the children in
the school are going to say—
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): No
more than you want to believe.
Mr. MacDonald: —"Your father is involved
in this kind of thing." If you were living in
the city this kind of a problem would not be
eliminated completely but it would be less
likely to occur.
My conclusion on this point, with regard to
isolated communities, is that I think in the
future we should study the kind of comments
that were made in the proposal for an insti-
tution in Cornwall. We should study the
kind of experience we have had in institutions
like Millbrook, situated in a rural community;
and my guess at the moment is that we will
come to the conclusion that they should not
be placed there in the future.
Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Chairman, we could
debate this all afternoon and all day tomor-
row, but I wish to clarify my position in this
respect. It is a little different perhaps for
members in a large metropolitan area. Guards
at Millbrook reformatory are people I know,
and know personally; after all these are my
constituents. I know them, and I know the
part they are playing in the community. One
young man came to see me not long ago;
he was promoted steadily in that institution
and he only has a grade 9 education. His
personal attributes— understanding and sym-
pathy for the downtrodden— have given him
the opportunity to advance in penal reform.
The Peterborough Examiner said at the
top of its newspaper article that it had the
names of the officials who were connected
with these statements, and that Mr. Gross-
man had refused to allow them to be inter-
viewed. I commend the hon. Minister for
this, Mr. Chairman, because why should
these individuals— and perhaps I am biased
because I know them personally— have their
names dragged into the open theatre of
1024
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
public controversy when there is no justifica-
tion whatsoever for any misdoing on their
part? It has never been proven, outside of
affidavits from inmates. I have two articles
here, that I could quote, from the Port Hope
Evening Guide, of two court cases where
two of these inmates were brought up in
court and given consecutive terms— both
cases of assaulting officers in the Millbrook
reformatory. In one case, I understand, he
hit the guard over the head with a shovel.
I am well aware of another case, and this
was planned, where when the inmates were
let out of the cells, three consecutive cells,
each inmate hit the officer as he came out.
There is no opportunity for the guards to
take action outside of bringing them into
court, and they say to the custodial officer,
"Go ahead, take me into court, take me
into court," because they know, as I said in
the first part of my remarks, that they will
have the opportunity of going to Kingston.
I do not quarrel with the hon. member for
Bracondale. I appreciate his views and I
appreciate the fact, perhaps, that my infor-
mation is not correct with respect to the
inmates who have refused rehabilitation.
There may be cases, and this is not my
information, who are placed in Millbrook
who have not refused to take rehabilita-
tion. But his statement that I said that
these men were not willing to take rehabili-
tation is not correct.
I wish to repeat what I said. The resi-
dents of the institution are individuals who
refused rehabilitation in other centres. I may
be wrong, if your information is correct. I
stated all of them; there may be just two-
thirds of them. But I did say that they were
like children starting school; and, as a
teacher, I am well aware of the fact that
you must go back to the basic knowledge
that that child has, or that individual has,
and this I understand is the programme at
Millbrook.
This is why the operation of the Braille
shop and the operation of the marker plant
are designed to give them an idea of what
jobs really mean. I think if a person, an indi-
vidual, gets an idea of what a job is, and
has developed some sense of responsibility,
then he is in a better position to rehabili-
tate himself— and also the institution and
department are in a better position to do
something for him.
But I do wish to state that these custodial
officers are people of the Millbrook com-
munity, people for whom I have the highest
regard. Many of them are leaders in public
welfare programmes. You cannot make me
believe that these statements— I do not care
whether there are affidavits or not— are true
of individuals whom I meet in everyday
life and know personally well.
Mr. Ben: I will only take a second, Mr.
Chairman. I just want to correct a mis-
understanding, perhaps. I may have made
the statement that we have spoken to guards.
We have only spoken to ex-guards, because
of the oath of secrecy. There is only one
guard that we did speak to by telephone,
and when he stated he was still on staff that
was the end of the telephone conversation.
The people on staff take an oath of secrecy
and we have not spoken to any who are
presently on staff.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, first
I would not like to forget to thank the hon.
member for Victoria for having taken the
trouble of reading that very complimentary
bulletin from the Elizabeth Fry society. Hon.
members know that I would be much too
modest to read it myself, particularly since it
was suggested to me the other day that I
might have gotten someone else to read some
of the things I did read— although in this
particular instance, I can assure them that it
was entirely unsolicited.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Dur-
ham has shown, quite properly, a great con-
cern for his constituents and I want to
impress upon the hon. members the serious-
ness of his concern. I visited Millbrook last
week, because of the situation which was
developing insofar as the morale of the staff
is concerned. I would hope I could convince
the hon. members that this is not just a
point I am trying to make just for the sake of
making a point. They are undergoing what
is almost, in effect, a reign of terror. The
hon. member for Durham is quite correct. It
is a terrible situation.
The inmates, realizing all of this publicity
and all of this agitation is going on outside
the institution, are taking advantage of it.
They know perfectly well that staff is not
allowed to raise a hand to an inmate, except
with the necessary force required to subdue
any particularly vicious action or any unruly
action on the part of the inmates. Knowing
this, they needle the staff, and the staff was
very much incensed when I was there and
insisted that, in spite of the provocation,
this rule must be adhered to. I do not think
it takes too much imagination on the part
of the hon. members of this House to realize
what can happen in a penal institution when
such a situation occurs. And before any
hon. member of this House, or anybody,
MARCH 1, 1966
1025
makes any statements until they have been
satisfied that they are true, I think they
should consider this, because those state-
ments in fact are irresponsible until they
have been established as being factual. Be-
cause a tremendous amount of damage has
been done in the meantime, and this is what
is going on in Millbrook today.
I sympathize entirely with the hon. member
for that constituency because he, of course,
is the recipient of the complaints from the
people who work in Millbrook, the staff there,
who are going through these very trying
times.
Now the hon. member for Bracondale— I
think first we should explain to the hon. mem-
ber about the people who go to Mill-
brook. This has been said before, but I
think it is worth repeating: you have in
Millbrook the one real maximum security
institution in our whole system and I think
approximately three to five per cent of all
of those offenders in our institutions are in
Millbrook today.
These are the real bad actors, the real
tough customers, the wheels, the group one,
the men who will not behave themselves in
other institutions. They refuse to abide by
any regulations, do not care at all about
the privileges they are losing, and as a matter
of fact, in an effort to prove they are real
tough guys, want to show the other inmates
they do not give a hang about regulations
for staff or any of the privileges.
And : as the hon. member himself has
mentioned, and as anybody in this work
knows, some of them will deliberately act up,
to be able to go to Millbrook so that they can
act out the character of being a big shot
and a big wheel.
If we did not have Millbrook where it is,
we would have to have it some place else.
You have to have a maximum security in-
stitution, because if you leave these people
in the other institutions, no matter how well
you attempt to run them, they destroy your
rehabilitation efforts with the other inmates.
That seems to me to be fairly elementary.
Mr. MacDonald: Even after implementing
the Fauteux report?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is another matter
altogether, although I suppose even if we are
left with only the six month cases, you
would wind up with some people who even
though they are only serving six months, will
still be troublesome. They will abide by
no rules or regulations. Something else will
have to be done for them. You would have
to have a special institution for them.
But really, if we wait for the implementa-
tion of the Fauteux report, I think we may
all be old men. I hope not, but there does not
seem to be any real action in that respect.
However, there are approximately 100 in
the group one, that is, the behaviour problem
inmates. The others are drug addicts and
sex deviates.
Now the only reason the drug addicts and
the sex deviates are there is— well, it is
obvious about the drug addicts. You have got
to make sure that contraband is not as easily
available as it might be in some open in-
stitution.
Insofar as the sex deviates are concerned,
in most instances you have to have them in
the maximum security institutions for their
own protection, because there would be some
terrible situations in the other institutions if
you did not do that.
Insofar as treatment for the sex deviates
is concerned, as hon. members already know,
we have opened a clinic at Mimico and we
hope to be able to accomplish something by
way of curing some of these people. Hon.
members will note I said, I hope we will be
able to. This is a difficult area. Everyone
I am sure appreciates that. We do what we
can in that respect.
The hon. member for Bracondale, in spite
of his great deal of research, made some
statements which I think establish the fact
that his research leaves a great deal to be
desired. There are no alcoholics as such in
Millbrook. There are behaviour problems who
have in addition an alcohol problem, but
they are not there because they are alcoholics,
they are there because they are behaviour
problems.
Now, in any case, in some of the things
the hon. member for Bracondale brought up,
he skirts the question which the hon. member
for Durham has raised— the concern about
the charge that the staff at Millbrook in fact
are brutal. No amount of waffling is going
to get away from that. The charge is there,
whether the term applied is brutal or whether
it is something else which means the same
thing. As a matter of fact, in his maiden
speech in this House, he stated: "If I have
ever met anything as inhuman as this, short
of a way,"— I do not know what that means—
"I do not know where. These people were
trapped like rabbits in a dead end burrow
and for five days they got gas. Now is that
humane treatment?" he asks.
Now you cannot, on the one hand, surely,
Mr. Chairman, say that somebody is in-
humane and acting in an inhumane fashion
and is not brutal. You are saying exactly
1026
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the same thing. Now either they are guilty
of brutality or they are not. And, Mr.
Chairman, I deny that. Strongly and most
emphatically. The staff in our institutions do
not act in an inhumane or brutal fashion in
any way, shape or form.
Mr. MacDonald: Have you had an investi-
gation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well now, we will go
into that in a moment. You ask if we have
had an investigation. Mr. Chairman, again the
mention was made of the fact that we used
gas and the gas seeped into other cells of
people to whom it was not meant to apply.
Of course this will happen. But the amount
of harm done as a result was little.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. Did they use gas?
That is the question I would like answered.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did they use gas? Of
course they used gas. We have gone into
that before. Gas is the best way to control a
situation which may be getting out of hand
and it is the most humane way. It is better
than sending in burly guards, or anyone of
that nature, to beat people up, or use rifles
or shooting or anything of that nature.
Obviously, if you try to restrain them by
force, rather than gas, you are going to get
into more fights and then the charge will be
that our people are brutal. Because some-
body is going to get hurt. And if some-
body is going to get hurt, I would hope it
would not be the members of the staff.
If anybody is going to get hurt, if there
has to be someone hurt, in controlling any-
body by force, I would hope it would be the
inmate rather than the staff.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there was an implica-
tion that we only hired a psychologist. We
have had a full-time psychologist at Millbrook
for two years and he was there at the time.
He was there at the time of the riot.
Mr. Ben: A psychiatrist.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
have a difficult time getting psychiatrists— the
hon. member said "psychologist," as far as I
can recall.
He almost made the suggestion, for ex-
ample, that our people used tear gas on
someone who was "doing nothing really, ex-
cept lying on his bed." In fact, the state-
ment made was: "They used tear gas,
according to the inmate's statement, which
the hon. member read, "because he was doing
nothing except lying on his bed."
Surely, the hon. member does not believe
that our staff would inject gas into a cell
merely because the man was lying on his
bed? This is ridiculous! You could never get
anybody to believe that.
Now, insofar as the specific charges which
the hon. member has made, we have been
able to identify some of these cases by some
of the case histories that the hon. member
has brought out, and I will deal with these
when we come back at 8 o'clock.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour)
moves that the committee of supply rise and
report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
9, by Mr. J. P. Spence,
Resolved,
That, legislation be enacted to permit
school boards located in cash crop areas
of the province to extend the summer holi-
day for high school students by one week,
such week to be recovered during the
school year or at the beginning of the sum-
mer holidays in the following year, in order
to provide a maximum labour force for
farmers harvesting cash crops.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): I move, sec-
onded by Mr. Bukator, resolution No. 9
standing in my name which has just been
read.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution
is to help to overcome the shortage of a
select labour force in the harvesting of crops
in the province of Ontario. As you know, we
have had a shortage of experienced labour in
both 1964 and 1965 in harvesting cash crops
in the province of Ontario. This has resulted
in losses to many cash-crop farmers during
the past two years. This industry, I would
like to stress, Mr. Speaker, is a multimillion-
dollar one and is of crucial importance to the
economy of this province and of this country.
This year there were many articles in the
press about labour shortages in connection
with the automobile agreement of the United
MARCH 1, 1966
1027
States. New car-parts industries are being
located in our cities, towns and rural areas,
to which, Mr. Speaker, I have no objections
whatsoever. We are pleased to see them
develop there. The rates of wages paid by
these industries are considerably higher than
can be paid by the cash-crop farmers, because
the prices of their products are considerably
higher.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the cash-crop
farmer cannot afford to pay the wages indus-
tries are paying. Naturally the labour force
is going to work where it will receive the
highest rate of pay, which is only reasonable
for it to do. We do know that a great effort
has been made by the national employment
service and The Department of Agriculture,
over the past year, to improve the shortage.
Again this year, this will result in consider-
able loss to the cash-crop farmer, if there is
not more done.
Too often, valuable crops have rotted in
the ground because the farmer cannot get
sufficient labour. Many farmers want to know
this year, Mr. Speaker, before they plant then-
crops, whether or not they will be able to
hire experienced labour to harvest them. As
you know, it costs hundreds of thousands of
dollars to grow these crops and if the farmer
has no assurance that he can hire experienced
help, then he is going to think twice before
planting. He does not want to suffer another
financial loss.
Many high school students have worked in
the harvesting of cash crops. They have
proved to be very satisfactory. I know of a
cash-crop farmer who this past year employed
only high school students, but when the
school term opened, they all returned to
school and this left the farmer with a portion
of his crops not harvested. So while the
farmer found high school students very good
workers, he still suffered losses because they
had to return to school before the completion
of the harvest.
After the students returned to school, the
farmer had to try to secure other workers,
but this was impossible to do because there
was no supply of labour available. This re-
sulted in further losses.
The first consideration of the farmer, of
course, Mr. Speaker, is his home. He dislikes
keeping the young men and women out of
school in order to help with the harvest, but
he is forced to do this because he does not
want his losses to mount. As it is, with the
vast shortage of experienced labour, his
losses are great indeed.
As I said, cash-crop farmers face a labour
famine for the third time this year. These
conditions, obviously, will boost the prices
of cash crops— tomatoes, corn, fruit, onions,
spinach and other vegetables— to the con-
sumer right across the province of Ontario.
We may be forced, Mr. Speaker, if these
conditions continue to exist, to import more
of these products which will, again, increase
the cost to the housewife and which will add
another increase in prices to the homeowner.
Many of our high school students work
during the summer in cash-crop farming to
earn their spending money. If they do not
work their parents have to supply them with
this money. With the serious shortage of
experienced farm help, these students could
earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more
by the extension of the holidays by one week.
This would mean a great deal to their par-
ents; this would certainly help the cash-crop
farmer, and, Mr. Speaker, if he cannot get
labour, he is just not going to grow these
crops.
Let us not forget that food is essential and
if we do not grow these crops ourselves, we
will have to import them, which will cer-
tainly be a blow to our economy and a hard-
ship on the housewife and the homeowner,
who find the cost of the products high as it
is.
I hope that this Legislature will give con-
sideration to this resolution. It leaves some
discretion in the hands of the school boards
in the cash-crop areas. If there was a short-
age of experienced labour, the boards could
extend the holiday season by one week, and
the time would be made up at the end of the
school term so as not to lose any school time.
There is no reason why all of the children
in the province must have the same holidays
as those in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I was told by some mothers
and fathers that they were very concerned
about keeping their sons and daughters home
from high school to complete the cash-crop
harvest. They went to see the principals in
some areas and asked them to give some
consideration to have the school do review
work the first week, so that their sons and
daughters who had to stay home for the
harvest would not get behind, grow dis-
couraged and become some of those dropouts
of whom we have heard so much over the
past number of years in this Legislature.
This is one reason for placing this resolu-
tion on the order paper. I want to make it
perfectly clear that I am in favour of the
best possible education for every boy and
girl in this province and I would not have
any part in depriving any high school student
1028
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of an education in any way. This resolution
means that no school time will be lost, Mr.
Speaker; the extra week of holidays will be
made up during the school term or at the end
of the school year.
The decision on holidays is left in the
hands of the district high school boards be-
cause they know local conditions best.
One more point, Mr. Speaker, is that in
this day a high school student has to have
pocket money to attend high school. He has
to buy many more things than when I
attended high school.
In conclusion let me say we must make
sure the economy is bolstered rather than
dealt another blow. I sincerely hope that
this government will give favourable consid-
eration to this resolution, as the future hap-
piness of thousands could be affected.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there are so many factors involved
in the issue that the hon. member has raised
in this resolution that I must frankly say at
the outset that I have not got them reconciled
in my mind. I look forward to what other
hon. members in the House will have to say
in this debate to see if we can get some re-
solving of them.
I think there are two basic factors which
have to be balanced. On the one hand there
is the educational need of the young people
and on the other one there are the labour
needs in the cash-crop area. I would concede
immediately to the hon. gentleman who has
just spoken that the problem faced by the
cash-crop farmers is an increasingly difficult
one. I wonder, however, whether we have
explored, as fully as possible, alternative solu-
tions to this. There is no doubt that the
reason it has been difficult to get labour for
the cash crops has been partly, in the past,
because of the low wage offered. Therefore
the difficulty in competing in a labour market,
particularly if that labour market is one in
which job opportunities are much greater
elsewhere, is one aspect of this phase of the
subject.
There is also another one— a few years ago,
a great deal of concern emerged in church
circles, in press circles— I can remember the
Toronto Telegram carrying a series of
articles with regard to the conditions of
workers who came in for a short period of
time during the harvesting of the crop in
the tobacco area. Conditions were such that
these responsible people became disturbed
and were voicing protests to the govern-
ment and asking that something should be
done about it. There were proposals for a
number of things, such as temporary hous-
ing facilities, which would make it attractive
for workers.
I do not think that we in this House have
considered these other aspects of how you
might meet the market supply without the
necessary threat of encroaching on the edu-
cational needs of the young people. Cer-
tainly, since that protest some two or three
years ago, we have had no further discussion
in the House and I think it would be in-
teresting to have a report from the hon.
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree) or the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) as
to whether they feel they have gone as far
as they can in this particular direction.
Without any hesitation I would say this,
Mr. Speaker: If I have to choose between
meeting the needs of any industry, even as
important an industry as the cash-crops
industry, and making certain that I am not
seriously endangering the educational needs
of the young people, I know what my choice
would be— namely, there would be no en-
dangering of the educational needs of the
young people. In fact, it is that which makes
me wonder, without coming to any final
conclusion at the moment, as to the alterna-
tives that the hon. member has suggested in
advancing this resolution.
He says, for example, that you could catch
up on lost time later in the school year. Now,
having taught school more years ago than I
care to confess, I think this is rather difficult
to fit in. At the end of the term I think there
are equal difficulties. I do not think it is a
case just of posing rural children vis-a-vis
metropolitan area children.
It seems to me, when you get into big
district high schools, that your big district
high schools operate like a metropolitan
school to a very great extent. They have got
their own schedules; those schedules are
dovetailed with the schedules that have to
be laid down for examinations in certain
grades— certainly in grade 13. And whether
or not it is a practical proposition to say that
in one school, because some of the students
are needed in the cash-crop industry, that
you can rearrange the schedules of the whole
student body and take a week at the be-
ginning of the school year and put it at the
end, I just am not certain.
Quite frankly I have some grave doubts,
and I would like to have the comments of
people in The Department of Education and,
indeed, some of the comments of people in
the educational field whose first concern
would be the education of the children-
even out in the district high schools, out in
MARCH 1, 1966
1029
that area— before I would come to a final
conclusion on that.
My basic point, Mr. Speaker, is that I
think we have got to go carefully on this
proposition of encroaching, for a variety of
reasons, more and more on the school year.
I think I am correct in stating that the
general consensus is that, if anything, our
school year is not long enough. Certainly
I am constantly running into people who say
that the summer holiday is unnecessarily
long. If you want to look into the studies of
children, for example, in Soviet Russia and
some of the other countries of the world
whose educational systems presumably are
more effective, you will find that their school
year certainly is not for ten months of the
year or nine-and-a-half months of the year;
it goes on for ten-and-a-half or eleven
months of the year. In short, I think there
is considerable validity in the proposition
that our school year, if anything, is too short
already.
You have here a proposition that we
should take off a week to meet the cash-
crops requirements. I was interested in
reading the report that was prepared by the
Ontario economic council on Ontario's tourist
industry, to find that among the recom-
mendations there is a recommendation that
schools in Ontario should open the second
day after Labour Day, not the first day after
Labour Day, the reason being that this
would extend the tourist season for another
week. The concluding part of the recom-
mendation is that high school principals have
agreed that little, if any, educational benefits
would be lost by one day later opening— but
have openly confessed that they were re-
luctant to support it because the public and
school board members might feel that they
were merely trying to reduce their own work-
load.
Well, quite apart from whether or not that
is a valid argument, here you have the tourist
industry wanting to pick off a day or so
there; the cash-crop industry wants to pick
off a week here. What are we going to have
left— and in an educational year that is
already too short?
In brief, Mr. Speaker, I sit down and look
forward to what other hon. members have to
say— I may have to read it because I shall
have to leave for another engagement shortly.
I am open-minded on this issue, although I
tend to regard it with some doubt.
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I want to commend my
hon. colleague from the eastern part of the
great county of Kent for his interest in this
matter.
I think my first observation would be this:
Perhaps he has exaggerated the problem
somewhat, insofar as last fall was concerned.
My observation, and particularly with regard
to tomatoes, would be that most of the toma-
toes, if not all, were taken off. I am not
minimizing the problem— I think it is going
to be more serious this year and I will
develop that particular line of my thinking—
but I think perhaps it was exaggerated a little
bit last fall.
Having said that, I would agree most
wholeheartedly that we are facing a serious
problem. Agriculture in Kent county is an
$80-million industry. It is a very important
industry. And it obviously provides a liveli-
hood for a great number of people, and repre-
sents a very large investment, and one in
which we, as members of this Legisla-
ture, have a large interest.
I think the hon. member for Kent East
pointed out that he made representation—
perhaps he did not point this out— but he
made representation to the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) last August for a
week's extension, and the hon. Minister of
Education turned this proposal down. Now
I am not a farmer in any sense of the word,
Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to represent
a number of the members of the farming
community, and I lean rather heavily on the
advice which is so freely given by members
of the press from time to time and by mem-
bers of the farming community to the press;
and I was interested at that time to read an
article in the Chatham News after the hon.
member for Kent East had made this recom-
mendation to the hon. Minister of Education.
Written in the Chatham paper on the farm
page— it is a very excellent page which ap-
pears weekly— by the full-time agricultural
writer of the Chatham News, was this, quoted
in part:
If a tomato or tobacco farmer is just now
realizing—
the date of this was September 3:
—is just now realizing, after the start of
high school next week, that he will be
faced with a shortage of labour, then we
say it is his problem. Surely farmers in
Kent and Essex counties realize by now
that the school year always commences
shortly after Labour Day. Agricultural offi-
cials early this spring have been emphasiz-
ing a need to plan in advance their labour
requirements. The national employment
service have gone to great lengths to sup-
ply requests and still the big screech has
1030
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
gone up this week by some absent-minded
country cousins who claim their crops will
rot on the land if students are not granted
extra time off to help with the harvest.
The Department of Education officials in
Toronto have refused the request by John
Spence of Muirkirk for a week's delay in
starting the school year in Kent and Essex.
They claim the school year is fixed by The
Department of Education Act and there-
fore it cannot be changed by the Legisla-
ture when it is not in session. One official
said a similar request for a deferral had
been received from a school in Delhi but
was turned down for the same reason.
And this, I think, is the interesting part:
We are in total agreement with Richard
Whittington, chairman of the Chatham
board of education—
which includes a number of rural students;
I think something like a third of the high
school students in Chatham come from the
rural areas:
—who claims schools should commence on
the date set down in The Education Act
unless there is a real emergency, such as
war. In our opinion, we can't see how any-
one could consider an emergency the fact
that students will have to turn from farm
work to school work next week. Again we
repeat that those farmers that will be left
holding the bag have no one to blame but
themselves. It will, perhaps, be a good
lesson for them.
Now I do not altogether agree with all those
sentiments. I think he was a little bit hard
on some members of the farming community
in it, but I must say that I agree with the
proposition enunciated by the chairman of
the Chatham board of education that school
hours and school time of starting should not
be meddled with.
I think my colleague, the hon. member for
Kent East has overlooked one factor. He
says extend the term. Well, he is as well
aware as I am that in June and July the
farmers in Kent county are looking and look-
ing very hard for people to pick strawberries,
they are looking for people to cut asparagus,
and I would say we may solve one problem
but you are only going to create another
problem at the other end.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Pretty soon
the hon. member will want to cut a week
off each end.
Mr. McKeough: That is right, that is ex-
actly my fear and I think it is the fear of
your hon. leader. I think, Mr. Speaker,
like the hon. member for York South,
that there are other solutions. And I think
those other solutions should be explored. I
said that we should not meddle with hours
or time, and I really meant dates rather
than hours of the day because I do not want
to— and I am sure the hon. member for Kent
East and the hon. member for Essex South
(Mr. Paterson) does not want to— get into
any sort of a discussion at any length about
daylight saving time. If there is one subject
which politicians try to avoid in south-
western Ontario it is daylight saving time. It
has been a bugaboo for a number of years.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Why?
Mr. McKeough: That is a good question:
why? However, it was interesting this year
after this matter had been raised, and raised
by the hon. member for Kent East, that the
president of the federation of agriculture in
Kent county came out and endorsed the ex-
tension of daylight saving time to the end of
October, which is the way the rest of the
world has daylight saving. In Kent county
we have done it on a little different basis
and sometimes end it on Labour Day. But
he favoured daylight saving time and he did
so because he pointed out that there were
a number of high school students who then
had another hour of daylight to work after
4.00 or after 3.30 in the fields and they took
off, in his opinion, a great number of toma-
toes during those hours after school hours.
This is perhaps one solution. I do not
want to be quoted as saying, and I do not
want it to be suggested, that I am recom-
mending to the good people of Kent county
or Essex that perhaps we should go on
double daylight saving time, but it is a
solution, a partial solution.
The hon. member for York South men-
tioned conditions and I do not know that
much about the tobacco area. But I do know
in our own area in Essex and Kent there
has been a great increase in the conditions
provided for itinerant workers.
The canning companies, most of them,
have provided really quite good accommo-
dation for people who come in and I do
not think that is the problem that it once
was. However, I think that there is close
co-operation between the marketing boards,
the fruit and vegetable marketing boards,
between the local agricultural representatives
and between the national employment serv-
ice. I think that this co-operation can be
improved and I think it will have to be im-
proved.
MARCH 1, 1966
1031
We have had a considerable amount of
success in Kent county in bringing in some
of our Indian citizens to work in farm labour
and in the canning factories. In some cases
this has worked well. In other cases, for
example, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr.
Welch) tells me that it does not work well
in Lincoln. But I think this is something
that we have to work with and continue to
work with, perhaps with refinements in con-
ditions, refinements on who is brought in
—by the national employment service.
I do not say this critically— I think if some-
body in the Maritimes said that they were
unemployed and they would like to work in
southwestern Ontario, I believe they have
been put on a bus or a train and sent to
southwestern Ontario.
Many of them have ended up going right
on back because they have been laid off and
they just have not been up to the work in the
plants. It is not just on the farms. As my
hon. friend knows; the factories have a prob-
lem at this time of the year, and these people
have not been up to physically working in
the plants. I think perhaps the national
employment service has to refine its thoughts
in this area and not just send in people just
because they are unemployed in some other
part of our country.
I think really one of the best solutions to
this problem is the use of offshore labour. I
attended a meeting last year with our own
officials in the department, which was
arranged by the hon. member for Lincoln;
the hon. member for Essex South was there
as were the fruit and vegetable people from
the Niagara peninsula and they were most
keen. They were here in these buildings to
ask the support of the hon. members and
the hon. Minister in particular that people
should be brought in from Jamaica. They
were willing to come in. And I think, mind
you, this is a two-way street.
Not only are we providing farm labour
but by bringing in people from Jamaica, who
presumably will be from farms, many of
those people are going to go back to Jamaica,
or wherever these areas may be. If we can
bring them in and teach them something
about how we farm— and we obviously farm
at a very high level— then I think we have
accomplished something and not only just
looked after our own labour problems.
As the hon. member for Essex South well
knows, the federal Minister of Immigration
said "no" and so no offshore labour was
brought in.
Now the hon. member for Essex South
and the hon. member for Kent East are
somewhat closer to the hon. Minister of
Immigration than I am and perhaps they
can prevail on him to seek a solution to
the problem of farm labour through this
avenue.
I think we are going to hear talk in this
Legislature not only during this session but
for the next several sessions, not only about
the shortage of labour on farms, but about
shortage of labour generally in this province
and we have now less than 3 per cent un-
employment.
My colleague, the hon. member for Kent
East, pointed out that we have new indus-
tries. I would just say this; in the city of
Chatham with a population of 31,000 people,
there have been three new industries which
have broken ground in the last six months
and they will employ over 1,000 people. I
do not know where these people are going
to come from.
Really we are on the outskirts and will
certainly be affected by the Ford plant at
Talbotville. Where these people are going to
come from I do not know. I suspect many of
them are going to come from the existing
small farm labour force.
I suppose I could say that this problem, the
shortage of farm labour, is no more than
the shortage in other areas. I am not sure
whether it is or not. I think we must bear in
mind that we do have this low rate of un-
employment in Ontario and this is un-
doubtedly indicative and a result of the good
government which we enjoy in this province.
An hon. member: Give credit to Ottawa.
Mr. McKeough: My hon. friends over here
say to give credit to Ottawa. Well, certainly
credit is due to Ottawa, but we must point
out that the combination of Ottawa and good
government here has produced the lowest
rate in this province, not in some of the other
provinces.
I just want to make one further point because
I think this is part of the problem. My hon.
friend from York South mentions farm wages,
and certainly at one point they were low.
But I think there is a misconception in some
areas about some types of farm labour, and
my hon. friends from Essex South and Kent
East know this, that a good tomato picker
for example— and this is back-breaking work
—but a good tomato picker will make $35 and
$40 a day. These have to be people who are
prepared to work hard and who have had
experience. But there is somewhat of a mis-
conception that farm labour is all paid at a
low rate and that the conditions are all poor.
1032
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not think this is as true now as it once
was.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): How
long is a day?
Mr. McKcough: It is a long day— eight and
ten hours— and I would agree it is a long day.
They will probably work six and seven
days a week in that period.
Let me just make one further point. The
hon. member for Kent East says he is worried.
He ended up on these remarks and perhaps
I am paraphrasing him, but he expressed
the thought that if high school students
were not released— and I may be jumping
over some of his points— it could only lead to
higher farm prices to the consumer.
I say to my hon. friend and I say to
the hon. members of the House that perhaps
we have to think in terms of farm prices
going a little bit higher so that farmers
can pay more to solve their labour problems.
I for one think that we as members of this
House should not just advocate $4 milk; we
have got to be prepared to say we are pre-
pared to pay for the price of $4 milk.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): This is
Cabinet material.
Mr. McKeough: Oh, yes! thank you.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would just
say this. I do not think that this is really
a very satisfactory solution to the problem.
I think there are other answers which are
better. I hope they will be explored by the
appropriate officials of this government and
of the government of Canada, and I would
urge therefore that hon. members of the
House vote against this resolution. I do so
with regret since its proposer is from my
neighbouring riding.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support the resolution
that was introduced by the hon. member for
Kent East, I would first like to pass a com-
ment on the remarks of the hon. leader of
the socialist party (Mr. MacDonald).
The hon. member for Kent West has told
some of his fears regarding low wages. I have
here an advertisement from the national
employment service, which says: "Students
and housewives, you can earn up to $30 this
weekend picking tomatoes." This is certainly
true. I know in my own riding people earn as
much as $45 a day picking these tomatoes on
a piecework basis. These are experienced
pickers.
To echo the words of the hon. member
for Kent East, certainly we do not want to
endanger our system of education and the
education of our students.
I think the hon. leader of the socialist
group touched on something but did not take
the final step forward. I am not an expert
on educational matters, but I just wonder if
we should not change our thinking, get our
thinking into the space age. We do not have
to operate our schools necessarily during
the set ten months of the year. We do not
have to operate them on the set hours per
day. Certainly we could extend the number
of school hours during the day and pick up
the lost time as—
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): That
just shows how much the hon. member
knows about handling children in school, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, well, this is fine. We
certainly can. It is done in other jurisdictions.
The hon. leader of the third party also
mentioned the economic report on the tourist
industry. This matter is very vital to this in-
dustry. Certainly industry takes its holidays
all at one period and overloads our limited
facilities. Surely I think there could be an
economic study done by The Department of
Economics and Development on this prob-
lem, into what this would mean to our prov-
ince should education be set up in regions, or
by staggering the school term, and similarly
for industry. I think that these things are
things we should face and think out.
It is my understanding, as underlined by
the hon. member for Kent West, that the
school year is fixed by The Department of
Education Act. I think this is the reason why
the hon. member for Kent East introduced
this resolution because the terms cannot be
changed except by the Legislature. The main
reason for asking support is certainly the
great shortage of experienced farm labour
that exists in our province and especially in
the counties of Kent and Essex.
Basically I am appealing for this farm help
to assist one particular crop, a most important
crop in our economy— the tomato. About 85
per cent of Ontario's production of processing
tomatoes comes from this area. The peak of
production usually comes about the week
after students return to their studies. The
hon. member for Kent West thinks the hon.
member for Kent East has exaggerated this
problem, but it is certainly not exaggerated
in view of the problem we had in Essex
county this past year.
Certainly these farmers must get these
tomatoes and other crops off the field in order
to pay their taxes which support education,
MARCH 1, 1966
1033
and this is in the back of the thinking of
many of these farmers.
The picking of the tomato crops of Essex
and Kent counties requires over one million
hours of hand labour in the space of a very
few weeks. Acreage of this crop could be
curtailed and at the present time it is not
even being harvested to its fullest potential.
Just one more week in the fields by several
hundred students would have a great impact
on the production of this one commodity in
the province.
Discussions by one area school board in
Essex county— and I might say Essex county
stays on standard time the year around-
centred on the starting of school classes
earlier in the day, which would allow large
groups of students to be made available early
in the afternoon to work several hours pick-
ing this particular crop. This plan was re-
jected by the board as there were very many
complications, such as bus servicing and so
forth.
Last year in April the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
announced a study of the economic resources
of the St. Clair region would be made. I
asked him at this time if studies would
be included in regard to the economic effect
on Essex county in the fact that it stays on
standard time. I believe his answer was
negative, but I feel that this is most impor-
tant, and concurring with the view of the
hon. member for Kent West possibly these
areas should be on daylight time or even
double daylight time.
There could be great economic benefits
from this. Certainly it should be standardized
—where it is on daylight time— with the rest
of the province. I certainly think in my own
mind that daylight saving time in Essex
county might be part of the answer to our
serious labour problems and I do hope that
the hon. Minister of Economics and Devel-
opment will look into this matter and come
up with some suggested proofs on the eco-
nomic benefits.
The hon. member for Kent West men-
tioned the problem of students in the spring
of the year. To the best of my knowledge,
"A" students are allowed out of school
on roughly June 1, they do not attend school
for approximately four to five weeks. Appar-
ently this does not have any effects on their
scholastic training and The Department of
Education thinks that this is quite satisfactory.
Certainly during the spring of the year,
help from students is a great asset because
they already have their room and board and
they do not pose a problem in this regard.
For one acre of lettuce to be planted and
brought into harvest requires 439 hours of
hand labour, plus another 103 hours of trac-
tor work. This pinpoints that there is an
area where these students can play a great
role.
I think there is a principle here that could
possibly be laid over into the September
areas. Could not a portion of these "A"
students be allocated to an extra week's time,
Mr. Speaker, should they wish to work on
farm service?
In my time, and I imagine that of other
hon. members of this House, during war years
we worked on farms in farm service. I know
I was out from May right through to the end
of the harvest. I was fortunate enough to get
through university and am here in the House
today. I do not think it has cramped my
education. "A" students certainly should be
given every encouragement to get into agri-
culture and learn the problems of agriculture
and help in the economics of the agricultural
community.
I think it is up to The Department of Edu-
cation and our school boards in these cash-
crop areas to encourage these top academic
students and other students during the sum-
mer months to get out and work on the farms
and help the farmers. They can start early
in the spring term on the weekends, or if
they are "A" students they can get out and
work the whole week and work right through
the summer, becoming hardened and acclima-
tized to the hard work of farming.
Some further thought should be given to
this resolution of allowing at least a portion
of these students who are willing and able
to work on these farms to take at least a
week and help with this tomato harvest and
other cash-crop harvests. I certainly think
something can be worked out and I have
nO hesitation whatsoever in supporting this
resolution.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, I will be very
brief because I am not close to the problem.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if it was a
case of this resolution coming to a vote I
have not at this point made up my mind how
I would vote on it.
I feel that if the problem as put forward
by the mover of the resolution is as serious
as he feels it is, then this is the wrong way
to approach it. This is a resolution that
tends to take care of a problem in a section
of the province in regard to the farming com-
munity, and surely this problem has been
with us for many years. We have had a
serious problem in regard to farm labour.
1034
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The reasons for it are given as: finding experi-
enced people and being able to pay the kind
of money that people expect today.
I would first say that the spokesman from
the government side, the hon. member for
Kent West, has not indicated in his opinion
that the problem is as serious as one might
think it is. He gave a very brief idea of
what the solution might be, and that would
be to charge more for the commodity. In this
sense I can agree with him. Certainly, if
you have to pay something, if you have a
charge for doing work and you have to pay
that cost out of your commodity, then you
have to have enough return to make it
profitable.
But I would have thought that, with the
interest of The Department of Labour, and
certainly there should be a great interest
from The Department of Agriculture in re-
gard to this problem, they could have gotten
together over the years and come up with
a sound solution. I do not think it should
be left entirely to the farmers who are
affected by this problem: that is, shortage of
bodies to do the work, and lack of enough
money to pay for the work performed. So I
would think that this resolution will not
rectify the problem. I think it seems to be a
resolution that has some political connotation
to it.
I would have thought instead, that if the
problem is going to be as serious as we
understand it might be, then it would be
necessary for the farm representatives— The
Department of Agriculture— in the area to
get together with The Department of Labour,
and The Department of Education, if they
felt that the substance of the resolution had
merits, to see whether something could be
worked out.
I would recommend that it should be a
responsibility of The Department of Agri-
culture in the province to do its utmost to
find a solution. Certainly I think that what
we have to do, if we are going to first find
the experienced people— and it is going to be
a tough job to get people experienced enough
to perform the kind of work expected by the
farmer— is to find out what is a decent rate
of pay. Certainly if, as I have mentioned,
they have to have returns for their commodity
and they have to pay for the work performed,
The Department of Agriculture should in-
vestigate and study the relationship between
the price the farmer is receiving for his
commodity, who is getting the profit out of
the crop, and what could be paid on a fair
basis for labour.
If it is necessary to increase the price of
the commodity, so much the good. And I
think the public in Ontario would understand
why the commodity has gone up in price,
if it knew the farmer was getting a fair share
and that the labourer who was doing the
work was also getting paid a decent pay.
I do not think we can rely on the students
from the high schools to rectify this growing
situation. We have the situation with us to-
day, as we had one, two, three, four and
five years ago— it was not as bad five years
ago because there was a surplus of bodies to
put into the area to do the work. But then
again they were not getting suitable people
and, of course, in the opinion of many,
they were not paying proper wages.
I think it takes a lot of co-operation be-
tween all of the people involved to really
come up with a solution to this problem.
First study whether there can be a justified
increase in the cost of the commodity, then
educate the public to the necessity for it.
The Department of Agriculture and The
Department of Labour should try to find a
continuing solution to the problem so that
each year we will know that we have
trained people, experienced people, that they
will be getting properly paid, and that the
farmer also will be getting a fair share for his
commodity. I think we have got to get away
from depending on the students and casual
transient help to do this kind of work.
Mr. R. D. Rowe (Northumberland): Mr.
Speaker, as a small voice from the east
among all these previous speakers, mostly
from western Ontario, I would like to say just
a few words about this resolution No. 9 on
the order paper, standing in the name of the
hon. member for Kent East. I realize there
are many sides to this proposition and per-
haps enough study has not been given to
this, as suggested by the hon. member for
York South.
At first glance, Mr. Speaker, this resolu-
tion might seem to meet a requirement that
admittedly occurs only occasionally. How-
ever, when one gets down to studying and
considering its practicality I have a great
doubt as to its real necessity. I can see that,
occasionally, a quirk of our weather might
delay the normal cash-crop season to where
an extra week of school help might be worth
while; but, by and large, what percentage
out of the secondary school people are
actually involved and what real effect would
it have on the total crop?
In our own area, I know, in relation to the
total school enrolment that the number in-
volved is comparatively small. This, ad-
MARCH 1, 1966
1035
mittedly, could be larger in other areas. But,
should the whole school population be
required to postpone returning to classes and
get their entire programme out of line with
their regular schedules? I think not. There
will be several students anyway who, due to
special circumstances, will remain out of
school to help at home, or even at the
neighbours for whatever time is necessary. I
contend that it is up to these people to catch
up with their own studies.
Speaking as a former teacher and realizing
that juggling of days and schedules and so
on never really works out, and never really
makes up for the lost time, even by adding
days on at the end, I question the value of
this arrangement. I think, if legislation were
passed permitting this one juggling of our
school timetable, a good case could be had
for almost any reason. In actual fact, as
indicated by the hon. member for York
South, there is now a pressure by certain
groups to delay the opening of all classes for
one day— yes, and I have even heard one
week— to allow people to return leisurely
from the Labour Day weekend. It might, of
course, lessen the traffic for that particular
weekend, but I think that any principal or
any teacher would see this as a further erod-
ing of the time left for classes, and surely,
Mr. Speaker, with the workload as heavy as
it is in our schools now, especially in the
senior classes who would be most affected,
further time should not be lost.
I have great sympathy with the farmer
who might occasionally be caught in this
predicament, where a few more hours of
schoolboy or schoolgirl help might be use-
ful, but I do not feel that it is necessary
to enact the legislation required for this.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support
resolution No. 9. Thank you.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, until about 30
seconds ago, I did not intend to get into
this debate, but I think I have found where
the problem lies. And I think it lies in Ottawa
with that Liberal government.
They have always called this province in
the Dominion of Canada, trouble. It seems
that every time they are in power, we are
short of labour. Everybody is working. On
three occasions in the Conservative era, we
had a depression. And remember the last
time they elected John Diefenbaker and his
boys? You would have had a lot of people
to pick your tomatoes. Not only to pick them
for nothing, but to eat them. They had a
depression. I think maybe what we ought to
do is persuade the people in Ottawa to call
an election, because if it happened now I
would assure you that the Conservatives, if
they took over, in six months time we would
have a depression and everybody could
pick potatoes and tomatoes.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member to
discuss the merits of the resolution.
Mr. Bukator: The point I wanted to make,
Mr. Speaker, was that a school teacher is
sitting to my right and I am not going to
mention his name. They take off time for
track, they take off time for football, they
take time to come here to see the Legislature
in action. At least they come here and
have their member speaker talk to them.
I do not know whether they gain any points
there, but at least the hon. member talks to
the school teacher and the schoolchildren
here. They have all kinds of time off. Yes, if
the football game is important, they take that
day off. And it would appear to me that my
colleague did not say that we should shorten
the school term, he said they could make
that time up. No problems whatsover, they
could still continue.
And finally, I agree with the hon. mem-
ber's colleague who spoke after him, from
Kent West. He said it is about time that you
consider daylight saving time and it was this
House which refused to bring that about
when our friend Maurice Belanger had a
resolution on the books.
If you remember, he said that they should
standardize and have daylight saving time
in that particular area also. Now the pen-
dulum has swung a little too far the other
way. He is going to give you a double dose
of daylight saving time. There is never a
happy medium. But I can say, because my
hon. friend who presented the resolution is
such a sincere and honest man and he knows
the problem in that area, this House has no
alternative. Hon. members must help support
his resolution. There is no way out. The
man is honest, he means well and it is good
business.
Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton East): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
take part in this debate. As you know, I
represent the county of Lambton and a
portion of the county of Kent. This is part
of the great cash-crop area of the province
of Ontario. Tomatoes, carrots, onions, pota-
toes, it all takes a great deal of help. The
beans also. But we can harvest them in a
lot greater quantity a lot faster.
Mr. Speaker, coming from that great
area, I am one who cannot support this
resolution 100 per cent. Our farm boys in
1036
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lambton and Kent counties are in need of
their education. We are a growing area. We
have industries that require these men. The
farms also require them. But my own
personal feeling in this regard is that we
should petition that great government of
Canada to increase the prices of our farm
supplies that the farmers of Ontario might
be able to compete with the construction
industry of Ontario.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): The farm products, not supplies.
Mr. Henderson: The farm products, I am
sorry. That they increase these prices that
our farmers might be able to compete with
the construction industry in wages. In my
area, which is very close to the hon. member
for Kent East, we border one another, to-
bacco is grown, which requires a great
amount of hand work. Tomatoes are grown.
We also have the other crops which are
harvested with great large machines and I
would like to add that the hon. member for
Kent East, like myself, was raised on a
farm. He realizes that a farm boy cannot
be replaced by a boy from the town. How-
ever, a farmer is always happy to take the
boy from the town and help give him some
experience.
Mr. Speaker: Is the member finished?
Mr. Henderson: Yes.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m.
recess.
the House took
No. 35
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Mates
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, concluded 1039
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton 1055
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 1066
1039
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, March 1, 1966
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The 25th order, House
in committee of supply; Mr. L. M. Reilly
in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(continued)
One vote 1903:
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Chairman, I hope that it is
not necessary for me to say so, but I am
going to repeat it anyway: I take second
place to nobody, but nobody, in my desire to
have a humanitarian policy— and I am sure
that I speak for my staff as well— and I am
sure that hon. members of this House are, at
least, firmly convinced that this is my desire.
I am always concerned at any suggestion of
brutality within our institutions and, no mat-
ter from what source information comes in
this respect, every report is fully investigated.
If there should be any evidence of undue
force on the part of members of my staff, the
offender knows that he will be dismissed
instantly.
There are two reasons why we in this de-
partment feel strongly about this: One is that,
in the rehabilitation process, one must never
adopt the behaviour patterns of those being
dealt with; the other reason is that, in insti-
tutions dealing with inmates who often have
patterns of violence, one must keep very
strict regulations to ensure that when force
must, of necessity, be used, it never oversteps
the point of restraint. Otherwise, it could
easily spiral.
With reference to the two points I have just
mentioned, we have had, in recent months,
two cases of members of staff resigning soon
after appointment because they realized that
they could not continue with this work, main-
taining discipline in the face of so many in-
citements by the inmates to physical force.
Further, in another case, I was convinced that
a member of our staff, who had slapped a
prisoner, had breached our rules in this re-
spect. Incidentally, this was not at Millbrook.
He was dismissed and I was really sorry for
that member of the staff, because he had a
very good record with the department; and
it was my view, after having investigated the
matter, that he had really had to contend
with a tremendous amount of irritation and
provocation on the part of a particular in-
mate. However, in consultation with my staff,
we decided that, in the interest of keeping
our policy intact, he had to be dismissed.
Now this member of the staff whom we
dismissed, went before the grievance board in
an effort to place his case. A full inquiry was
held by the grievance board and they re-
instated him. I am only pointing out these
examples to show that we are prepared to
act when necessary.
With reference to the accusations concern-
ing brutality in Millbrook— and I do not think
that we can call them anything else but
accusations of brutality— I have a number of
comments. All accusations of this nature
have been investigated by the inspection
branch and, in some instances, by my present
assistant Deputy Minister, and no evidence
has been uncovered substantiating such alle-
gations. The only inmates who have made
any suggestions concerning brutality are in-
mates who themselves freely admit that they
are invariably instigators of violence them-
selves.
As a matter of fact, I think in some of the
cases mentioned by the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben), some of those state-
ments themselves pointed this out by then-
own admission. This in itself is an indication
of the reliance one can place on such allega-
tions. When the grand jury went into Mill-
brook recently, they reported and I quote:
We consulted in particular with inmates
at all levels regarding the alleged brutality
and ridicule of the inmates which was
reported in the press and, in spite of a
thorough questioning, we could find no
evidence that these conditions were pres-
ent.
This is the end of the quote of the grand
jury report. Incidentally, this is at least, I
think, a partial answer to the question raised
by the hon. member for York South (Mr.
MacDonald) in respect of any impartial
inquiry.
1040
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think this is important, Mr. Chairman,
very important; the whole subject of brutality
only arose after there had been a great deal
of publicity and after all the inmates who
had started the fires had been taken to court.
In fact, the original suggestions had gotten
twisted somewhat by that time. The original
charge by the local newspaper, the Peter-
borough Examiner, was that the inmates were
being brutal to the staff, who are not able to
retaliate. I quote from the Peterborough
Examiner:
There is fortunately no suggestion of
physical brutality at Millbrook though one
case of it embarrassed and demoralized
guards on one occasion.
And I will deal with this one case in a
moment.
The only suggestion of brutality up to this
stage had been in an article in the Peterbor-
ough Examiner on July 9, 1965, and once
more I quote from that paper:
In the past four-and-a-half months there
have been 27 assaults on the guards, who
have only their fists with which to defend
themselves. One court case has resulted.
The only protection the guard has is dis-
cipline and the authority to use it.
This last statement was incorrect as to the
number of assaults on guards. In fact I think
they numbered some 15, but did not then
even convey the true picture of the vicious-
ness of some of these assaults. I have cases
in my files of completely unprovoked, unex-
pected assaults which our correctional officers
have been subjected to— very often by the
very people who are now making the unjust
accusations against them.
It is very difficult for a correctional officer
or our investigators to be able to prove the
falsehood of an exaggerated rumour but the
one case mentioned by the Peterborough
Examiner gave us an opportunity to do this
in a court of law. And this is one of the cases
that was mentioned by the hon. member for
Bracondale.
On April 29, 1965, this particular inmate,
along with eight other inmates, was em-
ployed on the garden work party under the
supervision of a correctional officer. This
officer reproved the inmate for unsatisfactory
work and the inmate replied with a verbal
abuse of the officer in the form of obscene
language. At this point the officer advised
him that he was sending him, as they call it,
"inside on report." As the officer turned
away, the inmate struck the officer over the
left eye with a shovel. Although severely
dazed, the officer closed with the inmate and
they fell to the ground, at which time the
inmate sank his teeth into officer's neck
and continued to pummel him about the face.
Another officer near by pulled the inmate off
the attacked officer.
The inmate was transferred to the county
jail in Cobourg, charged with assaulting a
peace officer. He obtained the services of a
lawyer who charged our officer had struck
his client first, laying a countercharge of
assault against the officer. We then had the
inmate's lawyer visit the institution and inter-
view all the inmates who were on the work
party at the time the incident took place.
From these interviews he received signed
affidavits in support of the inmate. However,
when the case came to court, the inmate's
charge against our officer was dismissed by
the magistrate. Subsequently the inmate
pleaded guilty to the charge of assaulting a
peace officer.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Probably had
to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
what the hon. member means. He was in a
court of law.
Mr. Sargent: Quit the whitewash and get
on with the job.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This caused a little
concern among the inmates who had signed
the original affidavits, in case they should be
charged with perjury, and one came forward
with the following voluntary, witnessed state-
ment:
To whom it may concern:
I lied when I signed a statement for the
lawyer representing inmate X regarding the
fight with [a correctional officerl. I saw
nothing. It was all over when I looked up.
The garden gang got together on one story
to save inmate X.
That is the end of the quotation from his
affidavit.
Mr. Chairman, this case in itself proves a
number of things. If a specific incident is
brought to our attention, we investigate it.
We interview inmates; we do interview in-
mates; and we even, as shown in this case,
are prepared to have a lawyer come in and
take statements from the inmates. So any
statement that we never interview inmates is
disproven by this case alone.
This case undoubtedly proves that you can
get inmates all stating the same story, that
you can get them to sign affidavits, and any-
body experienced in penology will back this
MARCH 1, 1966
104X
statement up, Mr. Chairman. But when
you get a fully detailed legal inquiry, the
inmates' story is not necessarily supported
even though it is backed by affidavits.
This inmate's sentence was completed be-
fore he was formally charged with this
assault, and during his period of release on
bail, he was again convicted of assaulting a
peace officer and having a dangerous weapon,
in Chatham. During the time he was in
Cobourg county jail he assaulted two
prisoners and caused damage to the institu-
tion. Since returning to Millbrook to serve
his further sentence for assault, he has made
one more unprovoked attack on a correctional
officer, punching him in the face and break-
ing his glasses. He was charged with this
assault in January of this year, was con-
victed in court, and is serving a consecutive
sentence on this account.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the cases
which the hon. member presented late this
afternoon, in which he quoted an affidavit
from this particular person. Although, I
might say parenthetically the hon. member
did not mention at all, of course— I suppose
the inmate did not mention it in his affidavit
either— the fact of his having assaulted one
of the correctional staff with a shovel. This
is really typical, Mr. Chairman, of the other
cases he has mentioned this afternoon. If
the hon. member wishes, I will make avail-
able to him the results of our investigation
on the other cases he has mentioned without
taking the time of this House, because there
are so many of them.
I do not think any purpose will be served
anyway, because it would be a matter of:
Do you take the word of the inmates? Or
do you take the word of the other people
involved?
Now he did bring in— I do not think it is
that important but it is an example of the
sort of thing you get when you are getting
opinions from this kind of person; he said
that one of the inmates had stated in his
affidavit that the Dale Carnegie course, which
incidentally was instituted at my direction,
was going to be discontinued for some reason
or other. Why the hon. member would even
bother repeating that I do not know, be-
cause it is of no consequence; we do not dis-
cuss what programme we are going to
continue or discontinue with inmates. It was
an entire fabrication. Not only are we not
discontinuing this course, we are asking them
to carry it on further.
Mr. G, Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Chairman,
may I—
Mr. Chairman: Please state your point of
order.
Mr. Ben: I object to the use of the words
"complete fabrication," because I happened
to get that information also from a most re-
liable source, that there was discussion about
discontinuing it because the inmates were
too critical during the discussion periods.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
it was not discontinued.
It may not be a complete fabrication inso-
far as some of the inmates having discussed
it among themselves is concerned, but I say
that there was absolutely no truth in it at
all. At no time, at head office, have we ever
considered discontinuing the courses.
The hon. member has stated that he was
not going to raise these matters this after-
noon, because he had not completed his
investigation and wanted to be fair about
it. Well, I do not know how the hon.
member can take that view when he was
quoted in the Peterborough Examiner on
December 15, 1965, in which he was quoted
as saying:
"I am convinced the inmates are tell-
ing the truth," Mr. Ben stated. "Some-
thing has to be done to clean up this
mess."
Well, I do not know why the hon. member
suggests to this House-
Mr. Ben: Telling the truth about what?
Would you mind reading the whole thing?
What was I telling the truth about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
was stating that the inmates were telling the
truth about brutality.
Mr. Ben: If you say I am saying the truth,
the truth about what?'
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To continue:
Charges of brutality in Millbrook re-
formatory that have appeared in the
Examiner recently were substantiated
Tuesday by three former inmates.
You want me to read the whole article?
Mr. Ben: By three former inmates. All
right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman:
The inmates took part in the Hamilton
radio programme entitled, "Millbrook
prison," and accused the prison guards of
vicious beatings. The three men said
guards beat inmates with blackjacks, used
fire hoses on them, and so on.
1042
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Further down:
Their statements were supported by
MPP George Ben, Liberal Party critic on
reform institutions, who toured the maxi-
mum security prison in October. "I am
convinced the inmates are telling the
truth," Mr. Ben stated. "Something has
to be done to clean up this mess."
If that does not mean that the hon. member
had prejudged it prior to having completed
his investigations, which he admitted this
afternoon he has not yet done, I do not know
what else it can mean.
Mr. Chairman, as I said previously, I take
second place to no man in my desire, and
again I state for the staff in their attempts, to
rehabilitate in a humane manner, as far as
it is humanly possible, all of those in our
care. But I must state, Mr. Chairman: It is
no wonder crime is becoming so rampant
when there are such irresponsible charges
based on sworn self-serving— and I know the
hon. member, being a lawyer, knows what
this means— sworn, self-serving statements by
dangerous criminals.
We have got to a stage now where only
society is at fault in the hon. member's
view. Our judiciary is at fault, and he has
criticized the judiciary. Our police are at
fault; he has criticized the police. Our cor-
rectional officers are at fault; he has criticized
our correctional officers. The hon. member,
in fact, suggests the only people who can be
believed, the only people who are entitled to
our compassion, are those people who have
been sent to penal institutions because they
have broken the law.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to see some
compassion for those members of the staff
who have been viciously beaten by some of
these people, whose wives and families are
suffering from the kind of persecution which
the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Carruthers)
has pointed out so well; and some compas-
sion for the law-abiding citizens who are
attempting to do a tremendous job in this
particular field. I would like to give the hon.
member some examples, and I would like to
hear him say something by way of compas-
sion for the kind of things which some of our
hard-working staff have to contend with.
On one occasion, four inmates attacked
two officers, injuring them very severely.
Both officers suffered fractured skulls, among
other injuries, and were both hospitalized
for considerable periods of time. They are
able to continue their employment, but there
is no question that they have suffered very
definite permanent disability.
On another occasion, an officer was
attacked by an inmate in the tailor shop.
In addition to the assault, the inmate
attempted to use the officer as a hostage,
threatening him with a pair of shears. In an-
other tailor shop incident, without any warn-
ing, an officer was struck a severe blow on
the face and kicked in the groin.
On another occasion, an officer was
attacked and received three cracked ribs.
On another occasion, two inmates attacked
a trades instructor, who was severely battered
and received injuries including a fractured
skull. Another officer was struck with a
paint can. Another officer was kicked in the
face.
There was the case where an inmate
stabbed an officer in the corner of his eye
with a sharpened toothbrush handle. And
finally, among the many other cases we have
on file, one of our rehab officers went to help
a patient from the A. G. Brown clinic and,
while driving the patient to the hospital, was
attacked and almost strangled. These are
cases of completely unprovoked brutal attacks
on our officers.
Mr. Chairman, I say that the wild charges
which are being made encourage this aggres-
sive, assaultive behaviour on the part of the
worst elements in our institutions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for
York South made some comment about "there
will always be these charges," and how "do
we get to a so-called 'impartial' investigation?"
I am concerned more at this moment with
the charges of brutality against the staff.
Mr. Chairman, there is no possible way any
kind of investigation can ever decide any-
thing except on the basis of whose word
will be taken— the inmate's or the staffs.
Further, you either have a staff in your
system composed of reliable people, who can
be depended upon to bring to your attention
any incidents of this nature, or you might as
well give up the job completely. Because no
matter what kind of an investigation you
have— suppose there was such a thing as an
impartial sort of a board set up to investigate
these things— they would be busy every
minute of every day.
I know that the hon. members who live
in these communities— the hon. member for
Wellington South (Mr. Worton) lives in a
community where there is an institution of
this nature, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. mem-
ber for Durham and the hon. member for
Fort William (Mr. Freeman), and other hon.
members— know, I am sure, that if you are
going to have investigations based upon
charges by inmates or ex-inmates it would be
an absolutely impossible job. There would be
MARCH 1, 1966
1043
complete chaos in the institutions to begin
with, there never would be sufficient people
to investigate them, and they would accom-
plish absolutely nothing. Therefore, I think
that those people who suspect that there may
be something wrong have to look to the
kind of people that you have in your depart-
ment looking after this sort of work.
Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member, or
any other hon. member here, care to suggest
that the kind of people we have in charge in
our institutions, looking after our work, are
the wrong kind? A man like Dr. Flint, the
head of our chaplaincy services; Mr. Hackl,
our Deputy Minister, who is known as a very
progressive man; Douglas Penfold, our assis-
tant Deputy Minister— take a look at these
in our annual report. I will not bother hon.
members by reading some of the brief back-
grounds of these people: Miss Nicholson,
the administrator of adult female institutions;
Dr. Harry Hutchison, administrator of adult
male institutions; Harry Garraway, our ad-
ministrator of training schools; Mr. David
Dougall, the administrator of inspection and
jails branch; Dr. Ronald E. Stokes, director
of psychiatry; Dr. Grygier, director of re-
search; A. D. Mackey, director of education;
S. A. Nicol, the director of staff development.
You could argue that these are all head
office people and everything could be hidden
from them. This presumes, of course, that
they are sitting at the head office and doing
nothing else but reading reports from people
—which they do not do. They visit our insti-
tutions, and most of these people are expert in
this work. They have worked with these
kind of people for years; they understand
them; they understand some of their manip-
ulative characteristics, and they know pre-
cisely what they are doing.
Presuming even that these people are
being blinded, let us find out who else is
involved. There is a treatment staff in every
one of these institutions. Is there a sugges-
tion that the doctors the social workers, the
students who go in and out of these places,
the chaplains, the members of the families
of these inmates, the after-care workers, will
be going in and out of this institution, day
in and day out, and not once reporting some
of these things? Why would the inmates
not have told some of them about these
alleged cases of brutality? Why would they
not? And if they did, why would they not
have been in touch with our department?
Surely, the hon. member would not sug-
gest that these kind of people would hide
this sort of thing and not say anything about
it? That is utterly ridiculous! I say this is
the greatest protection the people have in
this province; that things are being operated
properly, at least insofar as they are being
operated humanely is concerned; and this,
in the final analysis, is the only protection
the public will have.
As an example, Mr. Chairman, something
was mentioned during all of this to-do about
Millbrook. Somebody suggested that the
Salvation Army was not satisfied with what
was going on in our institutions. And I think
the particular person who was doing that
was attempting, somehow or other, to get
them sort of against the institutions and on
his side. I have here a letter dated October
5, 1965, from George Hickman, Brigadier,
of the correctional services in the Salvation
Army. He writes a letter to Rev. Maurice
Flint, director of chaplaincy services:
Dear Reverend Flint:
In June of 1959 I was appointed by the
Salvation Army to take charge of our cor-
rectional services in the city of Peter-
borough with special duties at the reforma-
tory in Millbrook. At that time Dr. Harold
Neil was resident chaplain there and we
got along very well together, both working
in the interests of the inmates. In July,
1962, Dr. Neil left Millbrook and I had
the sole responsibility of looking after the
spiritual needs of the Protestants and many
of the Roman Catholics as well. In Sep-
tember, 1964, Rev. Ken MacDonald was
appointed chaplain. He also left in June of
this year and I am still carrying on alone.
I should state that the Rev. Mr. MacDonald,
who was in charge, is now in charge of one
of our other institutions.
During my six years in Millbrook I have
seen approximately 2,000 men come and
go, and it has been my privilege to talk
to most of them— some of them on many
occasions. I have always been treated with
respect by all members of the staff, from
the superintendent down, and always been
given a free hand to do as I pleased. There
has never been any policy set or any re-
strictions regarding my work. I am at liberty
to see any inmate at any time if he so
desires. I interview approximately 100 in-
mates a month, conduct two religious serv-
ices each Sunday, hold Bible class on
Tuesday evenings, and in all my activities I
have the fullest co-operation of all of the
staff.
I have been greatly disturbed of late
when reading the articles written by the
Rev. Sid West and David Allen, appearing
in the Peterborough Examiner, about the
1044
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ill treatment inflicted on the inmates at
Millbrook. I have never seen an inmate
ill-treated during my six years there. I
know there is strict discipline but when
one considers the type of inmate, especially
the group 1 class, any sane person will
realize that without strict discipline we
would have nothing but chaos.
I am working in Millbrook in the interest
of the prisoner. If I see anything going
amiss, or prisoners being ill treated, I
would be one of the first to report it. As
far as I am concerned, the newspaper re-
ports are a gross exaggeration of the truth
and, in many instances, direct falsehoods.
I trust that what I have said will help
you get a true picture of the situation.
Sincerely yours,
George Hickman, Brigadier,
Salvation Army.
Mr. Ben: May I direct a question to the
hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be finished in
one moment, and the hon. member can ask
his question.
Mr. Chairman, I think this speaks for itself.
You have to take somebody's word. In any
investigation, in any court of law, it is a mat-
ter of taking somebody's word. I think I
fairly well established the case here, that the
kind of people who can be trusted to do a
reasonable responsible job are the kind of
people in whom the public can have confi-
dence.
Let me just finish off, with a statement
quoted in the Kingston Whig Standard of
Ontario, dated February 12, just a couple of
weeks ago— February 12, 1966:
Dr. George Scott told a meeting of
Montreal psychology students this week
successful rehabilitation of a prisoner
must include the maintenance of his indi-
viduality and the understanding of his
mental reaction to captivity.
I would like to impress that on the hon.
member:
—and the understanding of his mental re-
action to captivity.
The director of the institute of psycho-
therapy and psychotherapist at Kingston
penitentiary, in the city, said the first step
requires marked reformation of society's
image of the person imprisoned for crime.
The image of both prisoner and prison
will forever be distorted if cheap, unin-
formed, sensation-seeking charlatans are
allowed to present their dismal neurotic
projections of prison life on radio and the
theatre and TV screens of our country, Dr.
Scott told the McGill University psychol-
ogy club this week.
Mr. Ben: I also have something to say and
I will ask the question while I am saying it.
First of all— I trust that I will be forgiven by
the hon. Minister for rising because it just
occurred to me that any criticisms I make
are useless. They will be interpreted as an
attack on the people he has named; in other
words he set up a saintly image and any
attack now is directed against those fine
people he mentioned so I am wasting my time
in that regard.
Second, the hon. Minister has already
established that there is no sense of making
any kind of an investigation because, when
you boil it down to the very substance of the
thing, you either have to accept the word of
one side or the other; and the hon. Minister
says obviously you cannot accept the word of
the inmates, therefore it is cut and dried, so
I do not know why I am wasting my time in
this House. Perhaps I should go out and
get a job as a correctional officer or some-
thing, but obviously there is no sense stand-
ing up here—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Ben: —and trying to bring out some-
thing.
I must admire the hon. Minister. He is
very adroit, and for the way he can swing
things around I am just filled with admira-
tion. Let me give you a few examples of
how he takes a negative to try to affirm a
positive. I do not know whether he got this
from his experts too, I do not know; but let
us go back about the needling of staff.
Being an ordinary, common Joe, I should
think I would expect that the correctional
officers would expect to be needled by in-
mates—they do not take a vow of silence
when they go there; that is something I
would expect. And the hon. Minister said
there is nothing that they can do if the guard
is assaulted. I should think it would be the
duty of the hon. Minister and those under him
that, if an assault takes place, the people who
commit the assault are brought before a court
of law. That would be the logical conclusion.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are.
Mr. Ben: And if there is a sanction imposed
in bringing the people up before a court of
law— there was a suggestion here that the
MARCH 1, 1966
1045
department does not want to do that because
inmates are just doing that to get to Kingston.
All I can say is that this institution must be
one deplorable place if people would prefer
to go to Kingston and serve a longer term—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, the hon. member
knows the answer to that.
Mr. Ben: I know the answer to that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, he does.
Mr. Ben: I am pointing out that the hon.
Minister tried to twist that argument and say
that there were no sanctions.
There is another statement that the hon.
Minister made. He stated that those who
made complaints of assault were those who
were the first to admit, or who readily admit-
ted, that they were instigators; and the hon.
Minister said that this was one reason why
you should not believe them, because they ad-
mitted that they were the instigators. I
should think, if there was any reason for
believing them, it would be the fact that
they did admit that they were the instigators,
Mr. Chairman.
Let us take a look at the last letter that
he read. He reads that as proof that no vio-
lence or brutality has taken place. I had the
privilege of speaking to the honourable
gentleman writing the letter, and I was
amazed at what he told me; that in all the
time he was there there had not been one
instance, one instance, of brutality or use
of force, or anything irregular. I said "My
goodness, what a saintly house it is up on
that hill."
Yet just prior to that the hon. Minister
admitted that he had fired some people for
breach of the very regulation he is talking
about. So what happened that the honour-
able gentleman who wrote that letter did not
mention them? The answer is simple: He
has not seen it. He has not seen it; and,
of course, the honourable man cannot speak
of anything he has not seen. But the hon.
Minister tries to use that to prove his point of
view.
Let me read some excerpts from papers
just as the hon. Minister has. Let me read
from the same journal that he quotes. Perhaps
the people who inform us may not be giving
the correct information. Perhaps even I
may not be giving the correct information
to the House. But the hon. Minister is also
condemning the editors and the people who
write for the Peterborough Examiner and
other newspapers. If that is the hon. Min-
ister's contention, fine; but let me read an
editorial from the Peterborough Examiner
dated Saturday, July 31, 1965:
The report of the investigation at Mill-
brook reformatory is disarmingly ingenuous.
It finds that there is nothing seriously amiss
at the maximum security institution, and
that conditions there could be improved by
(a) the addition of a trained chaplain and
(b) better communication between senior
and other staff. It says also that operations
are hampered at all Ontario reformatories
by a critical shortage of staff qualified in
reform measures.
But the information contained in our
news and editorial columns of July 7, and
subsequently, cannot be as lightly brushed
aside. It is true that the investigators dealt
point by point with allegations which were
made from informed sources, and found
some to be exaggerated and others to be
confirmed. We do not intend to become
irresponsibly truculent about this report,
but nor do we intend to let matters rest
with the report's publication.
Clearly, The Department of Reform In-
stitutions enjoys an advantage that the
public does not have. It has access to its
reformatories and can interview both
guards and inmates at length. As we
commented on July 10 (Reform at Mill-
brook): "Precise information about condi-
tions in Millbrook and other reformatories
is extremely difficult to obtain!"
This remains true. And it is highly
probable that, had the disturbances at
Millbrook not so upset its staff, and had
not municipal fire services been needed at
the fire, the public would not have known
that tear gas was being used to control
recalcitrant prisoners on five successive days
or, indeed, that there was any trouble
there at all. In view of the circumstances,
much credit is due to those who spoke
out that our reports and comment were
as accurate as they proved to be.
The report confirms, moreover, that
through a technicality the department has
been unable to solve, the reformatory is
being used as a penitentiary for prisoners
whose sentences exceed the two years
detention for which Millbrook was de-
signed. This is a serious and most press-
ing matter. Nor does the report discuss
the treatment and penal methods of the
institution for these and other offenders
in any detail whatever. It confines itself
to what has emerged in public as a result
of the July 5 fire.
It is only adequate, therefore, to explain
1046
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
internally to the Minister and his depart-
ment what caused the present disturbance
among 25 men. It gives no information
to substantiate the assertion that the de-
partment is following anything but "an
archaic concept of penology" at Mill-
brook, which is an opinion stated in these
columns and supported by expert advice.
The Minister may well be satisfied with
the report, but this can only be because
he is satisfied that Millbrook, generally is
a desirable institution for people with
severe behaviour problems.
This will be a matter of contention
among penologists, and certainly it is dis-
puted here. Our information on the pro-
gramme at Millbrook is sketchy because
the reformatory itself will not talk about it.
But what we now assume to be true is
supported by healthy suspicions which
have been nurtured (a) by disclosures
about other reformatories, (b) by qualified
informants, and (c) by the records and
statements of previous Ministers of Re-
form Institutions.
Thus our contention of July 10 stands
unmodified. The disturbances at Mill-
brook are a symptom of the need for a
white paper on the reform institutions of
this province or an independent inquiry
which would place the circumstances of
the department's operations in full view.
This need arises out of the large reforma-
tory population and the high rate of
recidivism in Ontario which suggests that
reform in some institutions is far from
the primary object.
Now, Mr. Minister, I would like to also read
something in justification perhaps of the
guards, from the August 21 issue of the same
paper:
The life of a guard at the Ontario re-
formatory here is one of niggling un-
certainty. He does not always know where
he stands or just who is on his side.
The reformatory is the last word in
escape-proof prisons and when it opened
in 1957 was designed not only to hold but
to treat the most troublesome inmates in
Ontario.
And I go back and use the word "treat."
For the first few years guards were
given extensive training in how to handle
and how to treat these problem inmates.
But now training and treatment are all but
non-existent.
Guards have told the Examiner of work-
ing for up to two years at Millbrook with
not more than a few days' training.
Financially, the Ontario government
considers its reformatory guards, the men
who could have the most influence on in-
mates, as little better than common
labourers. Until recently, most guards
were being paid less than $4,000 a year
for a 40-hour week. It has been esti-
mated that 60 per cent of the custodial
staff at Millbrook moonlight to supple-
ment their income.
When a guard starts work at Millbrook
he is supposed to spend the first four
weeks on a loosely defined, on-the-job,
training programme. The first three weeks
he is supposed to be on the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
shift. The fourth week he is scheduled for
three afternoon shifts and two overnight
shifts.
The fourth day's training, for example,
includes two lVz hour lectures from the
superintendent, one of which is called the
"Ontario plan and its objectives." The re-
mainder of the day is spent on weapons
training.
Throughout the four weeks, there is
only one lecture scheduled from the treat-
ment staff. On the 13th day of the pro-
gramme, the psychologist will discuss
"Treatment and training" for two hours.
According to the five pages of course out-
line and rules handed to all new guards,
this is the only explanation given the
recruits of the peculiar characteristics of
the inmates.
One guard's training consisted of ZVz
days of pushing buttons and trying keys
in cell doors.
Many guards are dissatisfied with the
administration of Millbrook. More than
22 have quit in the last 18 months— a few
of them with six or seven years service.
The guards claim the administrators and
senior officers are making their own rules
as they go along. Each official seems to
have his own version of how inmates
should be handled.
Another contentious issue is the use of
"finks," or informers, by both the admin-
istration and senior members of the custo-
dial staff. Nobody, neither guards nor
inmates, know whom they can trust or
rely upon. The two-man fink squad
operated by the administration was set up
shortly after an investigation of conditions
in Millbrook in July. So far their work
has resulted in the resignation of at least
one guard.
The non-commissioned officers, in turn,
have their own informants— inmates who
MARCH 1, 1966
1047
are granted special favours for informing
on other inmates.
The guard is the man who must bear
the brunt of insults from inmates and
reprimands from superiors. He is also on
the receiving end of assaults— at least ten
so far this year. In short, the life of a
Millbrook guard is an unenviable one.
The pay is poor, the danger often great.
But despite this, The Department of Re-
form Institutions has little trouble in
attracting recruits. There is much evi-
dence, however, to support the claim that
many of the guards are unsuited for the
job.
One guard, enraged by the reports
of conditions at Millbrook, called the
Examiner Thursday morning to sound off.
"These inmates are getting just what they
deserve— slapped around— and they don't
get enough of it either." He said his piece
and slammed down the phone.
That is also from the paper. Now, of course,
this is written by inmates, too, I presume,
so you cannot believe what they say either.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not even written
by an inmate. It is written by somebody who
has never been in.
Mr. Ben: Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not
know why I stand up here. The hon. Minister
has stated his position rather clearly. No-
body's word will be accepted in any in-
vestigation except the report of the staff,
and members of the custodial staff. So why
we are wasting our time here I do not know.
If the hon. Minister had got up and made
that statement in the first instance perhaps
this House would have unanimously approved
his estimates without any discussion. I feel
that I should get up, even though it is going
to be useless in the mind of the hon. Min-
ister.
The hon. Minister is continuously taking
the sanctimonious attitude that he knows
all, sees all, hears all and judges all. I made
a statement, Mr. Chairman, in my maiden
speech, about the hon. Minister being unin-
formed, misinformed, and ill-informed. Those
are the people outside this House I discussed
this with. I told them that I was not referring
to the hon. Minister himself, but to the fact
he was uninformed, misinformed and ill-
informed by his staff, especially the people in
prison; that they were hiding facts from him;
that they were turning, like the buffaloes
when they are attacked, to face the common
enemy to protect each other; that the hon.
Minister was trying to do a good job but he
was believing everything that was said to him
without investigating.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member just
thought I was.
Mr. Ben: And as a matter of fact I told
some people that I was a very sneaky little
son-of-a-gun, Mr. Minister, because I was
going behind your back and praising you. I
would suggest to the hon. Minister that
the hon. members on both sides of the House
will probably acknowledge that the hon.
Minister is doing a fairly good job with
the training schools and the adults. I suggest
to him that he open his eyes now and read
something about the penal side of it.
When the hon. Minister gets up and says
everybody on this side is a liar, and every-
one on that side tells the truth, I think he
is being very hypocritical. If the hon. Min-
ister is going to do his duty he has got to
get-
Mr. Chairman, is there not any rule
against geese being in the House? I hear
cackling over there.
Mr. Chairman: I suggest that the member
stay on vote 1903, please.
Mr. Ben: So I would suggest that the hon.
Minister perhaps should change his think-
ing and realize that not all is black and
white. I have never alleged that all these
people are telling the truth, but I am willing
to look into it. I am willing to go in there
with an open mind. I would suggest that
perhaps the hon. Minister should take the
same tack. I would think that we would then
get a lot further.
If the hon. Minister will just stop getting
up continually and saying everything that his
people do is right, and everything they say
is true, perhaps the Minister might make
some other statements and we might be
inclined to believe them. But when the hon.
Minister tries to tell us that everything he
says is true, that everything he does is right,
that everything his people say is true, that
everything his people say is right, I think
that is asking too much of any member of
this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not want to prolong this, naturally. I have
prepared the rest of my case but—
Mr. Chairman: I would like to suggest to
the member for St. Andrew (Mr. Grossman)
that, as far as this House is concerned now,
we do not want a personal vendetta. We do
not want to have the member for Bracondale
answer the Minister—
1048
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
was a statement made here which affects a
gentleman, a brigadier from the Salvation
Army, and which may give the wrong im-
pression. The hon. member said that when he
discussed it with this gentleman he got
another impression. M vy T say that I made it
clear that the rmn discharged, to whom I was
referring, was not at Millbrook; therefore
the Salvation Army padre is quite correct,
because he was referring to his experiences
only in Millbrook.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1903:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. Minister has nut
the case for the staff, the guards; and, realiz-
ing that the whole problem is a tough one
right down the line, he has done a great
whitewash of the case. I would like to ask
the hon. Minister this: Who nuts the case?
What recourse has the inmate?
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time the hon.
Minister should think in terms of the need for
a public defender, or an ombudsman, in
prison to put the case for the inmate. Would
the Minister please give me his thoughts on
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I would not like the hon. member to think
that I disregard his questions. The other
day he suggested that I had a sneer on my
face when really I was smiling. The answer
to that is that the Minister also puts
the case for the inmates. As I pointed out,
if there is any suggestion of brutality against
inmates, an investigation is made; and if it
proves to be true, the guard or any correc-
tional officer, or any member of my staff, will
be immediately dismissed without any doubt.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, who does the
investigation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I think I have
gone into all that, Mr. Chairman. I do not
think we need to repeat it.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I think it is time that
this government consider the need for a pub-
lic defender in this. These things happen to
the guards; what then is happening to the
inmates?
Mr. Chairman: Have we concluded the
adult institutions? If so. we will consider the
discussion on page 117, the middle, under
"juvenile institutions." The member for Scar-
borough West.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Chairman, I thought I had some provocative
things to say, but in comparison I will be all
sweet reasonableness to the hon. Minister.
Like many other of the members in this
House, I have ambivalent feelings about this
department particularly with respect to train-
ing schools and the juvenile institutions. It
reflects a combination of admiration for the
efforts that have characterized the last year,
and a certain intellectual repugnance for the
objectives involved. I recognize what has
been done and appreciate, as do hon. mem-
bers of this party, many of the appointments
and much of the work. I think it is only fair
that it be said, Mr. Chairman, but I suggest
that such efforts are being applied at the
juvenile institution level to a crumbling
system which is in fact irretrievable, and
should in fact be irretrievable because it has
no place.
Fundamentally— and I want to reassert it
again, Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from
Yorkview (Mr. Young) has done on many
occasions— we have a basic difference in phi-
losophy with the hon. Minister on the treat-
ment of the juvenile offender and the training
school. The difference in philosophy is very
simple: We oppose the institutionalization at
the training school level within this depart-
ment. We have stated this before and we
state it again, and it is the general base for
the remarks I am about to make.
We see no justification for The Department
of Reform Institutions at this level whatso-
ever; and in the presence of the luminaries
gathered under the gallery— those people
whom the hon. Minister has appointed in his
wisdom, people for whom all of us have a
great deal of respect, and people who no
doubt have a great deal of capacity— let it be
said that they are shoring up a corrupt
system, that they are contributing to the per-
petuation of a cor-unt svstem of penology at
the training school level.
It may satisfy them to be public foils for
the hon. Minister's ego from time to time-
that immodesty which he himself claims; but
I suggest that what is happening is that we
are introducing a rigidity at the training
school level to the point where it will take
us vears, perhaps decades, to retrieve the re-
habilitative process.
Let me give one example to this House,
which is well known to them. We are still
committing under- 12s to training sehool. Ac-
cording to the report of the hon. Minister, 99
children in this province last year under the
MARCH 1, 1966
1049
age of 12-7, 8, 9, 10 and 11-100 youngsters
were committed to training schools. I suggest
to you, Mr. Chairman, that the policy is
completely indefensible, that there is no
justification whatsoever for such children
being in training schools— in the context of
a reform institution— and I would say to the
hon. Minister that there is no excuse what-
soever which can be advanced.
If children of that age are so disturbed, so
seriously disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that they
require some kind of therapeutic environment,
it is certainly not at the hands of a training
school, and I emphasize that with the hon.
Minister.
I, for one member of this House, am not
happy about the Hagersville development. As
far as I am concerned it is a retrograde step.
It just rigidifies the emphasis on placing
under- 12s in a training school context which
I think is an absurdity, and an interesting
commentary on the inadequacies of govern-
ment in other departments. I suggest that
that extends to the whole training school
system.
In analyzing it, Mr. Chairman, I want to
go back to The Training Schools Act, be-
cause I think this is the pivotal aspect. This
Act came in last year; it was regarded as a
tremendous piece of legislation; it was
paraded around the capitals of the world and
the hon. Minister has invoked praise from
several international jurisdictions.
We fought certain sections of that Act, but
the section which was pivotal to this part of
it, the section which was fundamental, was
section 8, and that section said— and I will
reread it to hon. members of the House:
8. That upon the application of any
person a judge may order in writing that
a child under 16 years of age at the time
the order is made, be sent to a training
school where the judge is satisfied that:
(a) The parents or guardian of the child
is unable to control the child, or to pro-
vide for his social, emotional or educa-
tional needs—
we did not contest that:
—or see that the child needs the training
and treatment available that a training
school—
We did not contest that, but I want to
bring (b) to the attention of the House:
(b) The care of the child by any other
agency of child welfare would be insuffi-
cient or impracticable—
And it Was our contention at the time that
that was a bogus provision, was a fraudulent
provision, because there were no alternative
community facilities available. Therefore to
suggest that, in fact, this Act would weed out
the process, was in fact, to mislead the
House.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind this
House what the hon. Minister said at the
time, because interestingly enough the Act
has been proved fraudulent and I am going
to demonstrate that in the next few minutes.
But I want to remind the House what the
hon. Minister said at that time to Opposition
arguments:
In the first place— I think I used this
expression before— I am not too sure, but
we are going to arrive at the moment of
truth. We are going to find out precisely
how many of these youngsters belong in
a training school or do not belong in a
training school. I am firmly convinced
that there has been a great deal of mis-
information—I am not saying deliberate—
and a great deal of misunderstanding
about what uses the training schools are
put to, what they can be put to and
whether in fact so many of these young-
sters do not belong in a training school.
And then the hon. Minister advanced the
proposition that we would find, under the
new Act, that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of
the youngsters who are put in training school
in fact belong there and thus the mythology
advanced by the Opposition would be effec-
tively destroyed. The hon. Minister said, and
I quote:
The judge is now going to have to
make that decision on the basis of the
evidence before him and not just on
opinions which have been bandied about
from one person to another. I think this
will be helpful in that respect because
there are, in fact, many youngsters who
are in a training school and who should
not be there. We want to make sure and
I think this Act will bring about a situa-
tion where they are not going to be in
the training school.
Now let me say, Mr. Chairman, that there
is no doubt in my mind that the hon. Min-
ister was genuine. There is no doubt in
my mind that in league with his advisers—
particularly his research department— he felt
that this was in fact what would be demon-
strated and the various contentions made
from this side of the House would be dis-
missed as misleading.
Now I want to discuss this part of the
debate, which I think is fundamental to the
whole reform institutions complex, sir, and
1050
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
particularly the training schools. I want to
discuss it in the light of information which is
now available, at least has recently come to
my attention. I want to talk about it for a
moment in the light of a report which was
at the time written by the present Judge Bill
Little, who was then director of social serv-
ices, juvenile and family court of Metropoli-
tan Toronto.
For some reason, the report has never
been made a public document— I believe it
is a public document, certainly it has been
in the hon. Attorney General's (Mr. Wishart's)
hands in his revision of the family court set-
ting—his discussion of what the family court
should be.
Some of the propositions advanced in this
report are fascinating and I want to place
them before the House.
We said, Mr. Chairman, last year, that a
significant percentage of youngsters who are
going to training school should not in fact
be there; and that was dismissed. In fact,
Mr. Chairman, the basis for sending these
youngsters to training school— at least in the
Metropolitan Toronto area— has withered in
the interim period. It is impossible in some
respects for any of us to analyze the per-
centage validly being committed because
the entire diagnostic and clinic setting on
which a judge must base his decision has
been undermined by the absence of the
necessary staff.
Now as the hon. Minister knows, for sev-
eral months there has not been a psychologist
at the juvenile and family courts in Metro-
politan Toronto. I want to read to hon. mem-
bers just for a moment what Mr. William
Little— Judge Little now— said about the role
of a psychologist in the court at that time,
and I quote:
The psychologist, like the psychiatrist
and social worker, has a distinctive role in
clinical terms. It is important that the psy-
chologist see every child and give a thor-
ough examination of the child's personality
and capacities that is consistent with the
requirements of the court. The psycholo-
gist, like the other members of the team,
is an important member of the clinic
conference group, which is under the chair-
manship of a court psychiatrist and contri-
butes psychological information relevant to
the case and helps in the formulation of
appropriate recommendations.
The following information indicates the
court psychologist's responsibility and the
time factors involved:
1. The appointment with each child in
the clinic is always individual and may
consume between two and three hours'
average time— it is about two hours and 15
minutes. The test battery is as condensed
as possible without jeopardizing the central
information on major factors which may
affect present functioning and actual be-
haviour of the child.
2. Reports, whether written or dictated,
still entail considerable thought and prob-
ably an hour, if the report is average, in-
cluding the workup time on any problem.
3. The psychologist attends every diag-
nostic conference that involves a child that
has been examined. This involves usually
an hour a day four days a week.
4. There are other obligations which the
psychologist has which are carried out as
time permits. Among these are impromptu
additional discussions with probation offi-
cers, professional guests of the court, stu-
dents and staff meetings.
5. One psychologist cannot expect to do
justice to more than eight full appointments
per week. Emergency cases are usually
managed but such additional appointments
cannot be handled on a routine basis.
Now let me submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is
impossible, or at least very difficult, for a
judge to make an assignment to a training
school on an inadequate diagnostic basis.
Since there has been no psychologist at the
court for several months, if we are to try to
gain some idea of whether or not we should
be sending children to training school we are
undermined before we start.
Let us go back to what the study actually
said— the only study conducted in the 1960's
in this area. It was a careful study of 416
cases in the court over a year period and in
the process of that study— and I want to read
it very carefully— Judge Little came to the
following conclusions:
Recommendations to training schools are
at least a third higher than is warranted
because of the lack of adequate community
resources available in the Metropolitan To-
ronto area for children who require treat-
ment away from their own homes, but not
necessarily training school settings.
A third higher than is warranted! The next
sentence reads:
The number of children needing psychi-
atric hospitalization, although not a large
group comparatively, just do not get this
service due to the long waiting list and
restrictive admission criteria of the various
government and private specialized insti-
tutions which prevent 90 per cent of those
requiring the services from receiving them.
MARCH 1, 1966
1051
So we send a third more to training school
than belong in training school, on the basis of
the only study available; and 90 per cent of
those requiring special treatment do not get
it, on the basis of the only study available.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I will read a little
more of the report because I think it is inter-
esting:
The normal court tendency is to treat
the child in his own home-
says Judge Little:
—under some form of supervision which
seems appropriate to the clinic staff. In the
instance of those cases where referral to a
training school is recommended, we note
a great reluctance on the part of the branch
to concur with diagnostic recommenda-
tions. In 52.3 per cent of these cases, or
about one in every two, children recom-
mended for training schools are com-
mitted on the occasion of their first
diagnostic assessment. It is easily appreci-
ated, when we realize what has been said
earlier, that we are now committing to
training schools at least a third more chil-
dren than is warranted because of the lack
of the appropriate facilities in the com-
munity. The clinic recommendations are
frequently obliged to preclude a more
appropriate community resource, in many
cases due to lack of availability rather
than to choice. These shortages of com-
munity resources are not peculiar only to
Metropolitan Toronto but are the frustra-
tion pieces of juvenile court judges across
the country.
Now, there is no question that it is not
peculiar to Metropolitan Toronto and there
is no question that it is in large part not the
hon. Minister's responsibility, and the hon.
Minister may even dispute some of the con-
tentions in this report. But let me say to him
that there is something intriguing, when
Judge Arrel of Hamilton, now head of the
juvenile courts association in the province of
Ontario, has said on one occasion that fully
50 per cent of those in training schools do
not belong there, and Judge Little has said
fully a third of those in training schools do
not belong there. Now we have at least some
kind of documented evidence to sustain it;
it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, a peculiar
contention then to put before this House an
Act which pretended to solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, let me state categorically,
and I state it in the presence of fellow mem-
bers of the select committee on youth, hon.
members in the government party, that the
situation cannot have improved. It can only
have deteriorated. For two years we have
heard briefs from every part of this province
which indicate that it is impossible to find
adequate treatment for children who fall
within this category. We have heard appeals
from one social agency after another, begging
for alternative facilities to those of training
schools and indicating that they would prefer
that children go to alternative facilities, but
that there are no alternative facilities avail-
able. That is what makes this Act hollow;
because it is an absurdity to pretend that we
are solving the problem of committals to
training schools simply by having a clause
which assures that they will go to other
agencies if they were available.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the other agencies
are not available, we commit children to
training schools almost indiscriminately be-
cause of any lack of alternative resource.
Now, in order to bring the matter up to
date— because I recognize that the hon. Min-
ister is a resourceful man and he will answer
—I requested permission, and I must state this
very carefully, I requested permission to see
the judgment form of every youngster com-
mitted to a training school from the metro-
politan juvenile and family court since this
Act came into effect on November 1, 1965.
Am I right that it was November 1, 1965?
Good.
With the permission of the senior court
judge, and incidentally in brief discussion
with the hon. Attorney General last week in
clearing one clause of The Juvenile Delin-
quency Act so that I would not see the
names which are involved, I examined the
basis for committal to training schools to find
out if this Act is holding up. And this after-
noon, in the presence of the senior judge, I
saw those forms for every single young person
who has been committed under section 8
of this Act to training schools since the new
Act has come into effect.
Now, let me say to this House, Mr.
Chairman, that a significant number, I did
not do any immediate calculation, but I am
prepared to stake my word on it, a significant
number, up to 40 per cent, express reserva-
tion about sending children to training
schools. In several cases, three or four cases,
Mr. Chairman, it said specifically that War-
rendale or Thistletown were more desirable
institutions, but since no community facility
was available, both because of lack of funds
and lack of space, those children could
not be sent there, and so would be confined
to a training school.
And Dr. Grygier will receive those white
forms of his, those research papers, so that
he can give us his study a year or two from
now.
1052
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, Mr. Chairman, what does that do to
this section 8, subsection (b) of this Act? What
position does it put the judges in, when they
are sj compromised by the inadequacy of the
community facilities that they have to write
that they would prefer to send children to
Warrendale or Thistletown, but cannot be-
cause the community resources are not avail-
able?
And in another large group— and I say
relatively speaking it is large, because over a
two to three month period, I do not suppose
there were more than 20 or 25 files from one
court— but in another significant group the
phrase used, "other community resources not
being available," or, "in the absence of alter-
native community resources, we think the
child needs the treatment and control of a
training school."
Now the implication was clear in this— and
in discussion with one or two of the judges
it was borne out— that it is a simple fact that
they have no alternative, that there are no
alternative community resources. The com-
munity agencies fail. The judges would
like some kind of therapeutic environment
other than a training school, but there simply
are not any such agencies, so in goes the
child to the training school.
I therefore say, Mr. Chairman, that with
all the best intentions of the hon. Minister
this Act cannot work. It is not that it cannot
work because he does not want it to work,
but because his hon. colleagues on the front
benches are determined to frustrate him. Be-
cause it is yet another example of inter-
departmental chaos and neglect.
Nobody in his right mind in this House
could justify the intolerable delay in assisting
the juvenile and family court of Metropolitan
Toronto to do an adequate job. Nobody in
his right mind in this House can tolerate in-
excusable delay in not having the report from
the interdepartmental committee on emo-
tionally disturbed children. No one can
tolerate the absence of all the alternative
solutions. The hon. Minister can trot this
Act out in every country of the world, but he
will persuade no one here, because it is in-
substantial. It does not have content. Its key
phrase, its indispensable clause, simply does
not hold up to scrutiny.
Now that scrutiny was true when Bill Little
made his survey, that scrutiny I suggest has
been sustained by what we have found in the
select committee on youth over the last two
years. It has been sustained in what I learned
today from the very simple perusal of the
evidence— without in any sense looking at
names, just looking at reasons for committal.
Now let me emphasize then, that what I
think this hon. Minister has to do, and he will
forgive us on this side if we force him into
protesting that he is not a shrinking violet or
a wallflower, what this hon. Minister has to
do is somehow to persuade his hon. col-
leagues that they make his Act untenable by
their inflexibility. We would think it almost
conspiratorial if one did not assume that an
effort was being made.
I congratulate you again on the appoint-
ments. I recognize the energies and the
genuine intent of your staff. But I say that
the reason that the Act will not work in the
long run and the reason that we are being
frustrated in so many areas, is that training
schools do not belong in The Department of
Reform Institutions, that there should not
be training schools at all, that we should
have a sufficiently sophisticated government
apparatus to set up homes and therapeutic
centres in a variety of departments, Educa-
tion or Health, to encompass these children.
Until that time, Mr. Chairman— on a philo-
sophic as well as a pragmatic basis— we shall
have to continue opposing this part of the
hon. Minister's estimates in total.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, be-
cause of the very thoughtful amount of study
that must have been put into the hon. mem-
ber's remarks, I think he is entitled to some
comment.
I found his discussion very interesting,
certainly very thoughtful. I was a little sur-
prised though that the hon. member uses
such words as "hollow" and so on, because
to suggest that the Act itself is "hollow" and
is of no consequence, I think is an exaggera-
tion.
Mr. S. Lewis: That is wrong.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber only quoted one clause. The clause of
the Act states that:
Upon the application of any person a
judge may order in writing that a child
under 16 years of age at the time the
order is made be sent to a training school
where the judge is satisfied that—
and three conditions must apply. Three con-
ditions, not just one:
(a) The parent or guardian of the child
is unable to control the child or to pro-
vide for his social, emotional or educa-
tional needs, (b) The care of the child by
any other agency of child welfare would
be insufficient or impractical, (c) The
child needs the training and treatment
available at a training school.
MARCH 1, 1966
1053
Now of course, Mr. Chairman, I am fully
familiar with the argument that there is an
implication in this Act that if there are not
other facilities available there is no use tell-
ing a judge that he should not send him to a
training school. Now if we wait for all of
these things, Mr. Chairman, I submit we
would never get anything done. To suggest
that the Act is a "hollow" one and would not
accomplish anything, merely because we
have not got all those facilities which the
hon. member suggests we need and which
have not really been established as yet, I
think is a slight exaggeration.
The Act is a good Act. If it is found after
a research that is being done on it that there
are, in fact, other kinds of places for the
youngsters rather than training school, then
this will become apparent in the research.
The research being done now, as the hon.
member knows, is in co-operation with the
judges, and it will tell us just how much
value there is in this philosophical argu-
ment. That is all it really is. There has
been no proof at all that there are so many
other kinds of places which will be better
for a youngster.
I really think it is a matter of everybody
grasping for straws. They see a difficult
problem with these youngsters and they say
the training schools are not helping as many
as we would like them to help. So let us
try something else, and you grasp at various
ideas.
I will deal for a moment with the idea that
it should be in some other department. We
have gone into this before. I will just dwell
on this for a minute or two because we have
repeated this every year.
One of the reasons that have been argued
in favour of keeping it within one depart-
ment is, in the first place, that you are deal-
ing with a ministry concerned only with
correction. Unless, of course, the hon. mem-
ber tries to make the point, and I think
perhaps he was touching on this, that we
should not even consider this as correction.
I think I could point out to him— I will not
trouble the House with it at this time, I
have some rather learned papers on this
from learned people— that as a matter of
fact they should be dealt with by corrections
departments rather than welfare departments.
There are some legal implications involved,
and so on. I will not bother going into that
detail, but perhaps I might add one more
fact to this.
There is already a shortage, as the hon.
member knows, of professional staff. All we
would be doing by taking away this portion
from Reform Institutions and putting it into
another department is to have to find more
staff, because obviously there is staff in our
present department which does work for the
adult institutions as well as the juvenile
institutions.
For example, our rehabilitation officers
in many instances handle both youngsters
and adults. We are short of staff in that
respect. We are short of rehabilitation offi-
cers. If we set up the training schools in
another department we are going to be
that much shorter. So in this respect it
would not be helpful. Even if we were able
to provide this staff it would require addi-
tional cost to the taxpayer, which may prove
entirely unnecessary.
Insofar as the comments of Judge Little
and the comments of Judge Arrel, I have a
high regard for both these gentlemen and
we have consulted them on many occasions
on some of our mutual problems.
I agree there are great gaps in our diag-
nostic facilities. I think it would be an
insult to the intelligence of the hon. mem-
bers of this House to suggest that there are
no such gaps. There are only so many things
you can do at one time.
This is something that at the present time
is under very serious consideration, as to
just what the solution is to this particular
problem. We have, and I have repeated
this before, decided in our department that
we are not just going into any programme
willy-nilly. It has got to be based on proper
research. I am sure the hon. member will
agree that is the way to do it.
Until the proper research has been done
on this programme— and I am sure the hon.
member will agree that the programme we
have started in connection with this Act or
in connection with the juvenile court judges
is one which is going to be very helpful. As
I did say, and the hon. member quoted last
year, out of this research will come some
more definite, more factual information than
mere opinions.
He has pointed out, for example, that
Judge Little has stated that at least a third
of these youngsters should not be in training
schools, and on the other hand Judge Arrel
has said 50 per cent should not be in train-
ing schools. I mean, I am sure the hon.
member must agree, that this is no way, this
is no basis, on which to set up any kind of
a definite programme. It has got to be done
properly.
It is because of these statements, one of
the factors in setting up the new training
1054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
schools Act and the system of research in
connection with it, was to establish as far
as was humanly possible to do so, just what
are the "other needs." And until we have
definite research on this, there is no use just
taking opinions — random opinions — from
people, no matter how well intentioned and
intelligent they are, because they could be
wrong.
We want to make sure that when we do
establish any kind of a programme that it
is, as I say, based on research. The hon.
member has stated that when he was doing
some study on the forms which the judges
are now filling out as part of the research
programme, the judges had some reservations
about sending approximately 40 per cent to
training school.
Mr. S. Lewis: I said a significant percent-
age. I believe, although I did not count
them, that it would amount up to 40 per
cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the hon. mem-
ber will agree that: Firstly, the Act was only
proclaimed in November and this is not
sufficient time. Secondly, I think that when
the hon. member talks about the judges
expressing reservations, my honest opinion
is, no matter what system you are going to
get, judges who have a feeling for this
work are always going to express reserva-
tions. They are always going to concern
themselves with the problem, "Am I doing
the right thing for this child?" And if we
had a variety of 100 different kinds of in-
stitutions for youngsters there would still
be, in my view, this expression of reserva-
tion.
I am sure every serious-minded judge, no
matter what sort of case he has before him,
wonders whether he is doing the right thing
for that youngster. And no matter how ela-
borate the system, I am sure that eventually
they still will be expressing "reservations."
All I can tell the hon. member is that this
Act is a good Act. If there are any gaps at
the moment insofar as other places where a
judge may wish to send a child, hopefully, if
the research will prove that there should be
such other places, we will establish them.
There is no reason to ignore the Act because
of that.
As a matter of fact, if for no other reason,
and I am not saying that is the only reason,
if for no other reason than the fact that we
are able, through this Act to get the facts
that we want, this in itself would be a good
reason for its existence.
I say to the hon. member that we are doing
research on this, and the research will be
properly done. When we have the results of
that research— when it is decided by people
who should know and do know about these
things, that we require other facilities— that
is the time to attack the problem in that
fashion, and that is all I can tell him.
Mr. S. Lewis: There is a certain circuitous
futility about it all which frustrates members
on this side— I suppose it frustrates the hon.
Minister as well— because of the old argument
that when it has been established that alter-
native facilities are required, we will move
into this field and the Act may help to estab-
lish that.
Let me say categorically, Mr. Chairman,
that it has been established— in the records of
this House over the last five years, in the
minutes of the select committee on youth
over the last two years— that alternative faci-
lities are required for disturbed delinquent
children.
Surely that is not an object of endless
discussion and negotiation. It was raised in
the context of this Act because it was posited
by the hon. Minister last year, and by his
associates, that this Act would weed things
out; that we would not have to send such
children to training school, because they
would have the other facilities. We made
a point then and I simply repeat it tonight
on the basis of much more thorough evidence.
We did not have it last year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am agreeing with
the hon. member, except the point I was
trying to make is— just to say "We need other
facilities," does not tell us "how many" and
"what kind," and this is the point I am trying
to make. When we do this research we will
know: Should we be expanding the training
schools to the extent of the programme we
have in mind now? Or should we not? Or
to what extent? How many of these children
actually should not be in training schools?
Now, of course, we know now there are
some children in training schools who could
probably be better handled by some other
type of institution, but "how many" is still
a matter of a mystery, and it may for that
matter still be a year from today. We do not
know. But again I appeal to the hon. member
to understand the position this department
is taking, that this is what should be done
as a result of proper research. And with great
respect to the debates which have taken place
in this House, and all the great contributions
made and also with great respect to the
select committee on youth, which has done
MARCH 1, 1966
1055
a wonderful job in this matter, I am sure he
will agree that this is still not proper re-
search in the real sense of the term. This is
'what we are trying to do— the research.
Mr. S. Lewis: I do not agree. I simply
think that the research is there; that it is
patently obvious that the alternative facili-
ties are required. If the hon. Minister wants
us to set it out, if he wants us to say we
should have five more Warrendales geograph-
ically located by region across the province,
that there should be another six boys vil-
lages; that every mental health clinic should
have an outpatients department; that there
should be group homes scattered across the
province; that the money given to children's
aid societies to build special facilities should
l>e extended to other institutions under The
Children's Institutions Act— if the hon. Min-
ister wants us to point one by one to the
alternative facilities, there is enough resource-
fulness on this side of the House to do it.
I am saying to the hon. Minister through
you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not a question
of there being a few children in training
schools who might be more adequately served
elsewhere, or that these 33 per cent or 50
per cent figures are random opinions. If there
are a significant number of children in train-
ing schools who should not be there, then it
is conceivable that they are being irretriev-
ably damaged by their present environment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, I do not agree
on that.
Mr. S. Lewis: Well, the hon. Minister may
not agree, but certainly it is true if they are
significantly disturbed children. I am sure
changes have been made, but the Gait train-
ing school I visited last year could not have
pretended to handle adequately even five of
those 116 disturbed girls— not in any sense
adequate. They did not even have any trained
personnel in the field of the social sciences
and related services. That may be having
-very damaging and harmful effects on these
youngsters.
I realize the dilemma, I realize the prob-
lem, but it is not simply a matter of saying-
cavalierly— that we have a shortage of staff,
•or that we will simply move them from this
department into another department.
Our contention is that the crisis is of the
government's own making and that it is not
sufficient to come in here year after year and
say, "We are having problems staffing the
social services. We don't have enough beds.
We don't have enough places. We haven't
yet done the research."
In fact, the hon. Minister is over-compen-
sating for the inadequacies of his own depart-
ment and his own Cabinet colleagues. They
may be inherited inadequacies; there may be
insensitive members who sit with him on the
Treasury benches, but he is heading for diffi-
cult times. In truth the whole question of
social service personnel and building the
premises for these children and for these
kinds of social problems is heading for very
difficult times.
I only hope there comes the point when
his colleagues and all the members who work
on him and influence him, will collectively
realize that some of us in this House— let me
say, Mr. Chairman, that at least 12 or 13
members in this House have realized with a
sense of drama that could not possibly come
from this Legislature alone, just how critical
the shortages across the province are. And
there is no answer in saying that the Act was
recently proclaimed and we have not yet
gathered sufficient evidence.
I will not belabour it, I do not want to
pursue it with the hon. Minister any further.
But I present this to him as he knows, in
good faith. I hope the work he has under-
taken continues, but I suggest to him that
something powerful has to be done to jolt
those colleagues of his. He is a short man,
he is a stocky man, he is a vigorous man. I
suggest that he shake them a little— without
an undue use of force— but shake them a
little.
Vote 1903 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This concludes the estimates
of The Department of Reform Institutions.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Chairman, because of the
great number of individual highway improve-
ments made in 1965, my review of some
representative ones will be abbreviated in the
extreme. However, each hon. member was
given, early in January, a copy of a 12-page
report detailing some of the new construction
and reconstruction carried out until the end
of December, 1965. Nevertheless, a few addi-
tional statistics are ample evidence of the
total amount of improvement and expansion
effected during the 1965-1966 fiscal year. For
example, before the end of the 1965 calen-
dar year, some 395 miles of paving and more
than 100 structures had been completed on
King's highways. In addition, the paving of
more than 350 miles and work on not less
1056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
than some 85 additional structures was at
various stages of completion.
A feature of the routine normal programme
of improving and, where necessary, expanding
the capacity of existing King's highway mile-
age was the reconstruction to four lanes of
some of the more heavily-travelled sections
in southern Ontario. New four-lane sections,
totalling almost 30 miles, were completed at
points on Highway 2, at Windsor, Trenton
and Brockville; on Highway 3 at Fort Erie;
Highway 8 at Stamford; and on Highway 10
northerly from Cooksville and Brampton. On
Highway 11, the widening to four lanes from
Orillia northerly was extended as far as the
Severn River.
Among the more spectacular and, of neces-
sity, costly projects, initial work was begun
in August on the controlled-access Lakehead
expressway, which holds the promise of so
many benefits for the cities of Port Arthur
and Fort William. Late in October, the
department awarded the first contract for
work on a similar expressway to serve
Kitchener-Waterloo and the surrounding
area, this work being preparatory to the
awarding of the first major contract earlier
this month.
On the Queen Elizabeth Way, work was
under way at several points. As part of the
continuing programme to widen to six lanes
those sections carrying heavier traffic
volumes, a start was made on the six miles
westerly from the Mississauga Road. Farther
west, reconstruction of a section in the vicin-
ity of the Highway 25 interchange, including
a substantial expansion and modification of
the interchange itself, was completed. Two
new interchanges, for the Vineland and
Jordan sideroads, were well advanced and
resurfacing of the south lanes between Niag-
are Falls and Fort Erie was completed.
On the Macdonald-Cartier freeway, more
than 30 miles of two additional lanes were
placed in service on sections that previously
had only two lanes. In western Ontario, by
mid-August, the new south lanes for east-
bound traffic had been opened to traffic over
the whole of the 20-mile section from east
of Kent Qentre, just east of Chatham,
easterly to the Kent-Elgin county line,
representing the completion of four lanes
throughout western Ontario.
In eastern Ontario, two new lanes for
westbound traffic over the 11 miles between
Iroquois and Highway 16 were opened to
traffic in October. Grading of the north lanes
from Iroquois easterly for 17 miles to the
Aultsville sideroad, west of Cornwall, was all
but completed, and a paving contract
awarded. With the opening of these addi-
tional lanes, the only two-lane mileage over
the full route of the freeway will be between
Gananoque and Long Beach, west of Brock-
ville.
Over that distance, a new four-lane section
is rapidly taking shape on an improved align-
ment north of the present route. Grading of
all four lanes easterly from Gananoque for
4.5 miles will be completed this summer and,
with the awarding of a final grading con-
tract this year, grading will be in progress
throughout the remainder of the 25-mile
route.
Within Metro Toronto, the first section of
Ontario's key freeway to be widened to a
basic pattern of 12 lanes— the six miles from
Highway 400 easterly to Hogg's Hollow,
just east of Avenue road— was placed in
service in mid-December. This has proved,
I am pleased to say, an unqualified success.
Work on widening other sections to 12
lanes was also in progress from Hogg's
Hollow easterly to Victoria Park avenue and,
west of Highway 400, from Wendell avenue
to Kipling avenue. At year's end, the next
stage closest to completion was the exten-
sion of Highway 400 southeasterly to a new
interchange connection with Jane street as
an integral part of the overall project, which
will be placed in service in 1966.
The first stage of Ontario's newest free-
way, number 406, a four-mile section within
the city of St. Catharines, providing con-
venient connections with the QEW, was
placed in service in December.
On Highway 403, a two-mile extension
within the city of Hamilton was opened in
July. Work was also in progress over an
additional two miles westerly to the Mohawk
road interchange.
Still farther west, construction of another
section of this same new freeway, known as
the Brantford bypass, was far advanced be-
fore the end of the year. It is expected that
the bypass, six and one-third miles long, will
be placed in service in the summer of 1966.
On October 15 the new Macdonald-Cartier
bridge across the Ottawa river linking Ottawa
and Hull was officially opened. The $9.5
million expenditure required for the main
structure was shared equally by the prov-
inces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal
government. Cost of the Ontario approaches,
estimated at more than $3 million, was borne
by The Department of Highways.
An additional section of the Ottawa
Queensway, from O'Connor street easterly
to Concord street, was opened in November,
MARCH 1, 1966
1057
thereby providing a much-needed second
crossing of the Rideau canal in that vicinity.
On Highway 17, between Ottawa and Arn-
prior, a wholly new 10-mile section known
as the Carp bypass, which cuts some four
miles off the mileage, was opened in Novem-
ber.
Another major project in progress in 1965
was the multi-million dollar Quinte skyway
bridge and related work on the new high-
way connection with the Macdonald-Cartier
freeway. By the fall, steel girders were be-
ing placed atop the supporting concrete
piers that cross the Bay of Quinte at a point
near Deseronto.
Returning to western Ontario for one fur-
ther example of how widely dispersed was
the total programme of highway improve-
ment in 1965, a new north-south highway to
bypass Sarnia on its eastern limits was con-
structed. Only the finishing touches remain
to be applied in 1966.
On the main route of the trans-Canada
highway, reconstruction and new construc-
tion was under way in 1965 over a total of
some 60 miles at various points. Included in
the programme was work on a section of
Highway 15 near Bells Corners, close to the
western limits of Ottawa; bypasses for Madoc
on Highway 7 and Beaverton on a new
section of Highway 12; the resurfacing of
30 miles of Highway 103 between Waubau-
shene and the junction with Highway 69 at
Footes Bay; an 11-mile section of Highway
17 beginning some 60 miles north of Sault
Ste. Marie and extending northerly to Mica
Bay On Lake Superior; mileage between
English river and Ignace, west of the Lake-
head; and, still farther west, from Kenora
easterly.
Because of an uninterrupted programme
of construction and reconstruction, over the
past decade in particular, there are now only
some 240 miles out of a total mileage of
1,453 comprising the main route of the trans-
Canada highway through Ontario that do
not meet or surpass the high standards set
by the federal government in order to qualify
for subsidy. As the details I have just
given of the work in progress in 1965 illus-
trate, this remaining amount of mileage is
being steadily reduced with all possible dis-
patch.
The most impressive project to be placed
in service in northwestern Ontario in 1965
was the new 85-mile section of Highway 11
between Atikokan and Fort Frances, officially
opened on June 28 by the hon. Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts). Before the end of the
year, approximately two-thirds of the work
of paving this new section of Highway 11
from the Seine river easterly for 34 miles
had been completed.
West of Fort Frances, reconstruction of a
seven-mile section between Emo and Barwick
is well advanced, while, to the north, the first
contract in a long-range programme to sub-
stantially improve Highway 71 was awarded
in July, this being for the reconstruction of
8.5 miles from Nestor Falls southerly.
On Highway 105, the north-south highway
linking the Red Lake mining area with trans-
Canada Highway 17, work was in progress
under five contracts totalling more than 50
miles. As the result of a sustained and unin-
terrupted programme to reconstruct this high-
way over its 110-mile distance, reconstruction
has now been completed on all but 36 miles
at the southern end. Over the whole of that
mileage, grading, now in progress, will be
completed this summer, when paving will
also begin.
In the same general area, on Highway 72,
connecting Sioux Lookout with trans-Canada
Highway 17, reconstruction was being car-
ried out on not less than 26 miles.
The most notable project in the realm of
resource roads was the new 80-mile section
between Ignace, on trans-Canada Highway
17, and Savant lake, on Highway 599,
opened to traffic in November. The effect is
to provide a through route of more than 215
miles between Ignace and the mining com-
munity of Pickle Crow and points farther
north as Highway 599 is being extended
northerly year by year.
East of the Lakehead, a noteworthy high-
way improvement got under way in October
when a contract was awarded for the recon-
struction of Highway 614 southerly from
Manitouwadge for nine miles. The award
signalled the beginning of a programme to
reconstruct, over the whole of its 37-mile
length, this highway which serves one of
the province's major base metal mining devel-
opments.
The drive was continued to complete the
extension of Highway 101 from Highway 129,
south of Chapleau, westerly to Wawa, and
thus to trans-Canada Highway 17. Grading,
drainage and granular base work over a total
distance of some 37 miles was carried out
under four contracts. The work remaining to
be done on some 25 miles should be com-
pleted and the whole of the route opened to
traffic in the fall of 1966.
The Sudbury-Timmins highway route was
likewise the scene of considerable activity on
several different sections. Contracts for 40
1058
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
miles of clearing were awarded, the greater
part of this work having been completed
before the end of the year. Four grading
contracts covering 31 miles were also in
progress and, in addition, paving of more
than eight miles of a newly-reconstructed
section of Highway 544 in the vicinity of
Cartier was completed.
Work on another new road, from Smooth
Rock Falls northerly to Pinard-Fraserdale, a
distance of 45 miles, was sufficiently advanced
by the fall to permit opening to traffic at that
time. The new road provides access to sev-
eral remote Ontario Hydro generating sta-
tions.
While the improvements I have just de-
tailed and, equally, the host of others which
were effected in 1965, distributed equitably
over all parts of Ontario, to which I have
made no reference, are of obvious interest
to the hon. members and all those communi-
ties benefiting from them, I would like to
point out that in this case we are dealing
only with those completed or which were
begun in 1965. Similarly, later in my remarks
when I shall be speaking about some of the
more important upcoming work in 1966, we
will once more be limited for the greater
part to one fiscal year.
The transportation requirements of this
booming province are expanding so rapidly
and so substantially that the necessity for
long-range plannng is becoming more evident
and more important. What is of far greater
significance at this juncture than the immedi-
ate programme of highway improvement and
expansion in the near term is the continuing
development and implementation of ever more
sophisticated procedures for long-range plan-
ning of the highest order.
The degree of importance which The De-
partment of Highways attaches to highway
planning, in the broadest sense of that term,
was underlined in my estimates address last
year, when the main topic was the notable
progress that had been made in the field of
planning. More specifically, there was a de-
tailed outline of the background leading up to
the decision by the department to implement
what are known as area highway planning
studies, and the way in which these are
carried out. As I informed the hon. members
at that time, these studies will cover every
part of the province through which a King's
or secondary highway passes, the province
having been divided into 19 study areas for
this purpose.
In addition to the origin-destination sur-
veys, traffic counts, road inventories, land
use, speed and functional planning studies
make their contribution to the overall exam-
ination. It is to be noted that all roads which
are deemed significant for the planning of
improvements to the King's highway system
are considered in each study. The only excep-
tions are roads and streets in the larger urban
centres, where we rely on the municipalities
themselves to collect the data required in
carrying out their own urban transportation
studies, a subject to which I shall refer again
in a moment.
In October, the department presented the
findings and recommendations of the second
and third such studies to be completed,
namely, the eastern Ontario highway plan-
ning study and the one known as the London
area study, respectively. The favourable re-
ception accorded in each case was similar to
that given to the presentation of our pilot
study of this type, the one identified as the-
Niagara peninsula highway planning study.
At this time, three more such studies are
at an advanced stage and should be com-
pleted before the end of 1966. These are
the southwestern Ontario study, embracing
the counties of Essex, Kent and Lambton;
the Brantford area study; and the one identi-
fied as the Ottawa-North Bay Highway 17
corridor study. To give the hon. members an
indication of the rate at which this overall
study project is progressing, I am pleased to
advise that preliminary work preceding the
launching of three similar highway planning
studies is under way. These are referred to
by these titles: The Kitchener- Waterloo area;
the Parry Sound area; and the Owen Sound
area, which covers all but the southwestern
corner of Dufferin, the whole of the counties
of Grey, Bruce and Huron and the northern
portions of Perth and Wellington.
A most important aspect of this radically
new type of study on an area basis conceived
by The Department of Highways is the way
in which this form of approach to planning
has contributed to direct development of a
regional nature, rather than development
which is purely local and limited in that
sense. In that connection, a factor which has
emerged as one of the keys necessary for
worthwhile success is land use studies, con-
ducted with the most up-to-date techniques
available. This observation logically leads
me to turn to the transportation studies which
the more progressive cities and larger towns
have been carrying out for the past few years,
with, I might say, the utmost stimulation-
financial, through a 75 per cent subsidy, and
otherwise— from the department.
Sound and sufficiently broad land use
MARCH 1, 1966
1059
studies are the foundation upon which intel-
ligent, meaningful urban transportation plan-
ning by the municipalities must be based.
Accordingly, the department is giving maxi-
mum encouragement to the municipalities to
stress this aspect of their urban transporta-
tion studies.
As I have emphasized so strongly on each
occasion when the findings and recommenda-
tions of an area highway planning study have
been presented, there is nothing fixed, settled
or final about these recommendations. They
are never offered as representing the ultimate
solution to any particular problem. Instead,
I have stated in the clearest possible language
that the next stage will be for the depart-
ment to sit down with the representatives of
the municipalities concerned to discuss with
them how their own road plans can be most
effectively integrated with our proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I have digressed in this way
only to make the point that it is precisely
this type of flexibility of viewpoint toward
planning on the part of the municipalities
which the department wants to see adopted
and the development of which it is encour-
aging to the hilt. The urban transportation
studies by the municipalities will accomplish
their maximum potential only if the munici-
palities endorse, as an established procedure,
the policy of reviewing their studies from
time to time and updating them as required.
Those municipalities that do review and
update their transportation studies in the light
of altering conditions, such as changes in the
way land is being used and the resultant
effect on traffic volumes and patterns, can
make realistic adjustments in their previous
plans. In turn, such modifications can signi-
ficantly affect the department's area highway
planning study concerned. From this, the
very real benefit to the municipalities in con-
stantly reviewing their studies should be
abundantly clear. In this connection it is
heartening to report that several cities are at
the moment in the process of updating studies
previously completed.
An excellent example of the application of
good road planning techniques and modern
management methods may be seen in the
needs studies which the counties have been
carrying out, assisted by a 50 per cent sub-
sidy from this department, and which have
recently been completed.
The studies will, by providing a current
guide to the requirements for each county
road system over the next five to ten years,
enable the counties, together with the depart-
ment, to prepare five-year construction pro-
grammes in which the funds available will be
directed to the areas of greatest need. With-
out going into detail as to the techniques and
procedures being employed, I should observe
that a major objective of each needs study is
the identification of what would constitute a
desirable county road system.
Ideally, the counties will now move toward
the adoption of these desirable systems. I am
happy to report that the results of the studies,
in the great majority of cases, indicate this to
be the intention of the counties. The degree
to which each county achieves the objectives
defined for implementation through its study
will determine the measure of overall benefit
for that county and, as well, the county road
systems on a provincial basis.
The county needs study could never have
been carried out with such success had not
the counties themselves recognized the value
to their respective road systems of such a
study. This recognition, in turn, resulted in
their positive support throughout all stages.
I wish to take this occasion to acknowledge
this contribution and to thank them for it,
for being, in this instance, as I like to put it,
partners in progress with the department.
Further to the explanatory comments I
have made in the House relative to the
introduction and subsequent enactment of
The Local Roads Boards Act, and also my
remarks in the course of presenting last
year's estimates on the progress made in
this sphere, I am now pleased to provide
an up-to-date report.
Thirty-six boards were formally established
prior to June, 1965, and became operative
in that year. Since that time, 41 additional
applications have been received and are
being processed. It is anticipated that most or
all of these will be in operation this year.
It is a point of interest that of the 36
established boards, 29 are in former statute
labour areas and seven are in townships in
which there was no previous form of organi-
zation. The 41 new applications represent 25
former statute labour boards; the other 16
will be entirely new organizations.
It would be impossible in my remarks
this evening to indicate, even in the briefest
type of outline, the scope of the progress
made by the department in 1965 in the
realms of highway planning, design, main-
tenance and research. However, there are
some examples in the fields of maintenance
and research to which I shall now briefly
refer.
In May, 1965, the department announced
it had retained a firm of consultants— special-
ists in their field— to carry out a new type of
survey of maintenance procedures which
1060
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would include an examination of all aspects
of the department's management of main-
tenance methods and operating practices.
Some of the factors to receive special atten-
tion, it was stated at that time, were cost
accounting, new methods for defining and
establishing workloads, and performance
measurement.
The decision to have this survey made,
believed to be among the first of its kind to
be undertaken by any government agency in
Canada— indeed, it is possible that nothing
similar has been done to date— was based
on the most impressive results which similar
surveys have produced for state highway
departments pioneering in this respect in the
United States. Prompting this type of in-
itiative was the increasing portion of the
total annual budget of the department
required for maintenance purposes, both for
King's highways and for subsidies to the
municipalities.
The first phase of the survey project, in-
cluding a review and evaluation of the
management of maintenance practices by
selected municipalities, has just been com-
pleted; the results already obtained are such
that we will likely proceed at an early date
to the second phase.
The survey has indicated that there appears
to be worthwhile opportunities for improv-
ing the maintenance function through the
provision of adequate training programmes
effectively presented. To that end, a study
was made of what appears to be required
for instruction of this type, both now and
in the future. Indications of the lines along
which other changes not related to training
might be explored have also been given.
Another milestone of vital importance for
the greater efficiency of maintenance opera-
tions occurred last July when two-way radio
systems became operative in the depart-
ment's administrative districts of Sault Ste.
Marie, Fort William and Kenora. With the
completion cf the installation of the depart-
ment's own equipment in these three districts,
all 18 of the department's districts now have
such systems, more than 700 mobile units
being equipped to use the system. Two-way
radio has proven invaluable for the depart-
ment's maintenance forces, most strikingly
in emergency situations created by blizzards,
wash-outs, storms and accidents of all types.
So far as can be ascertained, no other
highway department in Cmada has the
equivalent in two-way radio systems. In fact,
it would appear that few highway depart-
ments in the United States can compare in
this respect, this being another instance of
why The Department of Highways, Ontario,
is regarded as one of the most progressive
anywhere.
While research has long been an integral
part of the overall operation of the depart-
ment, it assumed new dimensions in 1965,
especially in the field of what may be
described as problems of an intangible
nature associated with traffic and highway
planning. An example of the latter is the
effort being made to develop more accurate
methods of predicting the type and volume
of highway traffic that will result from the
expected further growth of tourism in coming
years, so that the necessary amount of
highway expansion can be planned accord-
ingly.
So as to develop improved design criteria
for pavement and bridges, the related an-
alytical studies will be carried forward, as
will the field observation of performance
under traffic conditions. These studies are
closely associated with the consideration cur-
rently being given to the interrelationship
between the vehicle sizes and load limits
permitted under our laws and the service
behaviour of roads and bridges.
The department's own testing facilities,
designed and built by it expressly for this
purpose, will continue to be used to test
exhaustively, over a 1.5-year period, the
effectiveness of rust inhibitors in reducing the
corrosion of auto-body steel caused by salt
used in winter maintenance. In this compre-
hensive project, other factors related to metal
corrosion are being investigated throughout
the test period.
There are several other examples that could
be mentioned, but these should be sufficient
to indicate something of the scope of the
total research programme. Some of the prob-
lems will be studied by departmental staff,
others assigned to universities participating
with the department in the Ontario joint high-
way research programme, and some, where
circumstances dictate, to consultants.
The overriding consideration in the de-
partment's scheduling of work in the 1966-
1967 fiscal year, within the budget I am
about to present, will be, as in the past, the
judicious application of the funds available
to ensure the greatest possible improvement
in the level of service rendered by Ontario's
total road network. In that network, as I
have stressed many times in expounding the
total roads concept which guides the depart-
ment in its planning and construction pro-
grammes, the King's highway mileage and
municipal roads and streets complement each
other.
MARCH 1, 1966
1061
Before submitting a tabulation of proposed
expenditures, I am pleased to inform the
House that, in accordance with the policy of
this government and a recommendation of
the 1965 public accounts committee, we are
submitting a new format for these estimates
that has been considerably revised. The sub-
mission in this new form will provide the hon.
members with substantially more information
than in previous years. Instead of three votes,
as formerly, there will be 11 and the analysis
of expenditures will be set forth under 50
items.
Of special interest to the House is the new
grouping of expenditures according to broad
types of service rendered, together with
supplementary information helpful to an un-
derstanding of the purpose served by the
respective expenditures.
We shall continue our efforts to improve
still further the form of submission of future
estimates, to the end that the greatest amount
of relevant information will be made avail-
able in terms that may be readily understood,
sir.
The following table will provide a com-
parison of the estimates for the forthcoming
fiscal year with the one now ending: King's
highwavs-construction 1966-1967-$159,329,-
000 (1965-1966-$142,178,000). King's high-
ways-maintenance, $56,713,000 ($51,505,000).
Municipal assistance, $153,750,000 ($137,-
315,000). Commuter rail project, $9,625,000
(-). Administration, $5,848,000 ($5,175,000).
Gross expenditure is $385,265,000 ($336,173,-
000). Less: refunds account for $12,000,000
($6,780,000). Net expenditure is $373,265,000
($329,393,000).
Previously, in this type of abbreviated
breakdown of the budget the heading of
municipal assistance has included road subsi-
dies, direct aid, and special forms of assist-
ance in unincorporated townships. However,
in recent years, expenditures which have
come from the King's highway account on
projects of direct benefit to the municipalities
have risen to the point where they now rep-
resent a sizeable proportion of the funds
voted in this category.
For this reason— and so as to more cor-
rectly indicate something of the degree of
financial aid now being extended to the
municipalities— we have this year, under the
heading of municipal assistance, also pro-
vided for budgeted expenditures under con-
necting link agreements and construction
agreements (special)— the type covering the
new controlled-access urban expressways
and other work on municipal streets closely
associated with King's highway routes.
Under "direct aid"— by far the greater
part of which is devoted to the development
road programme— we have provided a record
$19 million, up $2 million from last year.
The total financial aid budgeted under the
heading "municipal assistance," namely,
$153.75 million, represents more than 41 per
cent of the total budget. Nevertheless, even
that impressive percentage falls far short of
the full measure of help since it does not
take into account any of the other most sub-
stantial expenditures on other projects of
direct benefit to the municipalities, such as
the Ottawa Queensway, Highway 403— both
the section now in use in Hamilton and the
Brantford bypass, nearing completion— High-
way 406 in St. Catharines, and others.
Indeed, under the total roads concept
which this department has translated into a
positive programme, we expect that financial
aid of all types for the municipalities will
continue to increase as the department works
more closely with them in their efforts to
solve pressing road problems.
The estimates for my department for the
coming year include an amount of $9,625,000
to cover the initial phase of the government's
rail commuter project.
As the hon. members probably will recall,
the government's decision to launch this
project was announced to the House on
May 19 of last year by the hon. Prime Min-
ister. I had the privilege at that time to
acquaint the House of some of the details
that were contemplated in the proposed
service.
I will not burden hon. members with a
review of those details or the background
leading to the decision, except to say that the
project grew out of the investigations of the
Metropolitan Toronto and region transporta-
tion study.
Instead, I will briefly outline the develop-
ments that have taken place from the time
of the announcement.
Because of the thoroughness of the prep-
aration leading to the government's decision,
it was possible to invite tenders for equip-
ment 22 days later, and on August 12 it was
possible to award contracts.
Because of technical developments in the
equipment construction field, it was decided
to alter our equipment concept to provide
the service with a better selection that would
result in a more efficient and more eco-
nomical operation.
Instead of operating with all trains hauled
by locomotives, there will now be nine self-
propelled diesel-car units of a new design
1062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that will operate economically during off-
peak periods and supplement locomotive-
hauled trains during peak travelling periods.
I might say that these self-propelled units
were obtained at a considerably lower price
than the cost to purchase any comparable
units now on the market.
Because of the purchase of these self-pro-
pelled units, we were able to cut back on the
number of locomotives from ten to eight,
and the number of locomotive-hauled cars
required was reduced from 48 to 40.
The contract for the locomotives was let
to General Motors Diesel Ltd. on a bid of
$2,828,328. The contract for the 40 coaches
and nine self-propelled cars was let to
Hawker Siddeley (Canada) Ltd. on a bid of
$4,309,840. Deliveries of all equipment are
scheduled to be completed by the end of this
year.
While the locomotives are a standard
model of 3,000-hp rating, specially equipped
with auxiliary electrical generators for
lighting, heating and air-conditioning, the
coaches and cars are of a new design that
lends itself to operating economies while
maintaining a high degree of passenger
comfort and convenience.
All of these units are 85 feet in length, but
with a considerably lower weight ratio than
any rail commuter equipment now being
produced on this continent. The coaches will
weigh 57,200 lbs., and the self-propelled
cars, including 385-hp Rolls Royce diesel
propulsion units, 70,000 lbs.
These low weights will allow consider-
able savings in operating costs.
I am happy to say that because of the
more economical operation of these self-
propelled cars, it will now be possible to
provide hourly service during Sundays and
holidays, instead of the originally considered
90-minute service.
During the past five months, on-the-ground
surveys have been carried out to determine
a selection of desirable station locations in
the areas that we indicated would be in-
cluded in the service.
The decisions on these matters involve
operational considerations, patronage accessi-
bility, population growth prediction, avail-
ability of parking space, interchange
facilities and land acquisition costs, to name
but a few. Within the next few weeks, this
aspect of the project will have been con-
cluded.
Meanwhile, architects have been at work
drawing up designs and specifications for
station buildings, platforms, and other con-
struction aspects involved in the installation
of stations.
Canadian National Railways, which will
operate the service for the government under
a contract, has assigned a special staff to
handle the commuter project; these people
have been preparing plans for modifying
the line to handle the service. These modi-
fications will involve track relocation in
certain station areas and installation of new
signal facilities to handle high-frequency
passenger traffic.
Station and right-of-way construction is
scheduled to commence early this spring.
After the delivery of the equipment, a
period of trial service must be carried out
before the inauguration of service early in
1967, as projected.
As a matter of interest to hon. members,
the creation of this service involves almost
1,200 separate work assignments of a major
nature. Every one of these requires decisions
at the highest level because they all have to
be dovetailed into an interlocking project
programme designed to bring the service into
operation in the shortest time possible.
The detail of work required to carry out
the great majority of these assignments is
formidable; if it were not for the high degree
of co-operation and rapport established be-
tween government and railway personnel, it
is doubtful that the project could be launched
within the time limits originally considered.
I appreciate that this has been a r6sum£
covering progress in the broader aspects of
the project; the main highlights. I am sure
that there are details on some of these aspects
that would interest some hon. members and
I will be pleased to accommodate their ques-
tions.
Among the more ambitious undertakings
on which major work will be done in 1966
will be two tunnels under the Welland canal.
On the Thorold tunnel, the contractor is
making good progress on the $14-million-plus
contract awarded last September. Here, time
is of the essence as certain stages must be
completed before the opening of the canal to
navigation this spring. The present schedule
is that tenders for the western approaches
will be called this summer.
In March, tenders will be called for the
first major work on the St. Catharines tunnel
under the canal, the preliminary work having
been completed in 1965. Tenders, which will
be for the tunnel itself and a considerable
amount of associated work, will be opened,
it is now expected, early in May.
MARCH 1, 1966
1063
The announcement last December by the
St. Lawrence Seaway authority that it has
under consideration construction of a new
8.5-mile section that would bypass the city
of Welland has made it necessary for The
Department of Highways to hold in abeyance
the plans it had developed for additional
crossings of the canal. In the case of a tunnel
planned for Welland, this planning was at
a most advanced stage.
Following immediately upon this announce-
ment, the department began additional studies
to gather the necessary data for crossings at
new locations should the federal government,
through the seaway authority, decide in
favour of the alternative or bypass route.
These studies have been given a high priority
because of the urgency of the matter for the
municipalities concerned— and, indeed, for
the general area. The department is endeav-
ouring to maintain the closest possible liaison
with the authority.
The $159,329,000 budgeted for capital con-
struction will ensure an impressive volume of
work being in progress in all parts of Ontario
in 1966, both on a number of larger, more
spectacular projects, and for the improvement
of existing sections of highway.
On the Macdonald-Cartier freeway, there
will be no let-up in the drive to open addi-
tional lanes over the small amount of mileage
on which there are as yet only two lanes. As
early as possible, paving of the north lanes
laetween Iroquois and the Aultsville sideroad,
west of Cornwall, will be underway for fall
completion, it is expected. The eastern end
of this section joins with previously completed
four-lane mileage extending to the Quebec
border.
On the new four-lane section of the free-
way being constructed on an improved align-
ment north of the present mileage between
Gananoque and Long Beach, west of Brock-
ville, grading of four lanes over the whole 25-
mile distance will be in progress in 1966. In
addition, it is proposed to award some nine
miles of paving from Gananoque easterly,
where the grading will be finished this sum-
mer, including the new connection to the
Thousand Islands bridge. Exclusive of work
on sections within Metro Toronto, it is
planned to award contracts for this freeway
having an estimated value of $9 million.
Major work on the widening of sections of
the Macdonald-Cartier freeway within Metro
Toronto will be continued, the new work pro-
posed being valued at $5.6 million.
Major work will be in evidence on the
Quinte Skyway, the Ottawa Queensway and
the Kitchener- Waterloo expressway— for which
the department awarded its first large con-
tract this month— the work involved on the
latter being valued at well over $4 million.
Widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way to
six lanes from west of Highway 10 westerly
for 5.5 miles will be completed. It is expected
that it will be possible to begin work on the
construction of service roads on both sides
of the QEW between Hamilton and St. Cath-
arines, as an integral part of the continuing
programme to further control access on this
highway between Hamilton and Niagara Falls.
Work is also scheduled to start on the
reconstruction of the interchange for the
QEW and Highway 27 and related improve-
ments.
On Highway 403, in the vicinity of the
western limits of the city of Hamilton, the
extension of this freeway westerly from Mo-
hawk road for 3.5 miles to Hamilton drive
has been scheduled, the cost of which new
work is estimated at $2.5 million. Farther
west, the Brantford bypass section of High-
way 403 will be completed this year.
In the same general area, on the new high-
way being constructed between Brantford and
Simcoe, to be signed number 24, work will
continue; it is planned to award a paving
contract from the junction with Highway 53
southerly to Scotland.
Work already in progress will go forward
and new work will be awarded on the Beav-
erton bypass, which project will result in a
notable improvement for one of the main
vacation routes, much of the mileage forming
part of the route of the trans-Canada high-
way.
New work scheduled at various points on
the main route of the trans-Canada highway
is valued at $3.7 million, the greater part
of this mileage being in northern and north-
western Ontario.
Elsewhere in northwestern Ontario, a high
volume of work has again been scheduled.
On Highway 105, two new paving contracts
will be awarded to complete the reconstruc-
tion of this highway over its 110-mile dis-
tance.
Work on the 60-mile extension of Highway
631 southerly from Hornepayne to a junction
with trans-Canada Highway 17, near the
town of White River, will go forward under
two contracts, one for grading and granular
base from 6.5 miles south of Hornepayne
southerly for the next eight miles, and the
other for clearing from 15 miles south of
Hornepayne southerly for 12.5 miles, both
contracts to be completed this year.
1064
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On the closing of the present "gap" on
Highway 101 between Wawa and Highway
129, south of Chapleau, the work to be
completed in 1966 under contracts already
awarded will see the opening of this new
80-mile link in the fall of 1966.
The start of additional work with a value
approaching $1 million is scheduled for the
new Sudbury-Timmins highway, to be signed
King's highway number 144. It is planned to
award two contracts for grading and/or
granular base over two sections totalling
16.5 miles between Highway 101 and Gogama
and a third contract for a bridge over
Bailey creek, north of Benny.
The first phase of the reconstruction of
Highway 614— southerly from Manitouwadge
for nine miles— will be in progress under a
contract recently awarded, and a second
contract for clearing of a widened and im-
proved right-of-way for the next 9.5 miles
will be awarded.
The projects I have mentioned specifically
are, of course, only representative of the
aggregate programme of highway improve-
ment and expansion which will begin or
be continued in the 1966-1967 fiscal year.
So as to amplify and substantiate most force-
fully that statement, I shall cite only two
or three statistics to make the point. The
first is this: Over and above the projects I
have just identified, the capital programme
calls for a start to be made in 1966 on more
than 320 miles of sections of King's highway
that require either reconstruction or expan-
sion, the work to consist of grading, paving
or a combination in each case. The same
programme has scheduled the replacement of
40 structures. The estimated construction cost
alone to complete that programme is $35.4
million.
The second statistic is: Still over and
above this, resurfacing of an additional 95
miles of highway that does not require recon-
struction has been provided for, requiring an
estimated expenditure of two and one-third
million dollars.
Mr. Chairman, while I have taken longer
than desired in presenting these estimates,
the hon. members would agree, I am con-
fi lent that a proposed expenditure approach-
ing $400 million merits their most careful
consideration, for which purpose detailed in-
formation should be provided to them. Ac-
cordingly, I have made a conscientious effort
to document the advanced planning pro-
cedures followed by the department itself
in determining the needs of the Kind's high-
way system and, equally, given evidence
of how equitably the programme of improve-
ment and expansion has been dispersed in
every part of the province, and how this will
again be the case in the coming fiscal year.
In the course of doing so, it has also been
my pleasure to furnish other examples of
the progressive spirit that characterizes The
Department of Highways and its overall
efficiency.
At the same time, equal emphasis has
been placed on the leadership and financial
aid which the department is giving to the
municipalities generally on an ever-increasing
scale, to the end that the total road system
of this province— in which the King's high-
ways and municipal roads complement each
other— will make the maximum contribution
to the economic growth of Ontario and the
well-being of its people.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, as I rise once again to take
part in the debate on the estimates of The
Department of Highways, may I first con-
gratulate the hon. Minister for his fine pres-
entation.
May I at the same time, through him,
thank his many departmental officials and
staff for the co-operation we on this side of
the House have received from them during
the past year. We do hope— or should I say
we know— that in the ensuing year they will
be as helpful.
Now, Mr. Chairman, once again, as I did
in 1965, I had intended to take the hon.
Minister to task for not having provided us
with a capital construction programme for
the 1966-67 fiscal year well in advance of
these estimates. This year, Mr. Chairman, he
has done so; but I think it was more by
accident than intent.
Mr. Chairman, you may recall that in
1965 I suggested that The Department of
Highways present its estimates in a more
logical manner so that one may be able to
find answers in the public accounts more
readily. I would first like to thank the hon.
Minister for making a start on that reorgan-
ization this year. Instead of three votes, in
which we approve $373 million, if we had
followed last year's method of presentation,
we now have 11 votes. However, this re-
organization has not gone far enough.
There should be a much more detailed and
minute breakdown.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to read from the
report of the standing committee on public
accounts, on June 10, 1965:
As a result of its deliberations your
committee places before you the following
recommendations. Included in this list of
MARCH 1, 1966
1065
recommendations are some from last year's
report which we feel should be repeated.
In regard to the estimates. The estimates
should include, in addition to the pro-
posed expenditure for the forthcoming
fiscal year the following, the presentation
to be made in columnar fashion: (a)
approved estimate for the last completed
fiscal year; (b) actual expenditure for the
last completed fiscal year; (c) the approved
estimate for the current fiscal year.
A second item:
The estimates and accounts of the prov-
ince should show more detailed classifica-
tion of what is now called maintenance,
so that the cost of the purchase of office
equipment, the purchase of supplies and
other categories of expenditures should
be immediately apparent.
A third point:
Your committee wishes to commend the
present policy of providing greater detail
of expenditure in the estimates and
accounts by increasing the number of
individual votes. We recommend that this
policy be continued and expedited with
particular reference to The Department
of Highways.
Mr. Chairman, I would normally hesitate to
suggest improvements, but to me it would be
logical to have individual votes for freeways,
King's highways, secondary highways, de-
velopment roads, new constructions, repairs,
winter maintenance, general maintenance. I
would say it might be difficult to condense
the department's estimates into less than 20
votes. For example, we should know the
awarding date of a contract, the starting
date, the completion date, the original bid
price, the final cost price, the cost of over-
runs, the reason for overruns. We should
know the contracts that were not completed
within the contract time, the reason for
granting an extension. We should have all
the details.
The annual report does give some break-
down, but it does hide more than it shows.
It reminds one of an iceberg, ten per cent
visible.
Mr. Chairman, the estimates for this year
ask for a total of $373 millions as against
$329 million last year. This is an increase
of some $44 million, or some 13 per cent.
However, if you take into consideration ex-
pected normal salary increases to the depart-
mental personnel and also increases in the
cost of construction and add to these the
factors of normal population growth of the
province, plus the annual inflation factor,
you find that in constant dollars we are
actually spending less per capita in this de-
partment than we did last year.
So regardless of what the hon. Minister
may have said in his introductory remarks,
the plain facts are this department has not
kept up with the times, is not keeping up
with the times, is not keeping up with the
normal growth.
Not only has road building failed to keep
pace with the needs of the province, but the
backlog of highway deficiencies has been in-
creasing very rapidly. Studies have shown
that large portions of the King's highway
system and secondary roads are seriously in-
adequate for today's traffic. To rehabilitate
the highways of the province, to a satisfactory
level of—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: I am apparently getting
through to you fellows.
To rehabilitate the highways of the prov-
ince to a satisfactory level of service would
entail new construction, replacement and
stopgap work on roads and bridges costing
well over $2 billion.
In addition to the abovementioned, traffic
congestion in many urban areas testifies to
many deficiencies in our highway system,
that is in our road and street networks.
Insufficient shoulder width on our highways;
deficiencies in width and load-carrying capa-
city of many bridge structures; poor surface
conditions; bad curves; insufficient sight dis-
tance. These are but a few of the many
inadequacies of our road system.
Really, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
real planning, this department should not be
one step ahead of the times, it should be
miles, yes, many highway miles ahead of
the day. It should not merely be trying to
catch up; it should not be a follower, it
should be the leader in the economic growth
of Ontario. It should be the catalyst to the
economic growth of all parts of the province
so that the slogan, "Province of Opportunity"
would be meaningful.
Let us look at the Macdonald-Cartier free-
way, or Highway 401 as it is better known.
In spite of all of the ballyhoo, it is still not
completed. From a start in 1947 to today,
1966, it is still an incomplete four-lane con-
crete ribbon, let alone much work done on
making this road what it was intended to be,
that is a limited access freeway. In fact the
original estimate for the complete construc-
tion of Highway 401 was $150 million. The
1066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
final figures will be over 20 times that
amount, close to $3 billion. It will be well
over five years more of waiting before the
name Macdonald-Cartier limited access free-
way may apply. Nineteen years to date is
much too long a period of time to have built
this roadway. This is an average of only 27
miles per year. If this is the best a Tory gov-
ernment can do: Shame!
Yes, Mr. Chairman, double shame to have
penalized western Ontario and eastern On-
tario by depriving them of this means of com-
munication for so long a period of time. If
this government were as concerned as they
claim to be about the overall growth of the
province the eastern end of the Macdonald-
Cartier freeway would have been completed
years ago. The only conclusion one can come
to concerning this department is that its
policy is built on political expediency, not
necessity. In fact it is common talk that the
definition of a highway is that it is the short-
est distance between two Tory ridings.
The department has had numerous pro-
jected studies, five-year plans, ten-year plans,
20-year plans, updated plans; but it never
seems to do things in a whole— only in part.
A bit of road here, another piece there, and
so forth. Why not, Mr. Minister, take the bull
by the horns—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Chairman, at this stage-
Mr. Newman: I have just one paragraph.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Then you are all
through; fine!
Mr. Newman: Mr. Minister, why not take
the bull by the horns, get down to the job
and complete within, say a five-year period
of time, all of the needs of the province for
the next 20?
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Now you
can move the adjournment.
Mr. Newman: No, I have just one short
paragraph here.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell): We know
how you feel.
Mr. Newman: Funds can be borrowed and
then all of this can be repaid out of revenues
derived from the users of the road, registra-
tion and fuel taxes and so forth. Unless such
a policy is adopted, highway and roads con-
struction may become the chief bottleneck,
the tourniquet, preventing a continued and
accelerated economic growth in all parts of
Ontario. Just look at the overall growth
of the province, Mr. Minister, and the areas
of slow growth have been those that were
poorest serviced by highways.
I have more remarks, I would prefer to
make them tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee rise and report a certain resolution
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to a
certain resolution and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Wednesday, we pro-
pose to move certain second readings which
will include government bills as well as pri-
vate bills, and if there is any time left in the
afternoon we will go on to and continue with
the estimates of The Department of High-
ways.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, before the debate adjourns can the
hon. Minister indicate what second readings
will be coming before the House?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No; any of them may
be called.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.35 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 36
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Betmteg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, March 2, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 2, 1966
Charitable Institutions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Cecile, first reading 1069
Statement re Ontario educational capital aid corporation, Mr. Allan 1072
Plant Diseases Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 1072
Crown Timber Act, bill to amend, Mr. Roberts, second reading 1072
Expansion and improvement of privately owned woodlands, bill to provide for,
Mr. Roberts, second reading 1072
Discrimination in employment because of age, bill to prevent, Mr. Rowntree, second
reading 1076
Telephone Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, second reading 1081
Gasoline Handling Act, 1966, bill intituled, Mr. Simonett, second reading 1081
Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Simonett, second
reading 1082
Law Society Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1082
Conditional Sales Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1086
Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1086
Change of Name Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1086
Judicature Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1087
Devolution of Estates Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1087
Licensing and regulation of nursing homes, bill to provide for, Mr. Dymond, second
reading 1087
Summary Convictions Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1096
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 1096
Co-operative Loans Act, bill to amend, Mr. Stewart, second reading 1096
Greater Niagara general hospital, bill respecting, Mr. Bukator, second reading 1096
Township of Toronto, bill respecting, Mr. Mackenzie, second reading 1096
City of Brantford, bill respecting, Mr. Nixon, second reading 1096
Canadian national exhibition association, bill respecting, Mr. Cowling, second reading 1096
Town of Weston, bill respecting, Mr. MacDonald, second reading 1096
Police village of Baden, bill respecting, Mr. Reuter, second reading 1096
City of London, bill respecting, Mr. White, second reading 1096
Town of Burlington, bill respecting, Mr. McKeough, second reading 1097
City of Sudbury, bill respecting, Mr. Sopha, second reading 1097
Board of trustees of the Roman Catholic separate schools for the city of Windsor,
bill respecting, Mr. Thrasher, second reading 1097
Township of North York, bill respecting, on second reading, held 1097
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1097
1069
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome,
as guests to the Legislature today, students
from the following schools: In the west
gallery, Fairview public school, Cooksville
and Maple Grove public school, Barrie.
Petitions.
Presenting reports of committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ACT
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Charitable Institutions
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, this amendment to
the legislation substantially increases the
capital grants to those private organizations
to construct or purchase buildings to be used
as charitable institutions. Under the former
legislation, the provincial grant was 50 per
cent of the cost of new construction up to a
maximum grant of $2,500 per bed. This
now has been increased to $5,000 per bed.
If an existing building is purchased, rather
than constructed, the province may grant the
full purchase cost up to a maximum of
$1,200 a bed.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart), notice of which has been given.
Has the actual separation of the company
and the bean board been effected? If so,
what is the name of the new company?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, a partial separation has
been effected in that there are now two
separate boards with different personnel.
Wednesday, March 2, 1966
Complete separation will be made as soon as
is practical after the audit, which is now
in progress, is completed.
I want to make it abundantly clear that it
is intended to turn back the company and
the plant to the growers, just as soon as it
is possible, after the audit is completed and
the necessary arrangements are made for
such to be done.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question of the hon. Minister?
Has this partial separation reached the point
where the board has actually rented additional
facilities, beyond what it had previous to the
government's action in this area?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I understand, Mr.
Speaker, that the new bean board has
acquired facilities in the co-op medical
services building in London for their
premises.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, one more supple-
mentary question? This being so, would it
then follow that the growers' money is
being used to rent this building and to
furnish it?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it does not follow
that it does, Mr. Speaker. The cost of
renting the facilities, in which the new
board find themselves in the co-op medical
services building, is being paid by the farm
products marketing board for the time being.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
(Mr. Roberts).
Would the hon. Minister outline what steps
are being taken to meet and control the wolf
problem in areas where the deer population
is being destroyed? And is the wolf bounty
being increased to encourage trappers and
others to help solve the problem?
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, the question put
by the hon. member has some of the ele-
ments of that famous one addressed to a
husband by a prosecuting attorney, "Have
you stopped beating your wife? Answer
1070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
yes or no." But I am sure that the hon.
member is not endeavouring intentionally to
put the department into that kind of a
straitjacket. We have in the department,
stationed across the province at various
strategic points, predator control officers. They
work with the farmers and trappers in the
use of the best techniques and equipment
available to meet any local problem involv-
ing predation by wolves. These officers, in
addition, keep a close watch on wolf popu-
lations themselves and are available to act
on the complaint of individuals. There are
some 25 of them across the province.
The wolf bounty at present is $25. It
has been at this level for a number of years.
Some years ago, the bounty was increased
to $40 for a period and then was brought
back to the $25 figure because it became ap-
parent that the number of wolves taken did
not increase. The amount paid out for wolf
bounties for the current year is estimated—
or will be by the time this month is out—
at about $60,000.
With regard to the deer situation at the
moment, I am glad to be able to inform the
House that reports received from field officers,
in flights over some deer areas, indicate that
the condition of the deer population is more
satisfactory at this time than it has been for
a number of years. We are making efforts
to interest sportsmen of the province in the
pursuit of wolves and coyotes as game ani-
mals. By use of motorized toboggans as means
of transportation, and the development of
techniques by our staff to locate packs of
wolves and coyotes, hunting of these animals
has become a popular sport in several parts
of the province.
The district forester for North Bay district,
where my hon. friend's riding is included,
informs me the local predator control officer,
Mr. Len Cote, is centrally located at Marten
river and that recently some deer-feeding
areas have been provided in the district that
the gentleman opposite represents. Encourage-
ment is being given to trappers to take more
wolves in their traplines. The pelts this year
are bringing worthwhile prices— $15 and bet-
ter in some cases— and that, of course, is in
addition to the bounty.
I understand also that the deer kill in the
last hunting season in Nipissing was some-
what better than in the previous year. Inci-
dentally, some Americans make a point of
going into the Nipissing district a little later
in the winter, and they do a certain amount
of aeroplane hunting for wolves. They co-
operate with our department on information,
and I believe last year they took somewhere
between 20 and 45 wolves during their for-
ages in the Nipissing district.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the hon. Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management (Mr. Simonett): What is
the position of The Department of Energy
and Resources Management in regard to the
present proposal of the Trans-Canada Pipline
Company to build a pipeline to bring western
natural gas through the United States as
opposed to an all-Canadian line?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
I might say that the application of the Trans-
Canada Pipeline Company is presently being
heard before the national energy board. Our
main concern in Ontario is to have an ample
supply of gas at the best possible price, and
of course, we are not taking any position
as to what route they follow.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question for the hon. Minister. Is he
satisfied that the supply of natural gas will
be enough in northwestern Ontario without
this new pipeline?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, we are informed
that the present pipeline can supply all the
needs in northern Ontario at the present
time; and, of course, if this line does go
through the northern United States, it will be
serving an area in north and northwestern
Ontario.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart). Will the
hon. Attorney General investigate the follow-
ing charges made by Mr. Ray Taggart, presi-
dent of teamsters local 879 in Hamilton:
(1) that striking teamsters have been injured
during the past few weeks by a non-union
driver crashing through picket lines on the
advice of police; (2) that trucks on the high-
ways now have major mechanical defects
which affect steering, brakes, lights and tires;
(3) that The Public Commercial Vehicles Act
is being violated by the use of trucks for the
hauling of freight, which normally would
not pass the scrutiny of the authorities?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good
enough to give me advance notice of his
intention to ask the question. I have already
commenced investigations. I am not prepared
to give a complete answer, although the
question asks: "Will the Attorney Gen-
eral investigate?" To that I would certainly
MARCH 2, 1966
1071
answer "yes-" I could add further that my
investigations have been underway.
I do know and can inform the House that
there are provincial police officers at the
scene and their purpose there is simply to
make certain that there is no breach of the
peace. I shall investigate to see if the charge
suggested, that they have been exceeding
their instructions and authority, is so. My
advice so far indicates that the situation is
orderly; and also, as far as I have been able
to discover, no trucks have been leaving the
scene or proceeding on the highways with
mechanical defects of a serious nature—
which is indicated here.
I am investigating the matter of the
PCV Act violations, as alleged. I hope to
have further information for the hon. member
as soon as I continue those investigations.
Mr. Gisborn: Thank you. I assume the
hon. Attorney General will let me know what
he finds.
I would like to direct a supplementary
question to the hon. Attorney General: To
what extent has the regular highway patrol
been reduced because of the diversion of the
provincial police to picket line locations?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, having
had no warning of this question— and it is the
type of question that requires investigation
and study— I do not think that there would be
any appreciable difference. Certainly some
officers, if they are engaged in one duty,
have to leave another; but I cannot answer
that question more fully at the moment.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the hon. Provin-
cial Treasurer (Mr. Allan).
Is he in a position to report on the gov-
ernment investigation of a greater than
normal number of transfers of truck licences
since the commencement of the teamsters'
strike; and can he also confirm his assurance
that sales tax will be paid on all such trans-
fers?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer):
Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the hon.
members on February 15, the retail sales
tax branch has been investigating motor
vehicle transfers as it has done for several
years. On those transfers which are found
to be taxable, the purchasers will be assessed.
There has been no change in the application
of The Retail Sales Tax Act on such trans-
actions, so that transfers of a type similar to
those which attracted tax in 1965 and before
will be taxable now, either on the fair value
of the sale or on the rental.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my
supplementary question should be directed
to the hon. Provincial Treasurer, but the last
time I queried him on this point he indicated
that they had information from The Depart-
ment of Transport that there was a greater
than normal number of transfers and they
were looking into it. Is the hon. Provincial
Treasurer in a position to comment on that
aspect or should I ask the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett)?
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I think it
is our responsibility. The Department of
Transport inform us of the transfers and we
take it from there, which we are doing. I
would say that there have been a greater
than normal number of transfers.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond), notice of
which has been given.
When will the regulations under The
Medical Services Insurance Act be published,
in view of the fact that the public are now
purchasing policies?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the regulations under The
Medical Services Insurance Act will be pub-
lished before the end of this month.
Mr. S. Lewis: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Minister not
recognize that under The Insurance Act of
this province private insurance companies
would not get away with advertising poli-
cies without giving their substance?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, I am
not aware of that.
Mr. S. Lewis: Then why not?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Because it is not
necessary.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the hon. Minister
going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: What you are getting
is published in the bill.
Mr. S. Lewis: The regulations were not
published.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The regulations have
nothing to do with the policies.
1072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Allan: Mr. Speaker, in my
Budget speech of February 9 I outlined how
the province of Ontario would obtain funds
generated by the Canada pension plan. I
stated at that time that we propose to make
funds available for the purchase of deben-
tures issued by municipalities and school
boards for the construction of schools and
through the universities' capital aid corpora-
tion for the purchase of debentures from
universities.
I stated further that the rate of interest
to be charged to municipalities and school
boards would be based on the cost to the
province of the funds available under the
Canada pension plan.
The Minister of Finance of Canada
advised me by wire on February 28 that
the amount available to Ontario from
February collections of the plan was $20,-
110,000, and that the rate of interest set for
the borrowing of this amount was 5.29 per
cent.
It should be understood that this rate will
fluctuate from month to month in accordance
with the market rate of issues of Canada
having a maturity of 20 years or longer.
I would also like to inform the House that
it is proposed to introduce legislation to set
up a Crown corporation to be called the
Ontario educational capital aid corporation.
This corporation will have as its object the
purchase of debentures of municipalities and
school boards issued for the construction of
schools. The rate of interest to be charged
by this corporation will be very close to our
cost.
Hon. members will fully appreciate the
great benefit that this government is passing
on to the municipalities and school boards in
making funds available at favourable interest
rates for the total cost of the construction of
schools.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE CROWN TIMBER ACT
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests) moves second reading of Bill No.
21, An Act to amend The Crown Timber
Act.
Hon. A. K. Roberts (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say
just a word on the principle of this bill deal-
ing with the management of licensed areas.
There are a number of provisions designed
to improve the management, including the
utilization and control of the Crown timber
under licence. Provision is made to ensure
that persons acquiring licences in the sale of
Crown timber by public tender will be in
a position to fully utilize the timber. Also,
provision is made for cancellation of licences
where there has been inadequate cutting
operations or inadequate improvement of
the licensed areas on transfers.
Provision is also made for bringing the
maximum amount of district cutting licences
into line with today's dollar values, respect-
ing cutting of scattered pieces. There are
also additional provisions respecting with-
holding of the annual cutting approval and
to strengthen the requirements respecting
annual plans and returns.
In view of the changing methods of timber
operations, including the mechanization and
transportation, new standards of scaling are
required and the qualifications of scalers
must be raised. As a result, the issue of new
pulpwood scaler licences will be discon-
tinued, but existing pulpwood licences will
be renewed. Hereafter the new scalers
must qualify for all species. The penalties
for unauthorized cutting of Crown timber,
the hauling of unsealed timber and other
similar offences against the Act are being
modified to provide for a greater flexibility
in levying penalties. I might say that this
bill would, Mr. Speaker, be referred to the
committee on natural resources, mining and
wildlife.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PLANT DISEASES ACT
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways) in the absence of Hon. W. A.
Stewart (Minister of Agriculture) moves
second reading of Bill No. 18, An Act to
amend The Plant Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
PRIVATELY OWNED WOODLANDS
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves second reading
of Bill No. 22, An Act to provide for the
expansion and improvement of privately
owned woodlands.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, in
this connection, I would like to point out
that from the earliest time, the farms in
MARCH 2, 1966
1073
southwestern Ontario have normally had
associated with them a woodlot, which in
days gone by was used to provide the fuel
for those living on the farm, either in the
main home, or in those of the people who
had to take part in the farm labour.
Naturally, over the years these woodlots
have fallen into considerable disuse, as other
fuels have come to be used, which were more
convenient and less associated with the hard
work of going out in the wintertime with a
cross-cut saw and providing the fuel.
It is also true that the utilization of these
woodlots for maple products has fallen off
considerably in the last few years, and it
is only in the exceptional case where a maple
bush has been maintained. This is still an
economically viable unit.
These woodlots have been maintained, first
by the desires of the farmers themselves—
who hate to denude the landscape of the
trees which are so useful in conservation
practice— and in many instances by local
bylaws which would forbid the farmers to
strip the land of the trees so that it could
be turned to normal farming purposes.
It seems to me that through the years, the
farmers of southern Ontario have sub-
sidized the general conservation efforts of
the province, by maintaining these woodlots
at little or no profit to themselves, when
otherwise they might have been converted
into ordinary farm land. The farmers have
done this year after year, but it is just in
the last few years that the cost of labour has
really removed from the farmers the chance
to make some money out of the woodlots
themselves.
Too often they have succumbed to the
suggestion from a visiting lumber dealer
that a group come in and simply cut off all
the useable trees, take one good log out of
the base, and leave the tops littering the
landscape. So that really the usefulness of
these woodlots has been reduced consider-
ably, just in the past few years.
It is for this reason that I welcome most
enthusiastically this type of legislation, which
will permit The Department of Lands and
Forests to enter into an agreement with the
individual farmer, as I understand it, and
actually perform the rather expensive work
needed to properly manage these small
woodlots. The alternative is that the wood-
lots would disappear.
One suggestion on the principle of the
bill is this; that the farmers, even though
under this enactment will be provided with
considerable assistance— after all, they al-
ready get the trees for reforestation at a
nominal rate, and in many conservation
areas, a lot of assistance in planting them.
But I would suggest that the government
go considerably further than this in the
future, and actually subsidize the farmer for
keeping on his land, which would otherwise
be very useful for farming purposes, a wood-
lot which for many years is going to have
very little return as far as the farmer is con-
cerned. He is subsidizing the conservation
efforts of the whole province, in his inability
to chop down the trees and turn the land
into the regular fields that would be worked
with his farm.
So I welcome this legislation. I feel that it
could go further and it will go further in
the future, if we are going to encourage our
farmers to maintain even larger woodlots.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Along
with the hon. member for Brant, I welcome
this legislation as far as it goes, but quite
frankly I am puzzled to know exactly how
far it goes in terms of meeting the broad
problem faced in this province in restoring
the forest cover for conservation purposes; if
for nothing else, to the extent that has been
indicated by some authoritative studies in the
past.
I recall, for example, that the Kennedy re-
port of 1948 indicated there were between
two-and-a-half and four million acres in the
province of Ontario stripped of their forest
cover and which could be put back into
economic production again, only if there was
some artificial reforestation, supplementing
any efforts nature might be able to contribute
towards this end. Indeed, nature's contribu-
tion in many instances has been to produce
a scrub second growth which is of no econo-
mic value.
In addition to the two-and-a-half to four-
million acres that the Kennedy report was
referring to— as the hon. Minister knows we
have tangled on this issue a number of times
during estimates of his department— in 1953,
The Crown Timber Act absolved all existing
licence holders of responsibility for regenera-
tion on those properties which they had cut
over prior to that year.
In other words, the Crown accepted this
obligation. Presumably the management pro-
grammes from 1953 on are going to meet the
obligations for that period and for the future.
Whether or not they are doing so is another
issue not relevant to today's debate.
But today's debate, or this issue, raises the
question that we have two-and-a-half to four
1074
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
million acres, as indicated by the Kennedy re-
port. We have an added acreage of what
may be astronomical proportions, reclaimed
by the Crown as their obligation for regener-
ation.
The question on which I would like some
clarification— I pose it now and perhaps we
can get back to discussion in questions and
answers when we get to the committee stage
—is: What proportion of the original two-and-
a-half to four million acres is privately owned
land? In other words, what proportion of that
objective spelled out by the Kennedy report
is being met, somewhat belately, by this kind
of legislation?
It seems to me that it would be wise for us
to see what proportion of the job we are
tackling, and what proportion still remains
neglected for some future action.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to make a few comments relative
to this bill. As the hon. member for Brant
stated, we in this party think this is good
legislation. However, I do not feel that it
goes far enough.
One of the most urgent concerns as far as
the farmer is concerned, and, indeed, con-
servation is concerned, is the future of the
farm woodlot. There has been a rapid dis-
appearance of the farm woodlot over the past
number of years, particularly in western On-
tario, because of the high price of land. No
longer is it economical to leave, let us say,
10, 20, 30 acres in woodlot cover, because
the price of land is such that it actually gives
the bigger return if it were taken out of
woodlot production and put into crop pro-
duction or something comparable to it.
So we have the situation where much of
the countryside has been denuded because it
just has not been economical to keep the tree
cover. The woodlot exemption clause of The
Assessment Act is just not a sufficient incen-
tive to maintain tree coverage.
The pattern of farming in Ontario has tra-
ditionally included a farm woodlot and this
has been so for a number of reasons. No. 1,
it used to be a good source of fuel. Farm
people used to use for fuel the trees they had
in their woodlot. This is becoming less
important all the time. And then there was
lumber provided for building purposes, for
the sale of logs and pulpwood and the pro-
duction of maple syrup. There has been a
firm belief that for the wellbeing of agricul-
ture and for the country as a whole approxi-
mately 10 per cent of the land area should
be in forest. This has been borne out by
studies that have been conducted in Europe,
and in a number of other countries. All of
these studies point to the fact that 10 per
cent is a reasonable percentage when it is
applied to the forest cover in any given land
area.
In recent years, this thinking has resulted
in practices that have certainly not lived up
to this standard.
Wood for fuel is not common now, as I
stated before, on the farm, but the demand
for land has risen so sharply that it has re-
sulted in the increase in land value.
In eastern Ontario, where pulpwood out-
lets are available, farmers are looking at the
monetary return. In western Ontario, the
situation is one in which the demand for
hardwood logs, and quite often the demand
for any type of logs, has been fairly great,
so the farmer, in order to capitalize on a
monetary gain, has cut a lot of logs and re-
claimed the land that was previously left in
forest. This has resulted in a situation that
has continually shrunk the acreage of farm
woodlots in the province of Ontario.
We have had a number of cases where this
denuding process has followed the change of
ownership in a particular farm. Where a
farm, particularly when it has been left in an
estate, is just sold, the new owner comes
along and the first thing he does is take off
the bush. In a good many cases, this has
resulted in a farmer partially paying for that
farm, even up to as high as 50 or 60 per
cent of the original cost of the farm. One of
the big factors, it would seem to me from
what I have read, in the dust bowl that was
created in western Canada during the 1930's
was the fact that all the prairie farmers had
successfully cut off all or most of the trees
in the countryside. As a result, there were
no shrubs or tree cover to hold the soil, nor
to maintain the water level. Subsequently,
the land, when it was subjected to drought
and wind conditions, practically blew away.
As I pointed out before, scientific and
thorough studies in Europe have indicated
that 10 per cent of the land area should
be in forest cover. Under this particular bill,
the government, as I understand it, plans to
bear the cost of planting these trees under a
private contract with the farmer or the
owner. But it seems to me that here is a
great gap; this might be very well for one
owner, but what happens when that farm
is transferred, and when that owner is no
longer in possession of that particular farm or
woodlot? The situation could be that a
farmer would make an agreement with The
Department of Lands and Forests for the
planting of trees under this bill and meet
MARCH 2, 1966
1075
all the provisions year in and year out, until
such time as he decided to sell. Then some-
one else, upon whom the contract under
this bill would not be binding, could come
along and remove all that tree cover.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It would be binding; it
would go on the title.
Mr. Gaunt: It would be binding on the
new owner?
Hon. Mr. Roberts: It is placed on the
title, yes.
Mr. Gaunt: I thank the hon. Minister for
the clarification. I had not interpreted it as
such under this Act. That being so, I wel-
come it; I think that is a good addition. But
I say that even more encouragement should
be given to farmers and plantation operators
to encourage them, even beyond the limits
of this bill, to plant more trees and fulfill
the requirements that we so obviously feel
we need but have not, up to this point, done
much about. If we feel that 10 per cent is
too high, we should, for all intents and pur-
poses, stop talking about it. If we feel it is a
fairly reasonable percentage, and we should
be meeting it, then I think we should be
doing even more than we are doing in this
bill to fulfil that purpose.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): If I may be permitted to say a word
on this bill; I feel that this is a most historic
day. I think when the history of this prov-
ince is written on some future day it will be
looked upon as a day when there has been
a move made to preserve one of the greatest
parts of our heritage this province has— that
is, our forest industry in rural Ontario.
I want to extend the warmest congratula-
tions of rural Ontario to the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests for his farsightedness
in bringing in this bill. I would agree com-
pletely with those statements that have been
made here this afternoon by hon. members
of all parties in this House, in its worthiness.
Quite frankly, those of us interested in con-
servation recognize the importance of forest
cover. And I think it behooves all of us
interested in rural Ontario to recognize the
importance of preserving all of our natural
resources if we possibly can. One of the
ways to do it is, of course, through the plant-
ing of more trees.
I am particularly interested in the bill from
the standpoint of the hardwoods industry
and the furniture industry of Ontario, particu-
larly that area represented by the hon. mem-
ber for Huron-Bruce.
We have had numerous communications
from time to time about the source of supply
for this furniture industry as time goes on.
It seems to me that this bill is a move toward
fulfilling the requirements for generations yet
unborn who will have the opportunity of
reaping the harvest of our trees that will
be planted through this bill.
I am pleased to note the emphasis that
has been placed on the maple syrup industry
through the Ontario food council and ARDA.
We have placed special emphasis on the
maple syrup industry in this province.
Frankly, I think that it is an industry that we
can develop to a far greater extent than
we ever have in the past. There is no question
about the desirability of the product or the
demand for the product; we would hope that
with the special emphasis being placed on it,
there will be new impetus given to its sale.
In regard to the question that was raised
by the hon. member for York South con-
cerning the amount of land that should be
put back into forestry, I must confess that
I am not up to date at the moment on the
Kennedy report. I would say this for the
benefit of hon. members of the House:
The federal government and the provinces,
through ARDA, are conducting a complete
land inventory right across Canada. The prov-
ince of Ontario is, of course, involved in
this to a very great extent.
To me, it is a most worthwhile cause. 1
think we should examine very closely the
amount of agricultural land that is avail-
able and see, as far as possible, that we
preserve that land for agricultural purposes.
At the same time, we should be made aware
of the land that is naturally adapted for the
use, growth and planting of such trees as
they are contemplated under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of rural
Ontario, again congratulate the hon. Minister
of Lands and Forests for the farsightedness
of this bill.
Mr. I. W. Thrasher (Windsor-Sandwich):
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend
the hon. Minister for bringing in this bill.
Last year in Windsor we started an organiz-
ation called Trees Unlimited. This is a huge
success. We had a group of students plant
8,000 trees in the provincial park and I am
told that these trees are nearly all growing.
This year we are going to try to duplicate
the number of schoolchildren planting trees.
I think this should be encouraged across the
province.
I would like to concur with the hon. mem-
ber for Huron-Bruce in suggesting that ten
1076
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
per cent of each farm-owner's land total be
put into woodlots. This has a twofold pur-
pose: One, it encourages birds, which in turn
keep down the insects; and two, it controls
the water table that is so badly needed in our
province.
I think that owners should be encouraged
to plant trees. I am a little alarmed about
the number of dead elm trees that are in our
woodlots and I would like to ask the hon.
Minister about what he intends to do to help
get rid of these dead tress that line the high-
ways in the province of Ontario. I think that
we should do something to help the owners
cut these trees down so that the disease that
is going through our province can be curbed.
Again I commend the hon. Minister and
wish that he would do something about the
elm trees.
Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in winding
up the debate on second reading I would like
to express my personal appreciation for the
apparent unanimity in the House on the
motives and the progress that we hope this
bill will bring in this particular field.
I would also like to assure all hon. mem-
bers that we want to get the best possible
out of this. It is my intention that this bill
should go to the same committee as Bill No.
21, and already I have had suggestions from
individuals and from some organizations as
how to best develop this theme— as outlined
in the remarks on first reading. We will cer-
tainly welcome suggestions and aid at the
committee stage in getting the best possible
type of legislation and arrangement by way
of agreement to bring about what I think
will be a very definite improvement in the
growth value in the province in this field.
The hon. member for York South did
raise some general questions and I can assure
him, and assure the House, that our sights
are now raised high for reforestation and I
will be able to give to the House, on my
estimates, a pretty detailed statement to illus-
trate how far we are going by actual contracts
in the licensed areas to assure continuing
and adequate and thoroughly technically
planned reforestation.
In regard to the acreage on private lands,
I did say in my earlier statement that we
hope to rehabilitate an estimated 7.8 million
acres of private forest in southern Ontario.
Of this, about 2 million acres is idle land re-
quiring tree planting and 5.8 million acres
is woodland in need of silvicultural treat-
ment and management to bring it back to a
more productive state.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support The Woodlands
Improvement Act, 1966, I feel that the hon.
Minister of Agriculture has already reflected
the feelings of most of the hon. members of
this House when he spoke a few minutes
ago on it. I want to go on record as support-
ing it because it will be of great benefit to
the part of Ontario I come from. I might add
that the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests
is to be complimented on the introduction
of this bill, because it is going to be remem-
bered for many generations.
The Opposition possibly say that we are
not going far enough but this, like many of
the other pieces of legislation introduced here,
has to begin somewhere. The hon. Minister
has made a wonderful start, and, I repeat, is
to be complimented on it.
I think it is good proof of the fact that the
hon. member for St. Patrick is doing a tre-
mendous job in the portfolio of Lands and
Forests. When he was appointed to that de-
partment there were many— possibly from the
northern parts of the province and from the
Opposition benches— who felt that this was a
disastrous move on the part of the govern-
ment, but I think that he has proven over
the short period that he has been with that
department that he can adapt himself to any
surroundings or to any circumstances.
I think it proves too why up in Ottawa the
Pearson government took a lawyer and made
him Minister of Agriculture. I only hope that
move turns out as well as the move of putting
the hon. member for St. Patrick in The De-
partment of Lands and Forests for Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): xMr.
Speaker, I have just a brief comment. I
understand that conservation comes under the
hon. Minister's department and I would hope
that consideration would be given in imple-
menting the principle put forward in this bill
that the natural habitat of wild game will be
preserved and given due consideration when
this type of promotion is taking place.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE OF AGE
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill No. 35, An Act
to prevent discrimination in employment be-
cause of age.
MARCH 2, 1966
1077
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, rising to speak on the principle of
Bill No. 35, may I say that I am quite happy
to see the hon. Minister bring in a bill of
this type. There may be parts of the bill I
do not agree with on the basis that I do not
think it goes far enough, but I do think that
over the last six years nearly everyone in this
House has agreed that this had been a
problem. It just points out the speed at
which this government moves when it has
taken it six years to move on this. I know
back seven years ago, in fact, even the former
Premier spoke on this and said that this was
something that was needed.
As I say, we are happy to see it come in.
When a bill on discrimination in employ-
ment because of age is brought in it should
protect all the people rather than picking
out a segment of our society. I am thinking
of the group of people which I feel has been
discriminated against for a good many years;
and that is the people 65 to 69, who will still
be discriminated against even when this bill
comes in. This group of people are finding
it very hard at the present time to get jobs,
although our economy is very buoyant. I
would hope that before we get final reading
on this bill that the hon. Minister of Labour
will see fit to at least include this group from
66 to 69 in this bill.
There is another area, and that is the
people under 40. When you apply for a
job you can be discriminated against as much
at 35 as you can at 40. So I do not feel that
there should be any age set up in this; there
should be just discrimination in employment
because of age. I do not think we should
cut it down as close as he has it.
One of the biggest problems we found
over the years was the newspaper advertis-
ing, and I see he has left this out completely.
Even a Social Credit government in British
Columbia at least brought this into their
bill, and their bill does call for penalties on
advertising for age.
I hope that the hon. Minister will see fit
to make these two changes, to make this a
real bill as far as discrimination in employ-
ment is concerned. I can say for our party
that we will certainly support this bill; it is
a move in the right direction. The only thing
is that we do not feel that we have moved
far enough yet.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a very
strong word of commendation to the hon.
Minister of Labour for bringing this bill
forward at this time. During his term of
office he will have a lengthy list of achieve-
ments in every aspect which comes within
his jurisdiction.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is his
term coming to an end?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, he still has a
number of items to attend to.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): You have
already set aside March 2 for the hon. Min-
ister of Lands and Forests; are we now going
into March 3 for the hon. Minister of
Labour?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the fullness of
time, he will have checked off a long list
of achievements.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Well, let us
have a commendation week.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We
would support the hon. member if there was
anything to commend.
Mr. MacDonald: We bring in things your
backbenchers support, and then you kill
them.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, in con-
trast to the remarks that the hon. member
just prior made, I doubt whether he will
find a jurisdiction in the world that has the
package deal of anti-discrimination laws
which exists in the province of Ontario.
There is no jurisdiction— either in Canada,
in any of the 50 states, or in any of the
states or nations of the world— that has this
package deal. I would be very happy to
have any hon. member, in due course, point
out any package that is any better.
Mr. S. Lewis: In almost all of the western
European countries, sex is part of the human
rights code; it is omitted in this code.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would ask the
members to remember that we are on
second reading of this bill, and I think the
remarks that have been flowing back and
forth across the floor during the past few
minutes have very little to do with the prin-
ciple of the bill. I would ask any member
wishing to speak to the bill to stick to the
principles involved.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am talking to the
very broad principle, Mr. Speaker.
1078
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: So was the hon. member for
Scarborough West.
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Yack, yack,
yack.
Mr. MacDonald: We have the ducks with
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are presently in
the course of training and retraining pro-
grammes, so perhaps some of the problems
which are currently with us will not have to
be met in the future. But there is nothing—
I know this from personal experience, in
having spoken to many people— there is
nothing more disappointing, or more of a
blow to personal pride and prestige, to a
man at 45, than to be told that he is too
old. I am only 46 and I feel I am just be-
ginning. I am delighted now that this has
been brought in at this time. I promise the
hon. Minister of Labour that I shall vote
with him on this bill, and I hope that my
words will help everybody make it una-
nimous.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a word of commendation
for the hon. Minister of Labour. I can assure
you that I have no interest in singing, "For
he's a jolly good fellow," but when something
comes up that is really worthwhile, I believe
we should have something to say about it.
I certainly would like to congratulate him
on this bill.
This matter of discrimination in age em-
ployment has been a matter I have been in-
terested in since I entered this House. I have
had several discussions with the hon. Minister
on it and I am very pleased that he has seen
fit to make a move in this direction.
The select committee on aging, of which I
have been a member, has also been very
interested in this phase of employment. We
found many elderly citizens who brought up
this question as we went about this province,
and I am sure that most members of the
select committee would join me in saying
that this, very definitely, is a problem.
The hon. member for Hamilton East
has brought out the point that there
are still points in regard to this bill which
need to be added. I think that the hon.
Minister of Labour has these points under
consideration but I do believe that this is a
real giant step forward and I would like to
congratulate him on this bill.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, of course we
on this side will support the second reading
of this bill, but we do not feel that there
is a real principle involved in it in relation
to the human rights code.
The hon. Provincial Secretary congratu-
lates the hon. Minister of Labour for bringing
this piece of legislation in. I think it is be-
lated. I would like to congratulate my col-
league, the hon. member for Hamilton East,
who has put a bill on the order paper for six
consecutive years to bring about what we
consider should be a bill to provide against
discrimination because of age. I think there
are some questions that need to be answered
in regard to the principle involved in the
bill, and I hope the hon. Minister will
inform the House before it goes to a vote.
Certainly the restrictions on age that have
been mentioned— between 65 and 40— are not
understandable in any sense of the word. Why
does the hon. Minister bring in a separate
bill to provide against discrimination in re-
gards to age? Why can it not be part of the
human rights code we have in the province?
And certainly the absence of any reference
to advertising, in regard to age and applica-
tions for employment, is a very important
point, because here I think is where we find
the real problem.
You pick up the paper and almost every
job, every want ad, starts off with "don't
apply if you are older than 35," or "you
must be 20 or 22." Certainly this deters a
lot of able-bodied people from going to apply
for a job. And certainly, I am sure that a
lot of employers would hire people in the
age bracket from 40 to 65, or 69, if there
was not that deterrent there. If they made
their application and were in good shape,
they would be given consideration. But the
strong deterrent, in advertising for help, stops
people from applying. I would hope that be-
fore the bill goes to its final conclusion, to
become legislation, the hon. Minister will re-
consider and let us make this part of the
human rights code, and make it a fully
fledged bill called "No discrimination against
age."
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to
join in the chorus, as the Opposition may say,
of commending the hon. Minister, just for
the particular purpose of joining in a chorus.
I think, of course, that he is to be commended
for this legislation; and I think that is prob-
ably why the Ooposition will vote with the
government in this particular case.
However, I would like to get the record
MARCH 2, 1966
1079
straight. I think the hon. member for Hamil-
ton East is quite worthy of the credit being
paid to him by his colleagues for bringing
in a bill as a private member a few years ago.
The only thing is that I would like to make
sure that the record will not show, as they
are attempting to show, as the hon. leader
of that party (Mr. Macdonald), I think, sug-
gested a few moments ago, that all of these
good things emanate from his party alone.
At that particular time, when the hon. mem-
ber for Hamilton East brought in his bill,
the member for St. Andrew [Mr. Gros-
man], a Progressive-Conservative member of
this House, also brought in a like bill. So all
these good things do not necessarily emanate
from the NDP.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a brief comment on this. This
is a magnificent little interjection. We have
talked about "in the fullness of time." It is
true the hon. member for St. Andrew, I be-
lieve in advance of an election year, in 1958
or 1959, put a bill on the order paper.—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The same time as
your member.
Mr. Gisborn: You really stepped quickly
that day.
Mr. MacDonald: —and at that point ap-
parently he had got sufficient clearance from
the Tory party that this would not be
regarded with abhorrence. So he dared to be
a Daniel, if not an Allan, and put it on the
order paper. It is interesting to note that
seven years later the thing has come to
fruition. That is the speed at which this gov-
ernment operates. The backbenchers bring in
things, and the Prime Minister kills them
or lets them lie for seven years. This
is the kind of thing that happens in trying
to get progressive legislation. It is nonsense
to hear the hon. Provincial Secretary rise and
talk in broad terms about the human rights
code, while ignoring the fact, for example,
that many of the countries of the western
world have a human rights code that will not
tolerate discrimination on the basis of sex.
You have none in there yet.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No one has a better
package.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: How you wrap the
package is not the important thing; it is what
is in the package. You are more interested in
the tinsel and the floss on the outside than
the content.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! I think this
debate is getting completely away from the
principle of the bill. I will have to ask the
members to terminate their remarks in that
respect.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have
terminated my remarks.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walker ville):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
comments on this bill. From the first day I
entered this House, I have spoken in every
Throne debate concerning age discrimina-
tion. I am most pleased that the hon. Minister
has finally listened to the appeals from this
side of the House. The hon. Provincial
Secretary has mentioned the fact that no
jurisdiction in the world has brought down
any type of legislation similar to Ontario's.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I talked about a package of
anti-discrimination in respect of all aspects.
I would be glad to see the inside of any
other package that is better than in the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary has mentioned that no juris-
diction in the world has brought down any
package. May I tell him that no jurisdiction
in the world has had Opposition parties
that have fought so hard to stir this govern-
ment to bring down this package? We have
had to prod, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge
at least six years in the House; I am fairly
sure that long before I had set my feet in
this room other members had attempted
to see that this government act on some
type of legislation that would, at long last,
eliminate discrimination because of age.
Mr. Speaker, it was not only the hon.
members from the other side and the hon.
members to our left who have introduced
bills in this House; my party has also in-
troduced a bill in this House concerning
this very item.
One of the other points I would like to
bring up is that this bill does not go quite
far enough, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that an
individual at 65 still does not receive old age
security. This bill should, for this interim
period, be extended so that no one would be
denied the right of a pension immediately
after they no longer were covered by this
Act. One of the things that I would like the
hon. Minister to eventually clarify is— will this
affect the federal government? The Canadian
vocational training programme number five,
refuses to accept individuals for retraining
when they reach a certain age. This makes it
a disadvantage to that individual who is
1080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
attempting to get retraining so that he or she
may once more be employable.
We, on this side of the House, will sup-
port this legislation, but we want the hon.
members opposite to understand that this
legislation originated on this side of the House
and it was only after a lot of prodding that
we were able to get the government to act.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add a few com-
ments to those of my colleague from Windsor-
Walkerville. I think comment has been made
today about the human rights code. The
government has prided itself on the progress
it is making in that field. I would like to add
here. Mr. Speaker, my views. This govern-
ment does not move, so far as human rights
and the protection of the individual are
concerned, until it has to. It is a pragmatic
government. So far as this particular bill is
concerned, my hon. colleagues have already
set out the fact that it does not go as far as
it should; this is the very point that was
brought up some time ago when the human
rights code was amended in the last session.
At that time I said, and I repeat, that this
government does not move as it should. If
it really had the rights of the individual at
heart it would not have to wait until public
opinion shoves it and makes it do something.
I have heard how many years our party
has fought to see that something like this
is brought forward. Since it is here, you
would think the government would have gone
all the way and made sure that nobody, no
matter what his age was, no matter what
his condition, would suffer because of his age.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the observa-
tions of various hon. members of the House
with respect to the merits of this legislation.
I am delighted to have them all join with me,
because we will all be part of advancing
this bill, in a unanimous fashion, as I expect
it will be, by our subsequent endorsement
and passing of the motion which I made.
I do not object to everyone taking credit
for this bill, because I do not think that
this is the kind of subject where 1 would
ever claim all of the glory connected with
it. I think this is good legislation. I think
that all of the hon. members of this House,
in their hearts, would want to join in sup-
porting second reading of the bill in that
fashion.
I have never taken the position with respect
to legislation that my department or I had
all of the answers; I hope I never will take
that position. I do not think that all of us
have all of the answers to these tilings, but I
think it is important and sufficient to say that
so long as we are trying to do the things that
are going to serve the needs of the people of
this province, then with good advice and good
ideas from everyone, we will be able to ad-
vance under the leadership which this gov-
ernment has been able to give toward a solid
and stable province in which to live.
On introducing the bill, I made some obser-
vations, and I dealt with the matter in prin-
ciple at that stage. But the essence of the
bill which is before us is to assure the people
of this province a full measure of equality of
opportunity. I think we have to look at the
broad principles when we are looking at this
kind of legislation, but this bill is specifically
designed to prohibit discrimination in employ-
ment in connection with the hiring, treatment,
separation and so on, which might exist
against persons, and we have put in the age
limit from 40 to 65.
It must be obvious to hon. members of the
House why the period starting at age 40 was
commenced, because there are certain factors
that exist in the early years of one's life dur-
ing which maturity has not been reached. I
do not think that I need elaborate on this,
but the point is there. Nobody in the House
has mentioned the fact that the Act is not
intended to take effect until the age of 40.
They have made reference to the after-65 age
group.
The fact is that for many of the same
reasons that exist for the before-40 group, or
up until the 40 group; the after-65 group may
or may not have certain attributes and char-
acteristics attached to them.
With respect to the period after 65, I do
not have a closed mind on this subject. I
think I would like to suggest to the House
that we adopt the bill in its present form. I,
for one, will be very much interested in the
application and the results of the bill during
the coming year. From that we will gain
some knowledge and experience; if we then
find that there is a real need for that age
limit to be extended, I can assure the House
that I will be the first one to agree that
something should be done and will be part
of the effort to do something about it.
I think for many reasons, that must be
apparent to all of us, that the age period to
which the Act applies and is intended to
apply, namely, 40 to 65, is reasonable in its
application.
The name of the bill— I am sorry the hon.
member for Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) is not
here because he sent me a note the other day
saying: "Goodness, is there not some better
MARCH 2, 1966
1081
name for the proposed legislation?" I am
inclined to agree with him on this, if we
could get something more constructive or
more positive-sounding. I will say that I
think this is dramatic legislation— dramatic
spelled with a small "d." I think it is entitled
to the best name that we can find for it. It
may be that at a subsequent date during this
session I might even suggest a change in the
name of this bill.
Reference was made to Programme 5 with
respect to the federal government. The in-
ference and suggestion was that certain of the
retraining and training programmes sponsored
by the federal government, or in which the
federal government participates, involved a
limit as to the age at which one could enter
and take advantage of the course. I am sure
that in the name of common sense and of
reasonableness, some appropriate adjustment
can be reached with the federal government
and I will speak for our own government.
We on our part will make the appropriate
representations and see that, in cases where
some good will ensue by opening up the age
limit at the top— and I repeat what I said,
""and where some practical good will ensue"
—that a reasonable interpretation of the con-
ditions will be made by the federal govern-
ment. We will advance that.
The hon. members will recall that it was
under my ministry that the age limits were
taken off with respect to apprenticeship, and
I think in some degree the arguments which
have been advanced on this point today have
merit.
I do not have too much to add to what has
been said. I think we are all really, certainly
our government is, directing our attention to
a target. It is a target which involves stable
government, against which this province in
which we live becomes one of the most desir-
able places in which to live and work and in
which to have one's family— all of it de-
signed for a happy and productive life.
I would hope that hon. members of the
House would support the second reading of
this bill.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would comment on the adver-
tising part of it? I am really interested in that
and I wonder why he does not feel that it
needs to be in.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: With the permission
of the House, Mr. Speaker, a review of this
type of legislation and the results of its oper-
ation in other jurisdictions has indicated that
there has been some considerable trouble
with respect to this matter.
Our human rights commission which will
administer this legislation has had consider-
able success on the basis of an educational
approach to the objects which we are trying
to attain and my intention— and I am glad
the hon. member reminded me of this be-
cause I would like to record my intention and
the intention of the government on this point.
It will not be included in the Act this year.
We will go by stages and it will take a single
stage effort. Against the experience that we
have during the coming year we will immedi-
ately move one year hence to deal with any
weaknesses that develop on the count of
advertising.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TELEPHONE ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading
of Bill No. 36, An Act to amend The Tele-
phone Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE GASOLINE HANDLING ACT, 1966
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management) moves second
reading of Bill No. 37, The Gasoline
Handling Act, 1966.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to make a few com-
ments on this particular bill. I assume that
the intent of this bill is going to be carried
out in the regulations. In my own com-
munity during the past two years a situation
has arisen about which the hon. Minister
could possibly give me some clarification.
There have been two serious train wrecks
near the centre of my own community, one
of which had gasoline tank cars aboard, and
adjacent to these tracks is a gasoline stor-
age depot. The seriousness of this was
certainly very evident a few months ago
when there was a half-million-dollar train
wreck with some 38 box cars piling up and
bursting into flames in front of this gasoline
storage area.
I would ask if it is the intention through
the regulations on this Bill No. 37 to make
provision to have these gasoline storage
areas put outside the built-up areas of com-
munities? The particular storage tanks in
question do not even have the earth pro-
tection around the base and the residents of
this area are quite concerned.
1082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Also last year, we had a near tragedy in
the town of Aylmer. Fortunately no one was
killed, but a great portion of that town was
destroyed when a gasoline tanker burst into
flames. I wonder in this regard, too, if the
regulations are going to be more restrictive
concerning the handling and the trucking of
these inflammable products along our high-
ways. Possibly the hon. Minister could
clarify this for me.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
our department already regulates the trans-
portation of all fuels and we inspect the
equipment and beyond that there is not too
much we can do. I realize that accidents
can happen, and how you control them is
a very difficult thing to know.
As far as storage areas are concerned they
do come under our regulations. I do not
know of the particular case the hon. mem-
ber speaks of, but I would like to check it
out with one of our inspectors and see if it
does come within the regulations as set down
by this Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO NORTHLAND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Simonett moves second reading
of Rill No. 38, An Act to amend The Ontario
Northland Transportation Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE LAW SOCIETY ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves second reading of Rill No. 39, An Act
to amend The Law Society Act.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, will this bill go
to the committee on legal bills?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Yes. All these bills which bear my name
will go to the committee on legal bills.
Mr. Sopha: I wonder if members of the
law society, the authorized heads of that
corporation without share capital which never
holds an annual meeting, will attend to
defend the principle of the bill?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I said on first
reading of the bill that there had been pre-
sented to my attention, and to the attention
of the department, a proposal to amal-
gamate The Barristers Act, The Solicitors
Act, The Law Society Act, and that this
matter had received considerable study and
attention, to the extent that legislation had
been drafted in fairly complete form.
It was decided that this work would con-
tinue and I certainly would expect that
legislative proposals will be received before
the next session, in any event. But for this
year, in order to enable the law society to
deal with claims against the compensation
fund, in order to get on with that which is
causing some concern with delays, we de-
cided to confine ourselves to this simple
amendment of delegation.
But I think I can assure the hon. member
that there is a complete revision of The
Law Society Act, The Barristers Act and
The Solicitors Act in contemplation and in
progress.
Mr. Sopha: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker,
the bill contains a very bad principle. It in-
fringes the well-known rule of law that the
hon. Attorney General will understand—
delegatus non potest delegare— which, is sanc-
tified by perhaps a 1,000 years of experience.
At the risk of being ostracized from my
profession, I say here that one never knows
quite what is in the mind of the benchers of
the law society, because that august body
never holds a meeting to inform the share-
holders of what it has in its mind.
It can write letters to the Minister of
Justice about a judge without getting author-
ization, it can do all sorts of things in respect
of the governance of the profession, but apart
from the luncheon that is held at the time
of the mid-winter meeting of the Bar associa-
tion, one never has any contact with the gov-
erning body.
At least a corporation having share capital
trading on the Toronto stock exchange holds
an annual meeting to which shareholders
may come and make their complaints. Per-
haps being a barrister of more than 10 years
standing in the profession— that is the critical
time limit in the statutes of the province— I
might be forgiven for making some com-
plaints about the governance of our affairs.
It is strange and yet amusing to one who
pays attention to such things that the lawyers
write the laws for the medical profession,
for the dental profession, the pharmaceutical
profession, for the chiropractors and all sorts
of other professions, and in each of those
statutes the lawyers come to the conclusion
that it might be a good idea if those pro-
fessions were governed on a regional and
geographic basis.
MARCH 2, 1966
1083
The only thought that never has occurred
to the lawyers is that it might be a good idea
for the lawyers to be governed on a regional
geographic basis.
Suffice it to say that the manner in which
the governing body is elected has tended to
preserve the hegemony and the power and
the governing of the profession in the city
of Toronto. But one must hastily add that
more than half the lawyers practising in the
province reside and carry on business and
earn their livings in the city of Toronto.
Now we come to a point where the bench-
ers of the law society have seen fit to ap-
proach the Legislature through the hon.
Attorney General to inform the Legislature
apparently, as this bill does, that the task of
disciplining lawyers has become too onerous
for them. Probably it is a question of the
devotion of an adequate amount of time to
dealing with that important subject which, as
a lawyer, I say unhappily has become one
that has distracted the lawyers with increas-
ing frequency in recent years.
One cannot ascribe any reason for the fact,
the unhappy and well publicized fact— I am
not giving away any secrets when I say here,
that it has become a fact that more lawyers
are stealing more money and there is nothing
cheapskate about them. When they go south
with money, they go south with a lot of it.
Often we are lucky to catch them at the
door of the aircraft or perhaps persuade them
to return from Israel or obviate the escape
of one to Brazil, as we happily did.
I do not know that we got the money back
from him or whether he had it in a satchel
to take to Brazil. But apparently the job of
disciplining them has become now too bur-
densome and they come to the Legislature
and say, "We want the power to delegate this
to somebody else."
Hon. Mr. Wishart: May I— on a point of
order— point out to the hon. member that this
amendment as proposed has nothing whatso-
ever to do with the matter of discipline of a
member of the legal profession.
Mr. Sopha: Well, that is what it says.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, it does not. It is
dealing with payment of claims made against
the compensation fund. Section 53.
Mr. Sopha: I beg your pardon. It is part
and parcel of the same thing.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is not discipline.
This is simply adjudicating upon the validity
of a claim. This is a very different thing from
disciplining the members.
Mr. Sopha: I do not want to be accused
of corrupting language, but it is part and
parcel of the very thing I was talking about.
These claims arise out of the very things
I was describing to the House and which have
led to many lawyers being disbarred.
But however you want to look at it, I am
merely saying to Mr. Speaker, and through
him to the hon. Attorney General, that it is
a bad principle for lawyers who ought to
know, who ought to be schooled in the com-
mon law and its development and the pro-
tection of the citizen that it involves, that
they ought not to breach common law rules
established over long periods of time.
Let me illustrate: In the case of Mehr, em-
ployed by the nationalist government of
China, and whom they disciplined themselves
—disbarred, erased his name from the rolls-
he had the tenacity and the courage and the
money to take them to the supreme court of
Canada.
They discovered up there that the lawyers
who were judging him— the jury— changed
every time they had a meeting to deal with
it. A different group was assembled at the
table.
Mr. Justice Cartwright all but said, You
would think above all people the lawyers
would know better. And that fits this bill.
The lawyers ought to know better than to
seek to establish a principle that is within
this bill. And out of that to come here and
ask the Legislature to give them power to
do something which is in contravention of
ordinary natural justice.
That is all I am going to say at this
point. I am happy to hear that somebody
from the law society will come before the
committee in order to justify this grant of
power to it. That will be a rare pleasure
indeed. I hope to hear that. I, for one, think
it will be a rare pleasure to see them face
to face, because it is not a pleasure that is
given very often. You can see them at the
head table at that lunch on the 1st of Febru-
ary, because they buy you a lunch and report
to you on how they governed your profession.
But you cannot get much closer than that.
At the risk of becoming an apostate in the
profession, I had better sit down before
my judgment so fails me that I ' say some-
thing more about my brethren.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think before the
motion is put I should like to say to my
hon. friend that it is always a delight to
hear him being so erudite and with such
1084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a great command of the language. I think it
is a pleasure to listen every time he rises to
speak. Sometimes, though, his words ramble
somewhat from the subject, and certainly on
this occasion, I think, from the principle of
this bill.
The section which is being amended has
to do only with the compensation fund and
the question of payment out of moneys in the
satisfaction or partial satisfaction of claims
made against the fund. Now I do not want
to wander from the principle of the bill
either, but I think the hon. member is aware
that his profession and mine is the only pro-
fession that pays money for such purpose
to a fund, out of the individuals' respective
pockets. I read recently— I have not got the
figures before me— that something well in
excess of $1 million has been paid within
the recent two or three years in satisfaction
of claims. It is a sad commentary that there
were defalcations to such an amount.
However, Mr. Speaker, on the question of
delegatus non potest delegare— one cannot
delegate further a delegated power— I would
draw the attention of the House, and par-
ticularly the hon. member for Sudbury, to
the fact that the subsection we are amend-
ing is subsection 10 of section 53, which
reads:
The benchers may delegate any or all of
the powers conferred upon them under this
section to the discipline committee or to
any other of their committees that they
consider appropriate.
This, may I point out, has stood on the
statutes of this province since 1953. The hon.
member, if he has been aware of it, has
suffered under it, if that is what he is com-
plaining of. This power has been in the Act-
Mr. Sopha: They never had to discipline
me.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This is not discipline.
My point is that the section delegating the
power has been on the statute since 1953.
The subsection we are amending is just
being enlarged so that a committee, or a
referee, of the benchers may get on more
quickly with the disposition of settlement
and payment of these claims. That is the
principle of the bill.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I think that the
remarks of my hon. colleague from Sudbury
bear careful consideration. I think, too, that
the hon. Attorney General perhaps has
captured the tone of the afternoon in mutual
patting on the back. He is patting our pro-
fession on the back and, taking perhaps a
leaf from his colleagues' books in patting
themselves on the back for the wonderful
legislation they are bringing in.
I wonder if we lawyers can really be
quite so smug about being the only profession
that takes money out of our own pockets to
compensate people who might have been
hurt by our colleagues? I would suggest,
sir, that we have to be a little careful in
taking too much credit for that step, because
someone might care to listen to the words of
my hon. colleague from Bruce (Mr. Whicher);
he has stated a couple of times in this House
that perhaps all lawyers should be bonded,
then the lawyers would not have to dip into
their own pockets to pay for their defalcating
brothers.
This is a matter of very serious concern
and there have been a number of people who
have unfortunately lost moneys through the
defalcation or improper acts of lawyers who
believe— whether rightly or wrongly, probably
most of them wrongly— that they have not
been given a proper hearing and that the
consideration given to them has not been a
fair one.
Since this is a voluntary scheme the rules
are made by the benchers. The rules are
made by the discipline committee and there
is no appeal. Anything that an impugning
client might ask from this fund is given not as
of right, but as of grace. The rules are rules
that are made from time to time to suit the
purposes and if one feels themselves ag-
grieved there is no court of second recourse.
There is no source of appeal at all. They
have to accept what is being given as of
grace, not as of right; and if they do not
get anything as of grace, they are just out
of kick.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that
even though the system that presently exists
is far less than perfect, that this section
would seem to me to allow the possibility
that it will be even less perfect than it is
now. At least under the present system the
power of delegation from the group of
benchers, there are some 60 of them, is given
to the discipline committee, some ten mem-
bers of the profession. But this bill would
allow only one member of the profession to
sit in almost complete judgment upon every
one of these applications; and remember, sir,
the application is made not as of right, but
as of grace. The question is often asked
of a client who comes forward and says, My
money has been stolen by a lawyer: Do you
come to us with clean hands; were you
involved in some scheme that you would
rather not talk about; were your motives
proper, were you charging too high rates of
interest? All sorts of questions get into this.
MARCH 2, 1966
1085
It is not a question of trial of rights or
wrongs, it often gets to a question of trial
of morals.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: To an extent.
Mr. Singer: To an extent. But it often
'does, and I have read, and I am sure my
friend, the hon. Minister has read, some of
the reasons that have occasionally emanated
from the discipline committee in regard to
some of these decisions.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Does the hon. raem-
"ber think that 25 per cent of the requests
for payment out of the fund are of the
fashion he criticizes?
Mr. Singer: I would say that some of them
are. I would not want to fix a percentage.
But it has occurred to me several times, over
the years since this fund has existed, to
question whether or not we should be quite
so smug in saying that our profession is
doing the noble thing when we set our own
rules and there is no appeal to this fund as
of right. It would seem to me that if a
person believes they are aggrieved that they
should as of right— if it is worth doing at all
it is worth doing properly— they should as of
right have a recourse to a fund.
Now having gone this far, I say the system
we presently have is something less than
perfect. To take this additional step, Mr.
Speaker, would put in even a greater danger.
At least among ten members of the pro-
fession, ten benchers, ten members of the
discipline committee, there is room for a
certain substantial amount of collective
thinking. If as this amendment allows, one
person can be delegated, a referee, it is
quite conceivable that one man could be-
come very arbitrary. It is for these reasons,
sir— and with substantial regret, it does not
fill me with any great pleasure to oppose a
suggestion made by the leading colleagues
in my profession— for these reasons, sir, I
have great reservations about this amend-
ment to The Law Society Act and I have
grave doubts as to whether or not I can
support it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I could
wind up the debate, perhaps, with a very
brief statement-
Mr. Speaker: I must inform the Minister
that with the indulgence of the House he
may. He has already spoken twice on the
bill which normally gives anyone the right
to speak only once. The member for Sud-
bury spoke twice so I thought that the
Minister should be allowed to speak twice.
With the indulgence of the House he may
conclude the debate, if there is no one else
who wishes to speak first.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
on the principle of the bill, which is a very
limited one to extend the delegation powers
of the benchers of the law society to referees
to deal with matters relating to the compen-
sation fund, the significant point is that it
is to be referees who are members of that
society, but not of themselves benchers, as
I understand it.
I think that the point that needs to be
remembered on the principle of this bill is
first of all, that the law society of Upper
Canada is a public body incorporated by
public Act of this Legislature and by the
Act, this Legislature, in its wisdom, has
given wide powers of self-government. The
effect of the grant of those wide powers of
self-government over many years has been,
as the hon. member for Sudbury has stated,
in a large degree to insulate the law society
of Upper Canada from any public comment
on its affairs.
It is quite true that many of its affairs can
be found out and ascertained by members of
the public, but the only disclosure which
really takes place is to the members of the
profession itself and to that extent I do not
think that the law society is a body respon-
sive to public opinion at this time.
I would therefore join with the hon.
member for Sudbury in requesting that
members of the benchers of the law society
should attend the standing committee where
this question will be discussed, because it is
an obvious recognition of a long-standing
fact that there has been a substantial and
serious delay in the administration and grant
of payments out of the compensation fund.
Obviously, the benchers of the law society
assume that by this method of delegation
they overcome this serious fault in the ad-
ministration of the fund. I think it would
be most helpful when this bill is referred to
committee that not only the legal members
of the standing committee be present but all
those who are not lawyers be present in
order that they can ask and find out the way
in which the compensation fund is at the
present time administered. I share very grave
doubts as to whether or not by a simple
power of delegation to referees the defects
and the defaults and the inability of the
benchers to deal adequately with the claims
that are made against the fund will be
solved by the provisions of this bill.
1086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would hope that before the debate con-
cludes the hon. Attorney General would give
us assurance that the benchers of the law
society, or their representatives, would
appear before that committee.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, with your
indulgence and that of the House, on that
point I should like to say that I sat very still
after the hon. member for Sudbury had
spoken waiting to see if anyone else wished
to speak and you had actually put the ques-
tion and had said, "Carried," by the time I
got my feet, so I thought that I was closing
the debate when I spoke the second time.
Then new points were raised, sir, and I did
ask your indulgence to speak again. I trust
that this time I shall close the debate on
second reading.
I would point out, first of all, that the
amendment proposed, if the hon. members
will read it, will indicate to them that the
delegation is to a committee, or to a referee,
only for the purpose of making a report back
to the benchers or to a committee of the
benchers for dealing with this one subject of
claims against the compensation fund. It Is
not delegating the disposition-
Mr. Singer: But there is no hearing before
the committee. No evidence would be heard
by it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This is simply for a
referee or committee to study the matter and
report back. The benchers are elected from
across the province. True they are not elected
on any territorial basis, but they are widely
scattered and to have a full committee of the
benchers sitting— which has had to be the
case in the past— takes time, causes delay and
people complain at the great time they have
to wait to have their claims dealt with.
The principle of this bill is intended to
obviate and avoid that delay. It is only, I
repeat, a delegation for the purpose of re-
porting back to the committee so that it may
get on more quickly with its work.
The hon. member for Sudbury, I am aware
—I think this is no secret— is seeking election
to the benchers and I trust that he will be
successful. Perhaps I may say that I have
supported his nomination and I feel sure that
he will be a great addition to that august
body and may bring about some of the
changes that he urges upon the House today.
One of those changes— perhaps I should not
put it that way, I should point out to him
and to hon. members of the House that I,
by virtue of this office which I hold as the
chief law officer of the Crown, am a bencher
for life. This is one of the things that the
hon. member may change, but I shall be
present at least, and I shall try to persuade
—and very seriously I say this— members of
the benchers to be present at the committee;
and the hon. member for Sudbury may be a
bencher at that time.
I would ask the House to realize that the
principle of the bill is to avoid delay in the
settlement of these claims. It is a power
which has existed— the power of delegation—
which we are simply expanding. That is my
last word on the subject.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour that the
motion carry will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 40, An Act to amend The Conditional
Sales Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL
MORTGAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 41, An Act to amend The Bills of
Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.
bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
THE CHANGE OF NAME ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 42, An Act to amend The Change of
Name Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on Bill No. 42 I
have a brief question to ask of the hon.
Attorney General.
In the past, has the Provincial Secretary
not been the Minister responsible for vital
statistics and registrar general and all that
group of statutes? Is this not a change in
government policy that the Attorney General
takes this Act under his wing?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not deny that
the Provincial Secretary might be the Min-
ister under which the vital statistics sec-
tion comes. I think as a law officer of the
Crown I perhaps might have a right to pro-
pose legislation in any department. I would
MARCH 2, 1966
1087
not want to assert that too strongly, but I am
sure that the hon. Provincial Secretary will
not take umbrage at my carrying this small
bill forward.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, considering my
first remarks not as a speech— and this is not
going to be a speech either— I just want to
wonder out loud whether this does not
presage a realignment of responsibility inso-
far as the enforcement of law and looking
after certain statutes is concerned. And if, as
my suspicion directs me, this is what it be-
gins to mean, I wonder why the government
has not told us really how they are going to
realign the whole field of administration of
justice?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
Ml.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 43, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 44, An Act to amend The Devolution
•of Estates Act.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in connection
with Bill No. 44 the principle I suppose re-
lates to the specific sections, but I wonder if
we are going to get a principle within the
foreseeable future where we will have some-
what uniform system of succession duties or
estate taxes. As the hon. Attorney General
knows, recently the federal government has
seen fit to change its whole basis of taxing
estates and it does it on the basis of an
estate tax. Our system here seems to be, in
keeping with so many of our legal precedents,
about 50 years behind the times.
The incongruity between the taxing rules
and orders insofar as Ontario estates are con-
cerned, in contrasting the federal system and
the provincial system, is obvious; and my hon.
friend knows this full well. It would seem to
me that he would be doing the citizens of
this province a very great service if some
time in the immediate future he would intro-
duce into this House an estate tax Act for
Ontario which would bring us in line with
the same taxing principles, the same basis,
and the same reasonable exemptions as exist
in the federal statutes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think I am
called upon to say a great deal at this
moment. I trust I am winding up this de-
bate on second reading, but I wonder if the
hon. member for Downsview is attempting
to lead me now into another field which he
might consider trespassing, this time on the
field of the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
Allan). The principle of this bill simply has
to do with devolution, not taxes.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
NURSING HOMES
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill No. 45, An Act
to provide for the licensing and regulation of
nursing homes.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have some
observations and comments to make on this
bill. I suggest to the hon. Minister that this
Act was inevitable as a product of the great
and effective public criticism of the last
many years. And it is rather ironic to note
that it had a very stormy passage to its final
destination— being caught, as it were, in the
eddies of departmental ambitions and dis-
agreements between Health and Public
Welfare.
In fact, Mr. Speaker— I am sure the hon.
Minister will correct me if I am wrong— I
suspect that this Act is in a sense a compro-
mise by The Department of Health. Last
year we had an Act which extended the
rehabilitation services under The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare after an internal
struggle. This year The Department of
Health receives its fulfilment with a nursing
homes regulation Act.
I think Professor Krueger would have
enjoyed analyzing what happens between
these departments. Basically, there are, I
think, several areas of criticism of this bill,
pertinent and important. The first thing I
want to say, and I expect hon. members of
the Opposition will fully agree, is that in
many respects this is a shocking Act to
bring before the Legislature.
I do not think that in my short time in
this House there has ever been an Act so
bereft of content and so completely con-
tingent on the regulations. There is liter-
ally nothing in the essential phraseology of
this Act which cannot be totally overcome,
destroyed, undermined or perhaps bulwarked
by the regulations, depending on what the
hon. Minister will do.
Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Minister
said to me in reply to a question that the
regulations have nothing to do with policy.
1088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Well, let me suggest to him that in this Act,
the regulations are the policy.
The regulations relating to nursing homes
cover the classification procedures, the ex-
emptions from licensing, the construction,
repair and safety, the management and the
operation, the inspection and the reporting,
the treatment, care and discipline; they
designate the people who will do the in-
specting and licensing and, in all, Mr.
Speaker, are fully the substance of the bill.
And yet again, for the umpteenth time,
this government puts this kind of bill before
the House on second reading and gives no
hint whatsoever what the regulations are
going to be.
It would make the bill laughable were the
bill not so important. And one of the things
that worries us is that if the regulations are
to be modelled on those which originally
came forward when nursing homes were
within the jurisdiction of The Department of
Public Welfare, if the new regulations will
be modelled on the regulations of just a
year ago, they have already been rejected.
They have already been repudiated by repu-
table groups in the field and by the Associa-
tion of Nursing Homes Incorporated.
After all, they are the people who have
to work within the confines of this Act. So
we do not have the regulations and the regu-
lations which may come forward are already
suspect.
I suggest that this is particularly serious
when we recognize that fully 67 per cent
of the nursing homes in the province of
Ontario operate homes of under 20 beds.
Therefore, the regulations become funda-
mental to the operation— and not a whisper
as to what they might be. So that is the first
basic failing in principle.
The second basic failing is that the Act
again leaves in an area of considerable un-
certainty the precise definitions involved.
There were certain grants given to nursing
homes under The General Welfare Assist-
ance Act— financial requirements from The
Department of Public Welfare. What rela-
tionship will those financial grants have to
the regulatory features of The Department
of Health? Because the Department of
Health regulates and audits the books. In
addition, we have, completely separate, The
Homes for Special Care Act operated by The
Department of Health. What relationship
will the homes for special care have to the
nursing homes Act presently before us?
And yet this whole question of aging, Mr.
Speaker, has just been dropped in the lap of
The Department of Public Welfare. How
will the hon. Minister reconcile the division
of authority in this field at precisely the
point when public policy is to bring aging
into another department? I think the bill
belongs in his department, but I think there
is tremendous interdepartmental confusion.
There is no definition of sheltered homes;
no definition of boarding homes; no recogni-
tion of chronic care; no recognition of con-
valescent care. No definition of all the major
areas affected. Maybe we cannot have the
definition until the regulations are promul-
gated by this government, but I certainly
think it is a labyrinth of confusion to put
that kind of bill before the House without in
some way prefacing it with an explanatory
statement, or at least giving us an inkling of
the regulations.
I often wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether in
this province we should not have what is now
becoming characteristic of so many of the
states in the United States— a prime minister-
ial committee on aging, or something analo-
gous to it, so that the great changes in
emphasis characterized by different depart-
ments can somehow be brought together and
we can somehow have some overall purview.
The third point that I want to make is that
on the hon. Minister's own admission to the
press, the Act will in part be inoperative for
several years because of lack of personnel.
The fact is very simple, and I am sure the
hon. Minister will admit it: Large numbers of
nursing homes will not be able to meet the
regulations of this Act when such regulations
are forthcoming, because the nursing homes
simply do not have the required personnel*
The hon. Minister has therefore said pub-
licly that he may give provisional licences,
which is an odd way to run legislation, or
that he may wait four or five years before a
nursing home is formally and permanently
licensed under this Act.
Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
that is a very basic flaw since the personnel
aspect is crucial. I want to remind the House
that in the Ontario welfare council study of
nursing homes in the province of Ontario, it
showed that only 22 per cent of them had
registered nurses, 15 per cent had registered
nurses' assistants, and the other 63 per cent
were dominated on a staff basis by practical
nurses.
Now let it be pointed out that practical
nurses are trained under The Trade Schools
Regulation Act within The Department ot
Education, but The Department of Education
exercises no supervision or control over the
MARCH 2, 1966
1089
curriculum. The Department of Health does
not recognize the practical nurses school; the
college of nurses does not recognize them,
and the registered nurses association of On-
tario does not recognize them. So that in fact
if, as everyone assumes, the major personnel
areas are to be filled by registered nurses'
assistants we have a real personnel crisis in
no uncertain terms. As I say, at the present
time they occupy only 15 per cent of the staff
of nursing home care.
Now to follow up in terms of what that
crisis means: In the city of Metropolitan
Toronto, for instance, let me tell hon. mem-
bers what the needs for 1970 are. For regis-
tered nursing assistants in the field of active
treatment, long-term care and mental hos-
pitals, the needs are for roughly 1,700, and
at our present rate of turning these people
into the field we will barely meet the require-
ments of the year 1970 for active treatment
hospitals, long-term care and mental hospitals
alone.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we simply
will not have the surplus of registered nurs-
ing assistants required to fill the new nursing
homes licensed and regulated by this Act.
The homes will be strapped by those regu-
lations, they will not be able to function
adequately and the hon. Minister obviously
has to put before this House some kind of
formula.
At the moment the only areas in Metro
Toronto doing training for registered nurses'
assistants are the Toronto centre, which has a
day course of 120 and an evening course of
70; and there are a few hospitals, six or seven,
which turn out a handful of registered nurses'
assistants. But the numbers in terms of the
entire province would literally have to be
doubled to meet the upgraded requirements
of this bill. Unless I have missed the words
of the hon. Minister over the last year, there
has been no suggestion in this House where
the extra personnel will come from.
I would suggest to him strongly that one
of the sources they might come from is
through implementing training courses under
the adult retraining programme, section 3.
If the hon. Minister implemented a crash pro-
gramme using section 3 of the training pro-
gramme, he might conceivably fill the
requirements under this Act.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the final
criticism of the principle as it now stands.
What this Act wants to do, apart from over-
coming the furore relating to unhappy con-
ditions in these homes; what this Act wants
to do is to relieve the tremendous pressure
tin active treatment beds in certain areas of
the province by providing proper discipline
and regulation and inspection of nursing
homes. The hope surely is, as it was under
The Homes for Special Care Act, to move
people from active treatment units into con-
valescent, chronic nursing home units and
thereby relieve the pressure.
Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that will
not be achieved by this Act because we do
not have the personnel, we do not have the
required number of homes, and we do not
even yet know what the precise provisions
are. But there are two areas where it could
be achieved and I want to lay them before
the Legislature now.
First, Mr. Speaker, this Act should have
contained a provision for Ontario hospital
insurance to be extended to cover approved
chronic care cases in the new nursing homes
regulated by the Act, extended in large part
to include such people so that we could have
had the pressure taken off the active treat-
ment beds.
And second, Mr. Speaker, and this is of
equal importance, the government should
fill the gap, particularly in the crowded urban
areas, by undertaking a network of non-profit
government-sponsored nursing homes. Now,
that is not new to the hon. Minister. It is
an idea which has been considered by the
select committee on aging, it is an idea which
was advanced vigorously by the Ontario
welfare council's report. It is the only way,
I submit, Mr. Speaker, to make this Act effec-
tive and operative. Otherwise we again have
a sorry piece of governmental window dress-
ing.
We all know why the Act is before us.
The Act is the result of a public clamour; but
it could have been much better, I suggest. It
could have been much, more substantial. The
lacks in the Act; the absence of so much of
the important principle, makes it a less im-
pressive document than it could well have
been.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a few comments in relation to this
bill. I think the case has been very well put
by the hon. member for Scarborough West
and my remarks would serve at this time
to more or less underscore what he has said.
I would certainly agree with him wholeheart-
edly in the matter of the framing of the bill.
It is more noted for what it leaves out
rather than what it includes. It certainly is
a bare framework under which we are sup-
posed to judge the relative merits of the bill
as it applies to licensing and regulation of
nursing homes throughout the province.
1090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As far as I am concerned, I have main-
tained a very active interest in this particular
field. As a matter of fact I have a reso-
lution on the order paper, standing in my
name, that deals with this area in part, to
the extent that provided nursing homes are
licensed and regulated according to provin-
cial standards OHSC coverage, under those
conditions, should be extended, as the hon.
member for Scarborough West has so ably
said, to chronic care patients, which would
relieve the pressure on the active beds.
However, it would seem to me that not-
withstanding the fact that the nursing homes
association in the province wanted and has
asked repeatedly for this kind of legislation,
they will have certain fears and doubts when
they take a look at this bill. Nothing is spelled
out in precise terms. We are actually looking
at a bill that tells us only that the province
is going to inspect in some fashion and license
in some fashion the nursing homes across this
province.
I am certain that the nursing home oper-
ators will rest a little uneasy when they take
a look at this bill because I would presume
that, as has happened before in this House,
in a number of cases, as they relate to
various sections throughout the bill, the
regulations will actually contradict the princi-
ple of the bill. This being so, certainly the
nursing home operators across the province
will have some justification for resting a little
uneasy.
It would seem to me that if the province
—and I want to say once again that I fully
support the principle of provincial licensing
of nursing homes and the provincial inspec-
tion of nursing homes— but having said that
I feel that the province, and indeed the hon.
Minister when he brings in an Act like this,
should have consulted with the nursing home
operators and nursing home associations. I
hope that he did this; if he did—
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Does the hon. member want me to write that
into the bill, too?
Mr. Gaunt: No, I am just saying that I
hope that in drafting this bill there was
some understanding between yourself and
the nursing home operators as to what the
regulations would be under this bill; because
obviously we have no idea what they will be,
and if the nursing home operators are as
much in the dark as we are in this House,
then certainly they have cause for a little
concern.
The point that I made about extending
OHSC to approved chronic care cases, pro-
vided nursing homes are licensed and in-
spected, would seem to me to point up the
case that in this province we must utilize all
the health facilities within the community. I
had always hoped that when the province
undertook to licence nursing homes and in-
spect them this would be a principle which
would be borne in mind when the drafting
of such a bill was in process within the de-
partment.
However, I am a little bit concerned that
this has not been the case in the drafting of
this bill. I feel that the hon. Minister is
taking a rather timid look at this particular
problem. Indeed, the nursing homes across
the province have not been up to standard.
I think the operators themselves— and cer-
tainly their association has realized this— have
realized that there are a great many cases
where nursing homes are providing service,
but that service is not up to standard. I
think that we have all seen newspaper head-
lines—some of them spectacular headlines-
relating to incidents in nursing homes, and
have pointed up the lack of care and the
lack of cleanliness and the lack of standards
generally within the nursing homes in the
province of Ontario.
The association feels very keenly about this
particular matter and they have pressed the
hon. Minister, and indeed the government, for
a number of years to bring in legislation of
this type. Having done that, I would presume
that they had the feeling that a bill of this
type would have been more precise in nature,
it would have spelled out in more detail what
was inherent in the bill. Before I take my
seat, I just want to say that we do support
the principle of the bill, but certainly many
of the comments and many of the points that
the hon. member for Scarborough West made
were very valid and I think the hon. Minister
of Health should give them due considera-
tion.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I just want to
add a few remarks to what has already been
said. In the explanatory note, the hon. Min-
ister says:
The programme will be administered by
the department with the co-operation of
local boards of health and other local
agencies.
I suppose that is going to be taken care of
in the regulations, because it is not taken care
of in the Act. What concerns me very much,
the way this Act is phrased, is the pretty
strong suggestion that there is going to be
an additional burden thrust upon the local
MARCH 2, 1966
1091
municipalities. If the local municipalities,
local agencies and local boards of health
are going to be required under the regula-
tions to employ additional staff to do addi-
tional work, then the local taxpayers are
going to have to pay more money.
I think this adds credence to the remarks
of my colleague, the hon. member for
Huron-Bruce, and to the remarks of the
hon. member for Scarborough West. Surely
we should know at this stage what the hon.
Minister has in mind.
In addition to all of the other points that
have already been made in this debate, sir,
I suggest that this government owes it to
the municipalities to say to them clearly in
their legislation, "We are going to require
you to do this much more and to raise this
much more taxes." Surely the burden of
municipal taxes is getting so heavy now that
the municipal taxpayers are about to, at any
moment, rise in revolt. Here we are sneak-
ing in another additional tax burden on them
through the back door, and there is no ex-
planation at all as to how it is going to be
done.
No one need repeat, Mr. Speaker, the
number of times it has been urged that the
province exercise control and establish
standards for nursing homes, but in bringing
in the bare bones of an Act, that is only
going to be rounded out by regulations
which we have not seen and which we are
not going to be able to discuss and debate
publicly, I suggest the government is shirk-
ing its duty. It is shirking its real respon-
sibility and perhaps has something to hide
when they are not prepared to bring before
us the principles on which they propose to
take action.
I think the hon. Minister owes us a real
explanation as to all the points that have
been raised, and owes to every municipal
taxpayer a clear definition as to how much
additional burden the province is going to
put onto the shoulders of such taxpayers,
keeping in mind what the hon. Provincial
Treasurer did just a few days ago.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, in rising to
speak on the principle of this bill, I do so
fully realizing that one could agree on the
principle of the bill and sit down; it is simply
that the government has decided that they
are going to license nursing homes. But that
is the only principle involved in this bill,
because the government has not seen fit to
enunciate any policy whatsoever with respect
to the way in which the privilege of operat-
ing a nursing home will be granted; the
standards which will be required; the
philosophy behind their decision to license
nursing homes; the interdependence between
nursing homes and homes for the aged and
public general hospitals; the way in which
there will be co-ordination between these
very pressing needs for a co-ordinated policy
in our community among the three types of
care provided particularly for those who are
chronically ill. The government has not seen
fit to explain, either in the preliminary state-
ment made by the hon. Minister at the time
of first reading of this bill, or so far in this
debate, any of the basic policies which
animate the government in bringing this
legislation before the assembly.
I think that it needs very strong emphasis
that this bill is the complete abdication by
the government of its obligation to bring
into this assembly legislation which embodies
the principles and policies of the government.
All one need do is to read those sections of
the bill which are provided in the bill before
us and then read the powers which this
assembly is asked to grant to the Lieutenant-
Governor in council to pass regulations. The
powers of the Lieutenant-Governor to pass
regulations are to include classifying nursing
homes and residences; exempting nursing
homes; respecting the construction, estab-
lishment, alteration, safety, equipment,
maintenance and repair of nursing homes;
the management and operation of nursing
homes; and many other facets of the admin-
istration of nursing homes and the way in
which the government sees the nursing
homes as part of an overall system for the
care of the health of the citizens of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister will recall
that we attempted at the outset of this
session to have a standing committee
appointed to deal with regulations, and I
would suggest that never has there been a
more crying need for some committee of
this House to have an opportunity, even if
it is necessary to wait a short time, in order
to review the regulations which the hon.
Minister must, of necessity, put before the
public in order to carry out any of the pro-
visions of this Act.
I would hope that, at least, the hon.
Minister would give assurance to this House
that those regulations will be published
during this session of the House so that if
any member of the House cares to com-
ment either during the estimates of the
hon. Minister or at any other appropriate
time, we will have that opportunity to com-
ment. I would hope and request that, in the
1092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
remarks which the hon. Minister is going to
make about this bill now on the close of this
debate, he will in fact enunciate the policies
of the government with respect to the posi-
tion, in the health scheme of this province,
of nursing homes for the citizens of Ontario.
I need not reiterate the remarks which
have been made by others, except to empha-
size the crying need for some method by
which persons who are chronically ill, and
who recover some measure of their health
and are moved from one institution, such as
a public hospital or a hospital for chronic
care, to a nursing home, and perhaps from a
nursing home to a home for the aged, can in
fact conveniently and easily be moved from
a home for the aged back into a nursing
home, then back if necessary into a hospital
for chronic care— so that the needs of those
sick persons, depending on the state of their
health at any time, can be adequately and
effectively dealt with in one of three or more
types of institution. This, at the present
moment, is one of the great lacks in the
scheme of health care in the province of On-
tario—that there is always a constant and
continuous battle to get a person moved from
one type of home into another type of home,
or into a chronic hospital, for care. And the
only person who suffers in the delays which
are attendant upon such moves is the elderly
or chronically ill person. This particular
aspect of the policy of the government, in
now deciding that it will license nursing
homes, is one that deserves comment by the
hon. Minister during this debate.
It has also, Mr. Speaker, been clearly
pointed out that, in the case of nursing homes,
there is no known way in which a non-profit
nursing home can be incorporated and organ-
ized and receive public assistance in the con-
struction of the home or in its operation.
Reports have been made which indicate the
possibility that, under The Charitable Insti-
tutions Act, it might well be possible to do
so; but I think the fact that it has never been
used for that purpose, while it has been used
for the purpose of supporting the construction
and operation of homes for the aged and
other types of charitable institutions, speaks
for itself. It must be considered that under
The Charitable Institutions Act and, so far as
I know, under any other Act of this Legisla-
ture, it is not possible to have a non-profit
nursing home.
Many of the criticisms of the nursing
homes derive from this very fact; that the
nursing homes in the province of Ontario are
operated for a profit and have a very great
need to be solvent; that they are faced with
the need to provide care for many people who
are welfare cases, who are dependent on in-
adequate grants or allowances made to them
by welfare agencies of the municipalities or
of the provincial government; and therefore
that they are unable to provide other than a
very low standard of care for the patients in
those homes.
I know that at the present time it is per-
haps popular to criticize the operators of the
nursing homes, but the operators of the nurs-
ing homes are fulfilling a need in the com-
munity. They are fulfilling it to the extent
that it is possible for them to do so under
very difficult financial circumstances and with
little or no, or indeed inadequate, support
from the government or the municipalities.
I think that for these reasons it is essen-
tial that the hon. Minister make a very ex-
tended explanation to this House of why he
should bring into the Legislature a bill which,
in essence, simply provides him with the
power of licensing nursing homes but does
not in any way indicate to this House the
way in which he intends to exercise that
power, grant the privileges inherent in the
grant of a licence, and inform the House as
to the way in which nursing homes will fit
into an overall scheme for the care of the
health of the citizens of this province.
We will support the principle of the bill,
because we think it is long overdue. We are
shocked by the inability of the hon. Minister
to give any of the basic terms of the policies
of this government to achieve the end which
I assume the government wishes to achieve
in placing this bill before this assembly.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I had not in-
tended to speak on second reading of this
bill, but the hon. member for Huron-Bruce
and the hon. member for Riverdale touched
on a situation where the operators of many of
these nursing homes are quite nervous and
quite concerned, because the regulations have
not spelled out just what they will be faced
with, in requirements.
In my own riding, I have several nursing
homes, one of which has almost doubled its
rates during the past few weeks. This, I
think, is basically because they are still un-
certain what they are going to be faced with;
they are jumping the gun and raising their
rates now. We, of course, all realize that
costs are going up, but I think this is the
prime reason; and I would hope that the hon.
Minister can spell out these regulations very
quickly.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the prin-
ciple of the bill is very simple, and is in-
MARCH 2, 1966
1093
eluded in the bill. The principle of the bill
is to regulate and license nursing homes in
the province of Ontario, to set standards of
establishment, maintenance and operation.
Those are the principles of the bill, Mr.
Speaker. It is a very simple bill, although it
is far-reaching in its implications and will
provide a very great deal— and will have to
provide a very great deal— by way of regu-
lations.
I want to put the mind of the hon. member
for Scarborough West at ease. This was not
because of public pressure, or his pressure,
or anybody else's pressure; it is a logical ex-
tension of our experience gained under The
Homes for Special Care Act. Nor is it evi-
dence of any rivalry between the depart-
ments; nor is it any compromise; nor anything
else. It is something that has needed to be
done for a long time and has weighed very
neavily upon us. If I recall rightly, when I
introduced the bill, An Act respecting homes
for special care, I spoke about this and said
at the time that I hoped there would be a
logical extension into all of the fields of
nursing home care.
The place of the OHSC in this, of course,
is very simple. The OHSC works under an
agreement between two levels of government.
It covers hospital care— in-hospital care— and
the government of Canada has made it very
clear to us that this does not extend to care
in nursing homes. OHSC has given temporary
approval to a certain number of beds in
nursing homes, as auxiliary hospitals, to pro-
vide chronic care in areas of our province
where there is not enough of this facility pub-
licly owned and operated. But I emphasize
that these are temporary licences, and they
are steadily being dropped as public facili-
ties come into operation.
This is as far as OHSC can go because of
the fact that it is a bi-governmental arrange-
ment and not something that is controlled
entirely by our province.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Minister permit a question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I—
Mr. Speaker: During second reading I
do not think it is the custom to ask questions.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I do not think it
is necessary, Mr. Speaker. I sat quietly here
and listened to all of their statements, so I
think this is my day in court now.
The hon. member for Scarborough West
said too much is left to regulation; but the
principle of the bill I maintain, sir is outlined
specifially in the bill. The regulations are
required to look after the administrative de-
tail, the day-to-day operation of the job; and
if you will check this bill with the nursing
care section of The Homes for Special Care
Act, it is not at all unlike that, and much
was allowed us by way of regulation in re-
spect to this.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that government
by regulation is not the best type of govern-
ment; but I also recognize that the practical
problems inherent in certain legislation make
it necessary that we do have a certain amount
of government by regulation. As I said on
many occasions, when we have gained the
necessary experience from this type of oper-
ation, we will not hesitate to bring it into
legislation.
I think we are running a very great risk
of tying ourselves too inflexibly by trying to
dot all the i's and cross all the t's, by putting
into legislation all of the things that the
hon. members would like-
Mr. S. Lewis: Give us a few i's to dot.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Would they like to
speak again, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. A. E. Thompson: (Leader of the Op-
position): Yes, I would.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, they can, at a
somewhat later date. With respect to the
grants from Public Welfare in relation to this
bill; Mr. Speaker, Public Welfare will provide
payment for those patients who come within
their sphere of influence; but they will be
housed in homes, nursing homes licensed by
provincial licence. This is the only difference.
We believe that the nursing home is essenti-
ally a health facility ' and, as such, should
be under the control of Health. But that does
not mean to say that Health must find the
funds to pay for the care of those people
who are kept in our homes for special care.
Welfare, just as they pay for many patients
coming within the purview of our care in
other facilities, will continue to pay for them
here.
The relationship of nursing homes to homes
for special care: The homes for special care
and the patients in them are a very direct
responsibility of government. They are pa-
tients who have been under the supervision
and within the care of The Department of
Health, some of them for many years, and
have been discharged to homes for special
care. In many cases The Department of
Health stands in loco parentis to these people
because many of them have no homes, have
1094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
no relatives. The communities from whence
they came have forgotten that they ever ex-
isted and therefore we feel a responsibility
to them; this too was explained when The
Homes for Special Care Act was brought in.
Within The Homes for Special Care Act
too we have made provision for sheltered care
because of the unique situation inherent in
this, because of the type of patient that is
housed in these homes. We have not made
provision for boarding homes or sheltered
care in this Act because this is, we believe,
a welfare situation and not particularly a
health situation.
We are concerned with nursing homes
from the standpoint of health. The health of
a person in a boarding house is of importance
to us, but it does not take general or particu-
lar legislation from The Department of Health
to look after it. The medical officer of health
has authority within The Public Health Act
now to inspect boarding houses, and homes
for sheltered care can very well come within
the interpretation of this boarding homes Act.
Now as for convalescent and chronic care
we believe the patient who needs convales-
cent and chronic care needs hospital care
and they rightfully come within the purview
of the Ontario hospital services commission.
Again I repeat, the OHSC have certain
nursing homes, licensed or approved for
receiving patients who are still covered and
still protected by OHSC but they are
approved as temporary hospitals and not as
nursing homes, although they may still go
under the name of nursing home.
The hon. member for Scarborough West
stated that I told the newspapers that the
Act was inoperative, or he stated the Act
would be inoperative, because of lack of
personnel, basing the statement on one pur-
ported to have been made by me. I did not
say that it was because of lack of personnel
that provisional licences were to be granted.
I said it was because of the fact that cer-
tain nursing homes could not immediately
come up to the ideal standards, and that if
they could reach the minimal standard of
establishment maintenance care, then we
would give them a provisional licence. We
still intend to do this, giving them a reason-
able length of time to reach the ideal.
The licence will ho good for a year at a
time, it will be reviewed and the progress
that those homes have made towards coming
up to the ideal will be considered. If they
have made reasonable progress, then their
provisional licence will be extended. All
things will be considered when the licence
is up for renewal and it will be our inten-
tion to press forward steadily to have them
come to the ideal standard just as quickly
as possible. I stated when I spoke to the
newspapers that this period of time might
be from three to five years, and I quoted the
state of Michigan which was one of the
states which had brought in quite a good
piece of legislation regulating nursing homes.
They found by experience that it took five
years to give the homes an opportunity to
come up to standard. My staff believes that
this can be brought about in three years. I
do not think that we want to make it too
flexible in this regard either, because we
want to ensure that those who are trying to
elevate the standards of the home will be
given every opportunity.
Now he also spoke about practical nurses,
and practical nurses do provide a very good
service in nursing homes. There is nothing
wrong with practical nurses. Now I want
to make very clear, Mr. Speaker, before this
House— and I think my feelings about this
are on the record and have been for a long
time— the school to which the hon. member
refers as the only one producing practical
nurses. It just happens that this is, as far as
I know, the only formally established school,
and a school which I would remind this
House from which I withdrew its licence
shortly after I became Minister of Health
because of my concern for the quality of
training it was providing. I still hold that
concern, and I do not recognize and will not
recognize their graduates, because I do not
believe they are adequately trained to do the
job that their title would lead us to expect.
But a very great number of the practical
nurses working in various health facilities
today have a right to call themselves this,
not by virtue of graduation from any school
which claims to give them a diploma for this,
but because of the fact they have learned in
probably one of the best schools— the school
of experience. Learning the job oftentimes
in general hospitals, many times in chronic
care hospitals, some of them in our own
Ontario hospitals, several of our ward aides
have left our service and have gone into
practice as practical nurses and are doing a
very excellent job.
I do share the hon. member's concern
because of the number of RNA's that we
should have; ideally I think that we should
have most of our nursing homes staffed by
RNA's and this would be our aim. But here
again I think we have to be somewhat
cautious at least in not forcing this regula-
tion immediately upon the nursing homes.
MARCH 2, 1966
1095
Our experience in homes for special care
lias given us a good deal of knowledge. We
liave learned that there are some 560 nursing
homes, or places known as nursing homes,
in the province. Four hundred and forty-five
of those applied to be licensed under The
Homes for Special Care Act and 205 of them
have been licensed.
Now it was this experience alone, Mr.
Speaker, that led us to the conclusion that
something had to be done to introduce uni-
formity of standards across the province,
because many of these homes that we had
found it necessary to reject were licensed
municipally. This pointed up to us the diffi-
culty of continued dependence upon this
type of licence. We have 205 homes licensed
under The Homes for Special Care Act, pro-
viding 2,200 beds for our patients. From
our knowledge so far it would be our feeling
that about 150 of the nursing homes in the
province will not under any circumstances
be able to meet even the minimal standards
and therefore they will not likely become
eligible for licensing at all. It is expected
therefore that about 400 nursing homes will
form the core of the nursing home system in
the province of Ontario, but the number of
beds that they will be able to provide is un-
known at the present time.
The hon. member, for Scarborough West
I believe it was, did point out that the aver-
age was under 20 beds. With this I would
be in agreement, although I am quite certain
he is aware of the fact because in his own
municipality this has become quite a project.
There are several very large nursing homes
being established now and they are giving us
a little bit of concern because of the very
size of them. Many of us feel that homes of
their size are far too big for nursing homes.
The programme will begin and our licens-
ing will come into force on January 1, 1967,
because many of these homes are municipally
licensed now and the municipal year begins
on January 1.
It is expected that the licence will be $10
per year; it is a nominal licence. A provi-
sional licence, as I have stated, will be given
to all those who can meet a basic minimal
standard.
An annual review will be carried out, I
repeat, on application for renewal of the
licence to see what progress is being made.
Inspection will be done by local medical
officers of health, and I think I can put the
hon. member for Downsview at ease because
this is not going to put an intolerable or any
burden upon the local taxpayers.
In the health units where we already give
support financially this is considered part of
a basic public health programme and will
therefore be eligible for support under their
presently existing arrangements with us.
In the cities and large towns where they
have their own health setup which is not
eligible for financial support through govern-
ment they have been doing this anyway. I
am quite certain that the hon. member will
recognize this has been done well in those
municipalities for a long time, and indeed my
staff have been advised by the medical offi-
cers of health here that they will likely save
money as a result of this central licensing and
control by laying down standards and provid-
ing for them a consultant service from head
office.
We will have a staff— expected to be 10
people— who will provide counsel, consulta-
tion service and a few inspections when it is
necessary and when we have been asked to
provide them by the local medical officer of
health.
Mr. Singer: It is a good trick; they do more
work and it costs less money.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This is right. They will
not have more work; they are doing this work
now and they are doing it very thoroughly in
the large well-organized municipalities. They
will not have any more work.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Huron-Bruce says that we should
have consulted the nursing home operators.
We did; we consulted them a long time ago.
Mr. Thompson: You did not—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Thompson: I said that you did not con-
sult them regarding the other regulations. I
talked to nursing home operators.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am not
talking about our other regulations; I am
talking about this bill. We did consult with
the nursing home operators before this bill
was written, and we are still consulting with
them on regulations. We also consulted with
the nursing homes committee of the Ontario
medical association. We consulted with the
social planning council, which conducted a
very extensive study of nursing homes. We
1096
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have consulted with all of those people and,
as a result, this bill has been prepared.
I think that my hon. friends who have ex-
pressed fear on the part of the nursing home
operators are not in very close touch with the
operators, because they are very much aware
of what is going on. Their own organization,
the Associated Nursing Homes Incorporated,
which has done probably more to elevate the
standards of nursing homes in Ontario than
has been done by any body in the whole of
Canada, has been completely aware of what
we have done and has been consulted by us
all along the way.
The hon. member for Huron-Bruce out-
lined a great many faults and weaknesses
which we too found when we were licensing
homes under The Homes for Special Care
Act. It is to correct these faults and weak-
nesses, and to make sure that the quality of
care provided by the nursing homes for those
who need it will be of such a standard that
it can be approved, that we have brought in
this bill, Mr. Speaker. And this is why I
believe the hon. members of this House
should support it.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Minister if this bill is going to go
to the standing committee on health?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill No. 46, An Act to amend The Summary
Convictions Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORONERS ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading
of Bill No. 47, An Act to amend The
Coroners Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL
HOSPITAL
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr4, An Act
respecting the Greater Niagara general hos-
pital.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF TORONTO
Mr. A. A. Mackenzie (York North) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr6, An Act
respecting the township of Toronto.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF BRANTFORD
Mr. Nixon in the absence of Mr. G. T.
Gordon (Brantford) moves second reading of
Bill No. Prll, An Act respecting the city of
Brantford.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park) moves
second reading of Bill No. Prl7, An Act
respecting the Canadian national exhibition
association.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWN OF WESTON
Mr. MacDonald moves second reading of
Bill No. Prl9, An Act respecting the town
of Weston.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
POLICE VILLAGE OF BADEN
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr20, An Act
respecting the police village of Baden.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CO-OPERATIVE LOANS ACT
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of
Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Co-opera-
tive Loans Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF LONDON
Mr. J. H. White (London South) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr21, An Act
respecting the city of London.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
MARCH 2, 1966
1097
TOWN OF BURLINGTON
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West) in the
absence of Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton) moves
second reading of Bill No. Pr27, An Act re-
specting the Town of Burlington.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
CITY OF SUDBURY
Mr. Sopha moves second reading of Bill
No. Pr34, An Act respecting the city of Sud-
bury.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE
SCHOOLS FOR THE CITY OF WINDSOR
Mr. Thrasher moves second reading of
Bill No. Pr35, An Act respecting the board
of trustees of the Roman Catholic separate
schools for the city of Windsor.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there is a
correction to be made on page 9 of that bill.
It lists St. Anne's school, 1124 Monmouth
road, Windsor, and that should be in the
township of Sandwich East.
Mr Speaker: Perhaps the member could
draw that matter to the attention of the
House whenever it resolves itself into the
committee of the whole.
Mr. Newman: Thank you.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
TOWNSHIP OF NORTH YORK
Mr. D. Bales (York Mills) moves second
reading of Bill No. Pr36, An Act respecting
the township of North York.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, Bill Pr36 was
amended and committed to private bills
committee. The bill we have before us is
the unamended copy. I have no objection
to it, but should we not have the amended
bill before us now?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not have any ob-
jection to it, either. I notice that the same
holds true of order No. 54. The Bill Pr34 is
not reprinted either— at least, on my order
paper it is marked. We will hold up order
No. 56, Mr. Speaker, and will bring it back
another time.
Before moving the adjournment of the
House, tomorrow we will deal with the esti-
mates of The Department of Highways, ex-
cept for our private members' hour from
5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 37
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
Betmte*
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, March 3, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 3, 1966
Sixth report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 1101
Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 1102
St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Auld, first reading 1102
Department of Tourism and Information Act, 1966, bill intituled, Mr. Auld, first reading 1102
Introducing M. Gerin-Lajoie, Mr. Robarts 1104
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 1105
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1105
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davison, on second reading 1118
Recess, 6 o'clock 1127
1101
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as guests to the Legislature today, in the east
gallery, students from R. H. King collegiate
institute, Scarborough.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's sixth report which
was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr26, An Act respecting the city
of Toronto.
Your committee would recommend that
the following bills be not reported:
Bill No. Prl5, An Act respecting the town-
ship of Pickering.
Bill No. Pr30, An Act respecting the city
of Kitchener.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, may I make a brief comment on
this report?
One of the sections of the Toronto bill
that was thrown out was the section in which
the city sought the power to require insur-
ance companies which cancelled fire insur-
ance policies to notify the city clerk
regarding cancellations and the reasons for
them— indeed, to notify both the superin-
tendent of insurance and the clerk of the
city of Toronto.
It was explained that the reason why they
wanted this was to discover any inadvertent
violation of standards that their inspectors
should follow through on and also to gather
information on this issue which has been
discussed many times in this House— the
practice of private insurance companies re-
fusing coverage within certain areas and
therefore the fact that these people are left
without any protection at all.
Mr. A. H. Cowling (High Park): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
Thursday, March 3, 1968
Mr. Speaker: Will the member state his
point of order?
Mr. Cowling: The chairman of the private
bills committee introduced the report. Now
the city of Toronto bill does not include the
section the hon. member is discussing. It is
not in that bill. It was knocked out of the
bill and, therefore, my point of order, Mr.
Speaker, is that I do not think that it should
be discussed at this time, because it is not
now a part of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Since the section was in the
bill and the bill is now being reported, I
think that perhaps the member is in order.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
High Park is a professional at attempting
closure.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the sugges-
tion was raised that conceivably some other
means must be sought to provide insurance
for these people. This I would agree is
beyond the purview of the bill, because all
the city was asking for was that they should
have this information from the insurance
companies.
Now, I raise the issue at this point with
particular reference to an observation I
would like to make to the hon. Attorney
General (Mr. Wishart). The superintendent
of insurance, Mr. Richards, came before the
committee, stated that they had been dis-
cussing this problem with the insurance
companies, that they were working out pro-
cedures, that the insurance companies had
indicated that they were voluntarily going
to supply this information to the superin-
tendent of insurance.
Now on many of these issues, Mr. Speaker,
we have been pleading for action for years
and my only view was that the city of
Toronto was entitled to have this power
until the superintendent of insurance,
through his appropriate Minister here,
brought in an amendment which would see
that this issue was covered.
However, it was thrown out; it was thrown
out for a number of reasons. Each member
1102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the committee who voted against it had
his own particular reasons and some of them
quite frankly said that they were sympathetic
to the objective, but there were certain un-
tidinesses in the section and this is why they
were voting against it.
But one of the main reasons why it was
thrown out, Mr. Speaker, was the proposi-
tion that the superintendent of insurance
said that they were working out voluntary
arrangements, which might be incorporated
in some amendment to the general insurance
legislation that would be brought in, and
therefore it was not needed in the city of
Toronto bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept with-
out any further argument or fight on the
issue now, the proposition that this was
struck out of the city of Toronto bill, but
only on condition that we have some assur-
ance from the hon. Attorney General and
this government that if the superintendent
of insurance is working out arrangements on
a so-called voluntary basis with the insur-
ance company that this should be done with-
out delay. Indeed, that such amendments
making certain that this provision of infor-
mation is made available through the super-
intendent of insurance to anybody who
requires it at the city level, should be done
at this particular session. I was wondering
whether the hon. Attorney General would
indicate to us whether there is any possi-
bility of that happening.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in the
House at the opening of this discussion and
I am not entirely certain about what the
hon. member speaks. I know that we are
conducting studies of insurance matters with
a view to certain legislative changes. I do
not know what the subject of information is
that the hon. member for York South has
mentioned. I am not in a position, there-
fore, to give a blanket assurance at all on
any request such as this.
When we have considered whatever the
matters are that are before us, we will come
forward with a policy to the House-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify
the point on which the hon. Attorney General
is vague?
In the city of Toronto bill, there was a
section in which the city requested the right,
under their own bill, to get from insurance
companies, when they cancelled fire insurance
policies, any notification of a cancellation
and the reason why that cancellation has
taken place. Without recapping everything
else I said, the superintendent informed the
committee that they were meeting with the
insurance companies and that the insurance
companies had volunteered to do this kind of
thing and that it was not needed in the city
of Toronto bill because it might be brought
in under amendments to the general insur-
ance legislation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member. I would give this undertaking:
that I will look into the matter myself and
see what has been undertaken, if this is so,
by the insurance companies and what we may
do to see that that undertaking may be car-
ried out.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Public Health Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, these are very largely house-
keeping amendments with the exception of
two; one to authorize my department, with
the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in
council, to make regulations governing the
sources of ionizing radiation used in com-
merce and industry, as well as all other
sources; the other is to make it possible, by
the authority of this bill, to conduct surveys
across the province into the incidence of
THE ST. LAWRENCE PARKS
COMMISSION ACT
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information) moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The St. Lawrence
Parks Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
AND INFORMATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Auld moves first reading of bill
intituled, The Department of Tourism and
Information Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, this bill is a
consolidation of The Department of Tourism
MARCH 3, 1966
1103
and Information Act and The Tourist Estab-
lishments Act and this Act introduces pro-
visions for the filing and posting-up of rates
to be charged in tourist establishments and
also for the establishment of parks in connec-
tion with enjoyment of historic sites. It
authorizes the licensing of information centres
by regulation.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I would like to clear
up a misunderstanding which appears to
have grown out of a statement I made during
the debate on Bill No. 45, An Act to provide
for the licensing and regulation of nursing
homes, in this House yesterday.
I stated The Department of Health did not
recognize practical nurses who were the
product of a school which operates under the
trades school branch of The Department of
Education. From this statement it appears to
have been taken that The Department of
Health does not recognize any nurse educa-
tion and programmes which come under the
jurisdiction of The Department of Education.
This, sir, is not so. Some schools in the
pro vice, secondary and/ or vocational do offer
a course of training leading to registered
nurse assistant status. Ryerson institute offers
a course leading to registered nurse status. All
of these courses are recognized by The De-
partment of Health.
I would also emphasize that The Depart-
ment of Education and my department have
a very close liaison on any programmes for
nurse education or the education of other
health or para-health personnel. I believe
it is correct to say that practical nurses
trained in the school to which I referred
yesterday cannot be said to be trained by
The Department of Education, rather the
school is licensed under the trades school
branch of The Department of Education.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a question for
the hon. Attorney General. Would the
Attorney General indicate whether the gov-
ernment will seek the necessary amendments
to our laws and regulations to rule out the
use of listening devices, such as wired olives
in martinis and bugged packages of cigarettes?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, when I
first read this question, I was inclined to
answer it with a question: Has the hon.
member been drinking?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Martinis!
Hon. Mr, Wishart: Seriously, Mr. Speaker,
I would point out to the House that this very
matter was discussed at the recent conference
on crime, the Attorneys General conference
at Ottawa, which was headed by the federal
authorities, the Minister of Justice.
The situation, as it developed, is this— this
is how it is at the moment: The people who
are sophisticated in crime and dedicated
to crime and carrying on criminal activities
make the fullest use of all these devices.
They are numerous, they are most effective,
they are small, they are difficult to find, but
criminals get their information by the use of
such devices. It seems reasonable— and this
is the view of our police authorities, I think-
to suggest that if we are to combat the
criminal who has full access to these devices,
the police authorities should have the right
to use them also. That is perhaps the only
way that the use of such devices can be
combated or that the criminal activities
resulting from information obtained by the
use of such devices, can be really thoroughly
and properly combated.
My own view is this; that the use of such
devices, if they are to be allowed, by law,
be done with the control and direction of
the courts. I think if the court gives the
right to use such devices, it should be
established by an application or by a rule
of law or by an application in a specific
instance to the court.
The only other alternative as we can see
it, arising out of our studies and discussions,
is that the possession of such devices by any-
one be outlawed by our laws.
I would simply indicate to the House that
the matter has been discussed, is being
discussed, and will be further discussed. I
think I noted in the paper today that a
further conference on organized crime, on
crime generally, is mooted at the federal level
in which the Attorneys . General of all the
provinces and our police departments will be
invited to take part.
But my own view is if these electronic
devices are to be used to combat crime, it
should be done with the control of the
courts.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. Attorney General would permit a
supplementary question? Is he aware of the
fact that the FCC in the United States,
within the last two days, has prohibited the
use of such listening devices and presumably
they are interested in having as effective
law enforcement agencies as anybody?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I had some inkling of
this but I have not the full detail of how
far they have gone or whether this has
1104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
actually become fact. Even if this were so,
I would not say that our approach would be
the same.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. Minister of
Education a question, which is a follow-up
to a question that I asked him on January
28 and which he answered at that time.
What progress has been made in review-
ing the extremely low pensions paid to
certain superannuated teachers and teachers'
widows and when may a definite statement of
policy be expected on this matter?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as was
stated on January 28, any consideration given
to alterations in the teachers' superannuation
fund awaits the proposal that we expect to
receive from the teachers federation. I
endeavoured to find out for the hon. member
before the House this afternoon at what stage
these proposals were but I was unable to
do so. I perhaps will have this information
tomorrow. As soon as these proposals from
the federation are presented to the teachers
superannuation commission and to the gov-
ernment, we shall make a statement there-
after just as soon as we can.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister has a
hope that it may be as early as tomorrow?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The proposals from the
federation? No, I do not expect it will be
as early as tomorrow. I do not know, I shall
try to find out for the hon. member.
Mr. Bryden: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker? Is it not a fact that
if the government paid the limited amount
of money required to increase these pensions
out of general revenues, you would not have
to wait for the reassessment of the fund that
is now taking place? Is that not true, that
you could proceed on your own if you paid
the money out of general revenues?
Hon Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess
it is always possible to proceed on one's own
but the teachers' superannuation fund is a
fund that the teachers themselves contribute
to quite extensively. They have asked that
we consider this reassessment and we think
that it is appropriate that both matters be
considered at the same time.
Mr. Bryden: But these people have been
waiting for ten years.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, just
supplementary to that, if the hon. Minister
would permit, on a point of clarification. Is
he expecting that the proposals or the require-
ments for the group of teachers that the hon.
member who asked the original question is
referring to, will be changed? Surely they
are still just asking for a minimum of $1,200
a year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
tell the hon. member what the teachers' fed-
eration proposals will be. All I know is we
are told they will include some reassessment
that would affect this group of superannuated
women that we are interested in.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Attorney General is usually pretty
articulate. But he was talking about listening
devices and we in the back row did not get
that interchange between the hon. member
for York South and the hon. Attorney General
and I think it behooves the government to
put a mike on each of the government desks
so we can hear back here.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, put it in your mar-
tini.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
would like to introduce to the House a young
man who is sitting under the press gallery,
M. Gerin-Lajoie, who is Minister of Educa-
tion for the province of Quebec. M. Gerin-
Lajoie is in town today to speak in conjunc-
tion with our own hon. Minister of Education
to the Empire club. I did not have the
pleasure of hearing that address, but I am
sure it was a very interesting and a very
stimulating one.
My own association with M. Gerin-Lajoie
goes back to the years when I was fortunate
enough to hold the portfolio of Minister of
Education and I really met him first at a
meeting held here in Toronto, in either 1959
or 1960. In any event, the significance of that
meeting was that it was the first time in the
history of this country and Confederation,
that the Ministers of Education of all the
provinces of Canada had been able to get to-
gether and discuss our educational problems
on a national basis.
I might say, in addition, M. Gerin-Lajoie
is an expert in constitutional law. He has
published a volume dealing with constitu-
tional law in this country and, of course, we
have had many discussions over these years
in various matters relating to The British
North America Act and proposed changes,
and one thing and another in that area.
I know I speak on behalf of all the hon.
members here in extending a very warm wel-
come to him. Will you stand up, please?
MARCH 3, 1966
1105
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I beg leave to present to the House the re-
port of The Department of Tourism and In-
formation and The Department of Public
Records and Archives of the province of On-
tario for the year 1965.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The ninth order.
House in committee of supply. Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS
(continued)
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, in my comments on the remarks
by the hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) late Tuesday night, I showed
without any shadow of a doubt that this
one department of government has let down
the people of Ontario in its meek, timid, bits-
and-pieces approach. There were only 15
hon. members on the government benches
who did not agree with me, so there must
have been at least 61 who must have agreed,
because they were not present to disagree.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. Newman: It does not matter, there
were only 15 on that side who disagreed.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The member for
Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I was so
interrupted that I think I should start over
again.
Last Tuesday night I showed beyond any
shadow of a doubt that this one department
of government has let down the people of
Ontario in its meek, timid, bits-and-pieces
approach to providing for the best and
safest means of vehicular communication be-
tween all areas of this province. I showed
that what is now known as Highway 401,
or the Macdonald-Cartier freeway, was origi-
nally estimated to cost $150 million, back
in the 1940s. In 1960, the then Minis-
ter of Highways, the hon. member for Gren-
ville-Dundas (Mr. Cass), estimated the final
cost-this is 1960-at $2.7 billion. This is
almost 20 times the original cost and this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I simply
show to the hon. members of this House that
in 1956 the state of California built a 209-
mile multi-lane freeway in 17 months, not
19 years, and ours is still incomplete with five
more years to go. In 1956, the state of New
York built a 427-mile four-lane road in the
same length of time that it took this depart-
ment to build the 27-mile Toronto bypass.
When I mentioned $2.7 billion, I did not
include the cost of all overpasses, in order
that this highway be called a limited-access
road. Unless an accelerated policy is adopted,
highways and road construction may become
the chief bottleneck, the tourniquet, prevent-
ing a continued and accelerated economic
growth in all parts of Ontario. Just look at
the overall growth of the province, and the
areas of slow growth have been those that
were most poorly serviced by highways.
Mr. Chairman, you may recall that the
other day one of the hon. members in this
House mentioned the fact that his portion of
the province was not getting the considera-
tion it should have received. He had men-
tioned that the federal people gave precious
little to the poor and depressed people of
Ontario. This is the part of Ontario that still
does not have Highway 401 completed. This
same hon. member has said:
Although we are making progress with
regard to main highways, secondary high-
ways, county and municipal roads in our
area, I feel that the overall effort is totally
inadequate.
This is from an hon. member of your own
group, Mr. Chairman. This is the hon. mem-
ber for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), on
page 752 of Hansard this year.
May I show the bold and ambitious steps
that one of the jurisdictions very close to us
has taken? Governor William Scranton of the
state of Pennsylvania, in a special message to
the Pennsylvania general assembly, has
proposed a $10-billion ten-year highway pro-
gramme designed to meet the pressing eco-
nomic needs of the whole state. Ten billions
of dollars, Mr. Chairman, over a ten-year
period. Not $2 billion over 20 years. The
Governor stated, and I am quoting:
Good highways mean many things to
many people. Surely they are a matter of
convenience and safety, but as Pennsyl-
vania fights to create economic opportunity
1106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for all her people, good highways mean a
great deal more besides. They are the
arteries of our economic system.
Build them in time and they pump busi-
ness, industry, tourism, jobs and prosperity
throughout our state. Build them late and
it is like pinching off a vital artery in the
human organism. Stagnation, decay, lost
economic opportunity, will most surely
follow.
Mr. Chairman, what is true in Pennsylvania
is equally true right here in Ontario. Let us
be bold and imaginative and outstanding in
our approach to our highways systems.
Last year I took the hon. Minister to task
for the dictatorial and inconsiderate approach
taken by his department in reference to the
Eastwood bypass condemning the hamlet of
Eastwood to death. The actual situation
turned out to be worse than I had originally
pictured it. Allow me to show just what did
happen. In the October, 1965, issue of the
Independent Businessman, the main headline
reads:
Businesses Now Threatened By New
Diversion
Just a year ago we reported on these
pages that the hamlet of Eastwood, near
Woodstock, had been condemned by a
sign on Highway 401 which caused traffic
to detour around Eastwood. Shortly after-
wards The Department of Highways solved
the problem by removing the sign.
Then Wally Nesbitt, MP for Oxford,
wrote to say, "Your sign problem has been
solved." But the community of Eastwood
had not had their death sentence com-
muted. Theirs had been only a temporary
reprieve.
The sentence was reimposed with a ven-
geance on Thursday, September 2, the day
before the Labour Day holiday began.
That day, signs were put on all of the ap-
proaches to Eastwood, bringing tourists to
and from Niagara Falls and Windsor.
To the businesses of Eastwood, it was
like pulling the plug out of the bathtub.
Business dried up; business they could have
expected over the Labour Day holiday did
not materialize. For instance, on Labour
Day, K. Birkett, owner of the Eastwood
restaurant, had sales that were $55 behind
the sales of the previous Monday, a normal
weekday.
Mr. Birkett's quotes are: "Why did they
put the signs up before the holiday, any-
way?" All of the businesses were similarly
hit by the detour signs which did not need
to go up until after the holiday because
no work was done until the holiday was
over. But did the detour signs need to
go up at all; and in a way that was to
destroy a whole business community?
These signs were put up a year ago to
divert traffic around the railway bridge
with a low clearance over Highway 53.
The diversion could have been marked
simply as "Truck route," for only trucks
were endangered by the low bridge. Now
Highway 53 is completely blocked where
the low bridge was because they are build-
ing a new underpass. But did the traffic
have to be diverted to bypass the com-
munity of Eastwood altogether? The busi-
nessmen say it did not. They show on a
map how the trucks could have bypassed,
as they had suggested on a truck route,
and cars could have been diverted on two
alternative routes which both would have
brought them through the Eastwood com-
munity.
But they were not asked for suggestions,
nor were they told that the road was going
to be closed again. The Department of
Highways just turned off the tap.
Talk about arrogance, Mr. Chairman— this is
the apex of it. Could not the department
have waited until after Labour Day?
Mr. Chairman, the policy of this govern-
ment in setting up service centres leaves
much to be desired. Not only is the policy
one that caters only to the major oil com-
panies, but it also has— in instances— a very
harmful, depressing and deteriorating effect
on the small businessman, the gas station
operator and the restaurant owner— small
people who were, and we hope, still are the
backbone of our free enterprise system.
This year, as in the past, we again have
problems with the establishment of the serv-
ice centre about one mile from Highways 27
and 400— just south of Barrie. Why this
,service centre would be set up on this site
is difficult to rationalize. Just 2.9 miles
away at the intersection of Highways 400
and 90 are four service centres; 1.8 miles
north of this complex of gas stations, at
Highways 27 and 400-a total distance of
just 4.7 miles from the new service centre
under discussion— are four more gas stations.
And 10.8 miles north and east of the new
service centre under discussion are eight
more gas and restaurant outlets. There once
were 12, but four found the going too tough,
saw the handwriting on the wall and ceased
to operate.
Why this government had to permit this
centre to be erected before the town of
Barrie, instead of beyond the town, is diffi-
MARCH 3, 1966
1107
cult to comprehend. If this government were
as interested in safety as it says it is, in keep-
ing to a minimum points of entrance and
exit, then no service centre is needed in this
location. No extra point of entrance and
exit is needed at the present points of
entrance and exit as the junctions of High-
ways 90 and 27 already have service centres.
All this, Mr. Chairman, points to the
necessity of a review of the service centre
policy on limited-access highways. May T,
Mr. Chairman, then suggest that, if govern-
ment policy is to establish service centres
on limited-access highways, these centres
be located beyond the community situated
near the highway and not before the com-
munity? The travelling public would have
a choice of leaving the road at an inter-
change to get service in the community at
reasonable prices and then, failing to take
advantage of this opportunity, be able to get
required services right on the highway.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I might
bring to the attention of the hon. member
who has just interrupted that the United
States state departments do not allow any
service centres on their limited-access roads;
you have to drive off the—
Some hon. members: This is Canada!
Mr. Newman: All right. I am simply try-
ing to point out to hon. members— I do not
know whether it will penetrate— it took the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree)
seven years to realize that age discrimina-
tion should have been a policy of this gov-
ernment years ago. It will probably take
another seven years to convince you people
here that if you are going to put up service
centres, put them up beyond the community;
not before the community! Let the public
have a choice of going into the community
first, if they wish. If they do not want to go
in, then they can stay right on the road and
go into a service centre on the freeway.
There certainly is nothing wrong with a
policy like that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Newman: You would have it exactly
the same way if you were going the other
way on the other side of the road. These
are limited-access roads; four-lane limited-
access roads, so the policy is good whether
you are coming or going.
An hon. member: Can you understand
that?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, it takes a
little while for it to penetrate, but I assume
hon. members will get the idea and will see
the light of day and have this government
change its policy.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member does not know very much
about that particular highway when he
speaks in the terms that he has.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I did not
intend to bring this in but allow me to read
this then. I do not know whether it is the
local paper or one of the papers from the
area— "Service centre monopoly sighted." A
Canadian Press report from Toronto. This is
the effect of the service centre policy that is
set up by this government in this area.
Elwood Smith, president of the superior
auto services association, said Friday:
Ontario's major oil companies and the
provincial government have joined forces
to keep small service station operators
out of the big service centres on con-
trolled-access highways. This policy creates
a monopoly that will eventually eliminate
the small operator.
Surely the hon. member for Muskoka is
interested in the small operator.
Mr. Boyer: Of course I am; that is the
point. What has just been read by the hon.
member has nothing to do with what he
said previously.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The mem-
ber for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.
An hon. member: What is the hon. mem-
ber for Muskoka getting up for?
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I do not think
I have to go through explaining the whole
policy again. I would suggest to these fellows
to get their little slate boards, draw a
diagram and see if my suggestion does not
have a lot of merit.
Each and every year some member
in this House brings up the subject of toll
roads. This department says it is opposed to
such roads.
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Hear,
hear!
1108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Newman: I am awfully glad to hear
the hon. member for Kent West making these
comments because now that he has made
them he will agree with what I have to say.
This department says it is opposed to such
roads; its policy is that all roads in Ontario
should be and are toll-free.
Let me show you, Mr. Chairman, that such
is not the case. The Burlington skyway and
the Garden City skyway are an integral part
of our provincial highways, yet there are
tolls on these roads. I know what the hon.
Minister will say, as he did last year, and I
am going to quote him from page 2543 of
Hansard on May 4, 1965:
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is the policy
of the government to impose tolls only
where there is an alternative free facility.
Does the hon. Minister agree with that?
In the case of the Burlington skyway
there is a free facility. In the case of the
Garden City expressway there is one side
by side— a free facility— if you want to wait
for the bridge to go down and get across
it. Now in the case of the Noden causeway
and the Pigeon river bridge there is
none. We are not going to impose tolls
unless there is at least the option of a
free facility side by side.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton (Minister of High-
ways): There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Newman: Nothing wrong with that?
The hon. Minister agrees with that, does he?
I have made my comments. Mr. Chairman,
the Gardiner expressway, which is far more
costly than both the Burlington Bay and
Garden City skyways combined, has an alter-
native free facility and it is right by its side.
There are no tolls charged on the Gardiner
expressway.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We do not own
the Gardiner expressway.
Mr. Newman: You have contributed over
50 per cent towards the Gardiner expressway;
you certainly have. Nor should there be any
toll charges. Is there any difference whether
the facility is in Hamilton, St. Catharines
or Toronto? The same policy should apply.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson (Scarborough East):
No ships go under the Gardiner expressway.
Mr. Newman: The application of tolls,
whether they be at the Gardiner expressway,
the Burlington skyway and the Garden City
skyway, should all be exactly the same. There
is no need for any toll on any Ontario
road. Let us have a real free-of-tolls high-
way system in 1966 Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, The Highway Improvement
Act prohibits the erection of large signs
immediately adjacent to a controlled-access
highway. Most communities are bypassed
by such controlled-access highways so that
no idea of their outstanding features can be
gained by the motoring public. Since infor-
mation signs tend to promote the commercial,
industrial and cultural welfare of communi-
ties, the government should amend The
Highway Improvement Act to permit each
municipality served by a controlled-access
highway to erect adjacent to the highway a
sign or signs, the wording, size, layout,
colours and construction to be subject to the
Minister of Highways, to enable that muni-
cipality to inform the motoring public of
some of its outstanding features.
Let us never lose sight of the fact that the
visitor to our province, to our municipalities
and to our tourist areas, contributes in no
small measure to our economic growth. We
would be remiss if we were to allow a ..visitor
to enter our province at one end, gas up, have
lunch, and leave at the other end in one day
without placing before him all the induce-
ments which we have to offer, to instill in him
a desire to spend a goodly portion of his
holiday and his money in Ontario.
It is often said that any type of sign along
the highway is a hazard, is distracting and is
an accident catalyst. In studies conducted in
the state of New Jersey for the three years
1961, 1962 and 1963, on accidents related to
traffic volume, environmental features or
roadside distractions on the Garden City
parkway, it has been shown that the traffic
volume ranked first as the major cause of
accidents, second came highway construction
features, third came highway design features,
and official signs, business signs, whether
illuminated or not, ranked at the bottom of
the list.
This is in a three-year study in the state
of New Jersey on the Garden City parkway.
The signs, as I have mentioned, came at the
bottom of the list as the cause of traffic acci-
dents.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): How many
signs are there on the parkway?
Mr. Newman: Oh, there are thousands of
them.
Mr. Chairman, with the coming of the
Canadian Centennial year and the expected
large increase in the number of tourists who
will be travelling through the Port Huron-
Sarnia, Detroit-Windsor, Buffalo-Fort Erie,
MARCH 3, 1966
1109
and Niagara Falls gateways into Ontario and
onward to Montreal to the World's Fair in
1967, it certainly behooves this government
to act on this suggestion. I have failed to
mention that there would be the Pan-Ameri-
can games in Winnipeg in 1967, which
would also be a tremendous tourist attraction.
The study conducted by the Ontario eco-
nomic council evaluating Ontario's tourist
industry strongly recommends more informa-
tive and improved highway signing. The
chamber of commerce, in its 1965-66 recom-
mendations, has on page 34 under the
heading of "Municipality signs on controlled-
access highways," I am reading from the
report:
The Highway Improvement Act prohibits
the erection of large signs immediately
adjacent to controlled-access highways.
Most communities are bypassed by con-
trolled-access highways, so that no idea of
their outstanding features can be gained by
the motoring public.
Informative signs tend to promote the
commercial and industrial welfare of
communities, so we recommend that the
government amend The Highway Improve-
ment Act to permit each municipality,
served by a controlled-access highway, to
erect immediately adjacent to the highway,
two single-faced signs, the wording, size,
layout, colours and construction to be sub-
ject to the discretion of the Minister of
Highways.
Mr. Chairman, no one as yet has predicted a
downward trend in highway transportation.
In fact, all economists and planners years ago
foresaw expanded growth in the use of high-
ways and the development that ensues from
their construction.
In North America we talked of a produc-
tion volume of five million cars a year. Now
we have reached nine million and within sev-
eral years it will be ten; yes, even 11 million
cars in one year. Roads will have to be built
to accommodate them, unless some other
means of mass transport is used.
It is just a few years since piggy-backing
of highway freight trailers was adopted. I
hope the hon. Minister will look into the
extension of this method of transporting goods
to the transporting of people, car and all. I
am sure that many of the travelling public
would just as soon drive their cars upon some
type of railway rolling stock and be trans-
ported—car, passengers and all— to their point
of destination, if the cost of such transporta-
tion were not much more expensive than it
would be if that party were to drive the
same distance.
In the meantime, those who either do or
must use our highway system must be con-
venienced as much as possible. Especially is
this true in the case of the tourist, whom we
all try to entice into our province. The more
our highways are used, the greater is the
need for roadside rest areas, and I do not
mean just a roadside table and refuse con-
tainer. I refer to a good, substantial rest
area, especially along all limited-access roads,
and not built adjacent to a service centre.
Not everyone can afford, and not everyone
wants, to be catered to by a service centre.
Last year I brought to the attention of the
hon. Minister the plan of the state of Michi-
gan, a plan worthy of adopting. The rest
area, I suggest, should be at least eight
acres in size and should have parking for
about 50 cars and 20 trucks. It should have
rest rooms, picnic tables, grills, safe drink-
ing water, telephones and an information
bulletin board, and it should be lighted all
night. These areas should be within one
hour's driving time away from one another
and they should be along the freeway. They
could also be off an overpass, so that the
freeway would have as few entrances and
exits to and from it as possible, for safety's
Mr. Chairman, during the past year many
municipalities approved resolutions asking
for relief of that portion of cost from real
estate taxation for highways, which is not a
proper charge for service to real estate.
Aware that the province has the exclusive
right of taxation of vehicle fuel and regis-
trations, they have asked that The Ontario
Department of Highways pay 100 per cent
on connecting links, 70 per cent on arterial
roads and streets and 50 per cent on all other
municipal streets in the cost of land, con-
struction and maintenance.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Would the hon.
member mind repeating those percentages?
I just did not catch them.
Mr. Newman: These are exactly the same
as I brought to your attention last year, Mr.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I might point out,
Mr. Chairman, that was 12 months ago. Is
it too much trouble to repeat them?
Mr. Newman: No, not in the least: 100
per cent on connecting links; 70 per cent
on arterial roads and streets; and 50 per
cent on all other municipal streets in (a) the
cost of land, (b) construction, (c) mainte-
nance.
1110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Knowing that the hon. Minister in his re-
marks last year said the matter of subsidies
is continually under review and that in-
creased subsidies are entirely within the
realm of possibility, I hope he will be able
to inform the House that he has done so.
Allow me to read, Mr. Chairman, from
the Sault Ste. Marie Star of January 19, on
this topic of subsidies and how it has
adversely affected the city of Sault Ste.
Marie. Its heading is: "Subsidy slashes will
hurt the Soo." I am reading from the article:
As a result of revision of policy by The
Ontario Department of Highways the city
of Sault Ste. Marie may stand to lose over
$500,000 in subsidies. A circular from the
department was presented to city council's
engineering committee Tuesday. It out-
lined government policy on the payment
of subsidies for municipal expenditures
made on roads constructed by private
interests in subdivisions. The section of
the circular which affects the city most
seriously deals with the existing roads laid
out by a subdivision plan registered be-
tween January 1, 1954 and January 1,
1966. Any roads in this category not up
to the department's minimum standards
will receive only 50 per cent subsidy from
the government. Deputy City Engineer
Allan Jackson said that the city has 32
miles of road which comes under this
category. It will mean a loss of subsidy of
something over half a million dollars, he
said. Committee chairman, Alderman Tom
Angus, said that most of the roads affected
were in the former township areas; in
effect we have a larger burden put on us
than anticipated at the time of amalgama-
tion.
So it is as a result of amalgamation that this
subsidy is going to hurt the Soo to the extent
of $500,000, as claimed by this article. The
fact that the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto is on a 50 per cent subsidy for roads,
plus a 50 per cent subsidy for bridges, plus
a 33% subsidy for subways, causes cities and
separated towns some concern. They do not
want to deprive Toronto of anything, but
would like a similar subsidy in areas that this
subsidy may apply.
The city of Brantford was so concerned
with the subsidy rate that, at its regular
council meeting on February 7, 1966, it
passed the following resolution and sub-
mitted it to the two hon. members for
Brant (Mr. Nixon), and Brantford (Mr.
Gordon). The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the rate of provincial contribu-
tion towards municipal roads and highway
expenditures is greater for towns, villages
and townships than for cities and whereas
the cost of providing and maintaining
roads and connecting links to provincial
highways is greater in cities due to heavier
density of traffic, drainage systems, and
so on, and whereas numerous areas desig-
nated as townships are in fact urbanized
centres greater in area, industrialization
and population than many cities it creates
an imbalance of distribution of road
grants. Therefore be it resolved that the
province of Ontario through the Hon.
Charles S. MacNaughton, Minister of
Highways, be urged to establish a more
equitable system of subsidies and road and
highway expenditures for the cities of this
province.
This same resolution was endorsed by the
city of Woodstock on February 7 of this
year. So we have two towns endorsing it.
On February 25 in the city of Windsor,
the following resolution was adopted:
That the resolution of the city of Brant-
ford be endorsed urging the province of
Ontario through the Minister of Highways
to establish a more equitable system of
subsidies and road and highway expendi-
tures for the cities of this province.
How about more than serious consideration
to these resolutions, Mr. Minister? How
about some upward revision of subsidies to
the cities and separated towns?
Mr. Chairman, just imagine receiving
$249.11 net pay per month, or less than $60
net pay per week. Can you imagine that?
And hon. member: Terrible; who gets that?
Mr. Newman: Imagine that! $249.11 per
month; less than $60 net pay per week in
1966! This is what The Department of High-
ways paid one of its employees in January
of this year. The gross pay, by the way, was
$300 per month—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
think a point of order may be valid here.
This entire matter of wages, affecting The
Department of Highways employees con-
cerned in the category that the hon. member
is making reference to, is now under the
process of arbitration before Judge Anderson.
I hardly think it should be reviewed here.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): What
does the hon. Minister think about the shame-
ful wnges?
Hon. Mr. Mac Naughton: That is beside the
point at the moment.
MARCH 3, 1966
1111
An hon. member: No, it is not.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, please your-
self. It is being dealt with by the appropri-
ate court of the land at the moment.
Mr. Newman: That may be quite true. I
want to point out to the House how low are
the salaries and wages being paid by this
department, and what action employees have
to threaten to take because of—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am rising on
another point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, and I will state it: The Department of
Highways has nothing to do with the estab-
lishment of salaries and wage scales that the
department pays; this is done entirely by the
civil service commission, either by negotiation
with the civil service association— their bar-
gaining agent— or when those procedures for
bargaining and negotiation break down, then
the provision for arbitration to which I have
made reference becomes the final process.
I frankly do not think that this is a matter
to be discussed here. If it is going to be
discussed appropriately, it should be done
under the estimates of the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan) who speaks in this
assembly for the civil service commission. I
can repeat that it is being arbitrated at
this moment because all the normal processes
have been gone through. They failed to
negotiate a satisfactory rate, and that is what
Judge Anderson is about at the moment.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Speaking to the point of order, Mr.
Chairman, about the fact that the hon. Min-
ister does not have the responsibility for the
salaries— in the previous estimates of The De-
partment of Reform Institutions, the hon.
Minister (Mr. Grossman) told us that he was
not a "shrinking violet," and that he went to
the hon. Provincial Treasurer and fought for
his department. Then, interestingly enough,
the hon. Provincial Treasurer came in and
said that he had never been asked by that
particular hon. Minister to have a raise in his
salaries in the department.
The hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
elaborated at considerable length about his
concern in the matter of salaries, although
he did say— in fairness to him— that this was
a matter between the civil service and the
civil service commission.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
I do not want to interrupt the hon. leader of
the Opposition, but my point simply is that
if there was any discussion on it a year ago,
it was not undergoing the process of arbitra-
tion before a judge of the province of On-
tario, and I say that it is sub judice to that
extent.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
if I may speak to this point of order, really
for information from the hon. Minister. As I
understand it, this is not really before the
court in the sense that the hon. Minister
would put it. Surely, the judge has been
brought in as an arbitrator but he is not
acting in his official judicial capacity.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, he is.
Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, speaking
to the point of order, I wondered about this
last week when these matters were raised
under the estimates of the department of the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions. I hope
that this will be clarified now for the rest
of these estimates. Are we going to deal with
salaries and wages under every estimate
that comes before this House, or should we
not deal with them where they are supposed
to be dealt with, which is under the depart-
ment dealing with the civil service?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the
second point of order raised by my hon.
friend. Item number 1 in these estimates is
"Salaries, $2,370,000." Surely, if you are
going to require us to discuss these only
when the hon. Provincial Treasurer has his
estimates before us, then these amounts
should be all under his estimates.
Mr. Chairman: I would be inclined to agree
with the leader of the Opposition that if we
were dealing with these matters generally,
they would come under the ordinary expendi-
ture of the department and we could deal
with them as such. When we discussed them
last year, I do not believe we had Judge
Anderson nor an arbitration board and I
think, out of fairness, at this particular time,
rather than prejudice any decision of the
arbitration board, it would be better not
to deal with them at this particular time.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
with a little leeway you have interpreted
my remarks. I would suggest that when we
look at some particular position and we find
that the government is paying $5,000 for it,
we want to know what the terms of reference
are about this position and we want to know
the kind of people who have applied for it,
and so on, because the staff of a depart-
ment is surely going to make it work
effectively. I think in many cases the Min-
ister may appreciate that the Oppositoin
1112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has had a look at some of the salaries and
has not thought them adequate.
Mr. Chairman: Speaking to the other point
of order presented by the member for
Kent West, I think that basically salaries
and wages and so on belong to each de-
partment rather than to the civil service
and I would be prepared to deal with them
under each department. But not on this
particular occasion because the subject con-
cerned is now before an arbitration board.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I was only
trying to point out to the hon. Minister that
salaries and wages as paid-
Mr. Chairman: I had ruled that part out of
order. If you will, continue from there.
Mr. Newman: May I quote the comments,
Mr. Chairman, which were made at one of
the meetings? It has nothing to do with
specific salaries, it simply says— I will read
the comments made by people— and these are
people who have exhausted all patience-
Mr. Chairman: I think this could be
prejudical toward the arbitration award; I
suggest-
Mr. Newman: The comment is: " 'We
would be better off on welfare,' one angry
man said."
Mr. Chairman: This is out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: I continue: "They call it
treason, but I call it starvation." That could
refer to anything, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I know the member wants
to be governed by the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, will you cut
me off, if I am wrong?
Mr. Chairman: Will the member carry on
with the next point other than salary and
wages, please?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, are you
suggesting that the critic from the Oppo-
sition of the department cannot speak of his
feelings on the salaries?
Mr. Chairman: I am merely suggesting,
because this is now being discussed under
arbitration, that we prefer not to discuss it
at this time. That is all.
Mr. Thompson: On what basis are you
saying that when something is before arbitra-
tion it cannot be discussed?
Mr. Chairman: I understand that this is
now before Judge Anderson and it could
prejudice the case.
Mr. Thompson: Are you, in all seriousness,
saying that if something is before arbitration
it will limit the discussion in this House?
Mr. Chairman: I think so, under the cir-
cumstances.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, air pollution
is under discussion; can I breathe?
Mr. Thompson: It is not before a court;
the judge just happens to be the arbitrator
in this case.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Mr. Chair-
man, respectfully, may I suggest that any-
thing that is quoted in the press is in the
public domain regardless of any sub judice
or its being in the courts. If it is in the press,
it is in the public domain and we have every
right to talk about it in this House, I submit
respectfully.
Mr. Chairman: I consider that this par-
ticular body is a quasi-judicial body.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, is that your
ruling?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: I would have to challenge
your ruling on this, with much regret.
Mr. Chairman: That is the member's
privilege as the leader of the Opposition and
as a member of this House.
Mr. Thompson: Fine. I challenge your
ruling, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
ruling will please say "aye."
Those opposed, say "nay."
In the opinion of the chair, the "ayes"
have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the Chairman's rul-
ing, will please rise.
All those opposed, will please rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 55, the "nays" 24.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the Chairman's
ruling is sustained.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, then may I
bring up what The Department of Eco-
nomics and Development bulletin has to
MARCH 3, 1966
1113
say concerning salaries generally in Essex,
Kent and Lambton counties? I am not talk-
ing about The Department of Highways at
all, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Well then, if the member
is not talking about The Department of
Highways, I would declare him out of order.
Mr. Newman: I am just showing you the
economic effects of highways on the three
communities, Essex, Kent and Lambton
counties. Am I in order?
Mr. Chairman: I think the purpose of the
leadoff speaker at this time is to deal with
the department generally, if you would.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, would I be
in order if I told you that $121 was the aver-
age wage in the area there? Would I be in
order at all, mentioning The Department of
Economics and Development bulletin for
November-December, 1965?
Mr. Chairman: I think anything in con-
nection with the wages and salaries under
discussion at this particular time would be
ruled out.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
for clarification again on your ruling for the
benefit of some of the hon. members? As I
understand it, you are saying that an arbitra-
tion board is a quasi-judicial board and that,
whenever we have a discussion of the salaries
of a department in this House, we are not
allowed to discuss the salaries.
Mr. Chairman: Where the salaries of a
department are under discussion by the
board, they would not be discussed. Any
other salaries of any other department could
be discussed.
Mr. Thompson: I just wanted it for the
hon. Attorney General's (Mr. Wishart's) ears,
so he would hear that ruling.
Mr. Newman: I think the civil servants in
the Essex, Kent and Lambton counties will
look with much favour at the ruling they
received here this afternoon. It is a real
shame.
Mr. Chairman: I think if the member
looks in May, he will find the same ruling.
Mr. Newman: It is just the Tory muzzle
again, Mr. Chairman. It is a shame that you
cannot even discuss all facets of this depart-
ment here in this House.
Mr. Thompson: You are saying that, if we
look in May, we would find it. Could you
show us where it is in May?
Mr. Chairman: I think I could get that
for the leader of the Opposition— where
quasi-judicial bodies, under those circum-
stances, are not discussed.
Mr. Thompson: Would you get this for us
then, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Just from the standpoint of
personal interest, since the leader of the
Opposition has brought this up. The mem-
bers know that the Chairman's ruling has
been upheld, but I will undertake to get this
for you.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman. If in fact it
is not found in May, will you reopen the
subject?
Mr. Chairman: No, I will not.
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): On a point
of order again, Mr. Chairman. The Chair-
man's ruling is not debatable.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville has the floor.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will leave that topic and go to northern
Ontario.
An hon. member: They do not pay them
up there either.
Mr. Newman: Well, I understand the pay
there is not as bad.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, am I in line
in discussing northern Ontario? It is not
under arbitration, is it?
Mr. Chairman: If it is under The Depart-
ment of Highways, proceed.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult
for one coming from the southern and more
populated stretches of our province to fully
appreciate the problems of northern Ontario.
But, Mr. Chairman, it only takes a trip to
these northern areas to realize that these
people have special problems which require
special and immediate attention.
The hon. members from these areas will
press the case for the north area. However,
it does seem strange to me why it takes so
1114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
long to build the road from Sudbury to
Timmins. Were this hon. Minister as aggres-
sive and as forward-looking as the Governor
of Pennsylvania, he would hurry and get
the job completed. Only if northern Ontario
has more roads can, or will, it ever expect
to come close to reaching its potential and
fulfilling its destiny in Ontario.
I am told, Mr. Chairman, because of the
heavy congested truck traffic and the numer-
ous vacationers towing trailers, boat trailers,
or mobile homes, that the narrow, rough,
crooked, dangerous Highway 17 between
North Bay and the Sault Ste Marie area has
one of the highest per mile accident rates.
The only answer to this problem then must
be the widening of this highway, or making
it a four-lane road. Am I getting through to
the hon. Minister of Mines? Is he on channel
3 or 4 or 2?
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
I do not believe that is true. That road is
good; I have travelled it frequently. I do
not think the hon. member has ever been on
it. Did he ever get from Windsor up there?
Mr. Newman: Oh, time and time again,
Mr. Chairman. I go up at least twice a
year.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Funny thing.
Mr. Newman: That is why I make these
comments.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, those comments
are ridiculous.
Mr. Newman: And as this road is part of
the trans-Canada highway system, it must
qualify for financial aid from the federal gov-
ernment. Money should not be a deterrent
in the building of a wider and safer Highway
17 from Sault Ste. Marie to North Bay. Road-
wise, northern Ontario is a "have-not area"
that must receive greater and more construc-
tive action; not mere mental consideration.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: A doctor will treat TB,
but he does not necessarily have to have it.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in this de-
bate last year I asked if it would not be
to Ontario's and Minnesota's advantage to
have a toll-free bridge between Fort Frances
and International Falls, Mr. Chairman; allow
me to read a resolution passed by organiza-
tions in that area:
Whereas Fort Frances is the gateway
to northwestern Ontario tourist and indus-
rial areas, traffic entering this area suffers
a continuous marked delay in moving be-
tween the United States and Canada, due
to an antiquated bottleneck type of bridge
at Fort Frances. Built in the year 1912—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Who owns the bridge?
Mr. Newman: What difference does it
make who owns the thing? We are talking
about the bridge:
Built in the year 1912, privately owned
and tolled with rates out of all reason.
And whereas inadequate customs and
immigration facilities exist due to the anti-
quated construction of this bridge, which
handled over one and one-half million
people and 450,000 automobiles in the
past year, causing annoying, frustrating and
unnecessary delays to this traffic, including
public transport buses,
And whereas this traffic is increasing
each year,
Therefore be it resolved that Ontario
in co-operation with the state government
and the Senate of the state of Minnesota
undertake the immediate construction of a
a toll-free bridge between Fort Frances
and International Falls, Minnesota, and
that adequate customs and immigration
facilities be provided.
This is a text of a resolution, dated January
3, 1965. With the opening of Highway 11
eastward and the completion of the Great
River road, traffic will increase considerably.
Surely, Mr. Minister, the busiest international
port of entry into Canada between Windsor
and the Pacific coast is deserving of greater
consideration by this province. The state
of Minnesota has time and time again passed
bills authorizing this construction. Why are
you, Mr. Minister, hedging? Let us get this
project going.
The opening of the new Rainy Lake cause-
way had such a marked effect on tourism in
Ontario that the number of visitors to the
Fort Frances reception centre has gone up
from 13,064 in 1964 to 27,356 in 1965. So
you can see, Mr. Chairman, that the traffic
has increased tremendously in the area. The
people should be given consideration in their
request.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to turn at this
time to a special problem; that is the prob-
lem of towns situated along the Canada-U.S.
border. Most communities can have bypasses
constructed— ring roads around them to facili-
tate, speed up traffic and take a sizeable
amount of traffic off the urban roads. How-
ever, cities on the U.S. border— Fort Erie,
MARCH 3, 1966
1115
Niagara Falls, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, Wind-
sor, just to name a few— have a unique prob-
lem. Their problem arises out of the large
number of tourists entering and leaving On-
tario through their gateway.
These tourists contribute substantially to
the economy of the whole province. How-
ever an undue portion of the expense of
accommodating them roadwise falls on these
U.S. border municipalities. Roads that nor-
mally would be satisfactory to take care of
the urban traffic must be built up, widened
and so forth, to compensate for the added
traffic burden. Likewise this puts an added
strain on roads adjacent to the link roads in
that community.
Just as the department has a different sub-
sidy for Metro, it should consider a higher
link road subsidy for U.S. border municipali-
ties to enable these municipalities to cope
with the road problem that is not of their
making and which when undertaken and
completed is a greater advantage to the rest
of the province than it is to the community
bordering the U.S.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon.
Minister if he confers regularly with The
Department of Transport and I would like to
know how close his liaison is with that de-
partment. I see he is not paying attention so
apparently he does not get along with them
too well.
The Department of Highways no longer
looks upon itself solely as a road-building de-
partment. It undertakes all types of intensive
study. It has now become so closely allied
with transportation in its many facets that
the time has now arrived where it should
absorb The Department of Transport and
make it a division of The Department of
Highways.
When we talk of safety we must take into
consideration not only the highway but also
the driver and the vehicle, as well as other
intangibles. Where the jurisdiction of The
Department of Transport ends and The De-
partment of Highways takes over is difficult
to delineate, and so, Mr. Chairman, may I
suggest that The Department of Transport
be eliminated by absorption?
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister will go
along with that.
Mr. Newman: The Department of High-
ways cannot function without overlapping in
some of its functions with The Department
of Transport. This confusion of jurisdiction
could easily be overcome. The dog, The De-
partment of Highways, should be wagging
the tail, The Department of Transport.
The estimates of The Department of Trans-
port are just four per cent of those of the
senior department. The Department of High-
ways spends over 25 times more than does
The Department of Transport. Now that this
government is getting concerned with the
development of an overall transportation pol-
icy, it is only common sense to have just the
one department, a Department of Highways
and Transport.
Mr. Chairman, may I now turn to highway
construction and highway safety. Single car
accidents constituted almost one-half of all
parkway or freeway accidents. Of all these
single-car accidents, 60 per cent of the cars
ran off the road. Such startling statistics
were true in New Jersey where a three-year
study on this topic was undertaken. Surely
there must be justification in saying that a
large percentage of accidents in Ontario were
caused by the driver running off the road.
If this is true— and apparently statistics gath-
ered on the accident rate on the Don Valley
parkway substantiate this— then is this not a
good reason for building in our highways
during the construction phase, or adding to
the existent roadways, some type of safety
feature?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to
the hon. Minister that the edges of the high-
ways have embedded in them during the
construction stage some type of material so
that the driver may be able to tell by the tire
sound that he is near the edge of the road.
On existing roadways I would suggest scar-
ring, roughing or treating after some fashion,
the eight, ten or twelve inches of the edge
of the road.
I know it will be said that anything done to
the edge of the road only narrows the actu-
ally travelled portion. Then, Mr. Chairman,
may I suggest that the first eight, ten or
twelve inches of both shoulders of the road
be treated after some fashion but be level
with the road surface to warn the driver that
he is running off the highway.
Failing the adoption of the above sugges-
tions, may I respectfully suggest either paint-
ing the edges or applying reflective materials
to the edges. I know, Mr. Chairman, some
will say that such schemes will not work on
snow-covered roads, but today our roads are
ploughed either during or immediately after
a snow storm so that even if this suggestion
may not be practical all the time it would or
could be a safety feature for the greater
part of the year.
Mr. Chairman, other jurisdictions are using
safety features. North Dakota has adopted
a resolution recommending the use of a
1116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
white stripe on the edge of the pavement.
The Ontario chamber of commerce has
passed the following resolution concerning
white lines on edges of paved highways and
I am reading from their bulletin 1965-66:
In this age of super highways and high-
speed travel adequate road markings are
a prime requisite of safety. When
travelling super highways at night a driver
is prone to identify his position by a
combination of the centre line marking
and the right hand border marking of
the road, or the distinguishing edge of the
road in relation to the shoulder.
Now the two other paragraphs contained are:
Exits from super highways are not prop-
erly marked to (a) continue the right hand
identification of the lane for through
traffic (b) properly define the direction to
follow for safe exit. Therefore it is recom-
mended that all exits from super highways
be marked as follows— a broken line be
continued through the exit to represent
the edge of the road for through traffic
identification and second that arrows
approximately 15 feet long directed to
lead an exiting car into the proper lane,
the base of the arrows to begin at the
broken line representing the edge of the
road.
British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, has experi-
mented with reflectors embedded in the road-
way, called cats' eyes. These are used to
divide a two-lane road. I am told it has
some drawbacks but its safety features over-
come its disadvantages. The Reflex Corpora-
tion of Windsor, a division of International
Tools Limited, largest plastic mould manu-
facturers in North America, has a system of
embedding self-polishing plastic reflectors
to divide a two-lane road.
I hope the department is seriously con-
sidering some of these latest attempts at
making our highways safer places to travel
on.
California drivers are seeing "Botts dots"
before their eyes and they will be seeing
them more and more. Botts dots, devised by
a Californian named Botts, are slightly
raised road lane markers pasted to California
highway centre lines with epoxy glue. They
are making white painted divider lines
obsolete. California is the first state to adopt
them. They not only make centre lines
easier to see, especially at night, but cut
accidents, too.
Reflective markers are being mixed with
white ones along California highways. Not
only can drivers see Botts dots better, they
can hear and feel them under their wheels
as they veer over toward neighbouring lanes.
In a two-year test outside Fresno, California,
the dots cut accidents by 27 per cent.
Last year, Dr. Morton Shulman, chief
coroner of Metropolitan Toronto, brought
to the attention of the public that many
preventable traffic deaths and injuries were
caused by ignoring basic safety rules in
constructing the Don Valley parkway— (1)
Concrete bridge abutments and lamp posts
unprotected by guard rails within a few feet
of the pavement; (2) Street slopes which
can flip over cars travelling at high speeds
unprotected by guard rails; (3) Guard rails
not curved away from the roadway.
These are just some of the bad highway
designs that cost lives. I am told, Mr. Chair-
man, that the degree of the side slope on
the medians of freeways and the degree of
side slope along our highways is another
bad feature and a potential killer. I am told
that curbs before or in front of guard rails
are killers. Guard rails bear the car back
on the highway, whereas the curbs pull the
car into the guard rail head on. I am told
that trees within 50 feet of the side of a
highway are potential killers. In fact, any
object sticking out on the side of a highway
is a potential killer.
Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned a few
bad highway design features. Roads
engineers long ago discovered that it is
easier to build safety in our highways than
into our drivers.
I do hope the hon. Minister could inform
this House that all Ontario's highways have
all the latest safety features built into them,
or if they do not, that every effort is being
made by his department to overcome these
deficiencies.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to comment
at some length on means other than high-
ways for the mass movement of people,
namely, subways and commuter services.
Under the proper vote, I will elaborate.
If I may, I would like to make a few
brief comments at this time. Commuter serv-
ices, be they from one city to another, or be
they within the city, the principle I wish to
discuss is the same. The hon. Minister has
provided for a subsidy of 33^ per cent to
Metro's subway system. This subway is to
provide a means of transport to Metro resi-
dents. The amount of $18 million provided
amounts to approximately a $9 per capita
grant. How about the residents in Ottawa,
Hamilton, London, Windsor, Sudbury and
other Ontario cities? Not only do these cities
receive a 50 per cent smaller subsidy than
MARCH 3, 1966
1117
•does Metro Toronto, but they also receive
less in bridge subsidies and because they do
not have some type of rapid transit system,
no subsidy for the transit system or transport
system they do have.
Mr. Chairman, I do not quarrel with the
financial assistance given to rapid transit in
Metro. All I ask is that other cities in On-
tario be given financial assistance for the
same purpose in their respective communi-
ties, either their subsidy for road and bridge
construction be on a par with that of Metro,
or that financial assistance be given them in
the way of subsidies, so that public transpor-
tation in their respective communities can
be improved and extended.
Another way assistance could be given
them is in the elimination or abolition or re-
bate of all fuel taxes on municipally owned
or operated transportation systems.
Municipal transportation systems have been
hard pressed. Many have operated at a deficit
and were either subsidized by municipal
taxpayers, or had to curtail and limit their
services to a point where service was at a
minimum. Let us give these systems the
same consideration as was given the Metro
subway system. Municipalities could lower
fares, could improve services and could pos-
sibly supply free or reduced services to their
senior citizens, were an increase in the sub-
sidy be given them.
Mr. Chairman, as for commuter services,
I do hope that the good people of Hamilton,
after having presented their case, will be
given reconsideration concerning their re-
quest for the extension of commuter services
from Burlington to Hamilton.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to bring
up two other topics, but I will withhold
them for the general vote. They were the
topic of ring roads, especially the one re-
lating to my own community; the second is
the topic of overpasses on 401 and the slow-
ness with which this government has acted
in constructing these overpasses.
Between Windsor and London there are
38 crossroads. Twenty-four of those cross-
roads over 401 are in the Essex county area.
Why we in Essex county should have waited
and should be penalized in the construction
of overpasses, I cannot understand. We had
the first section of 401; it looks as if we will
have the last portion, and that is the last
overpass of the completed Macdonald-Cartier
freeway, put up in the Essex county area.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to summarize the
various comments I have made. First, I asked
that more information be contained in both
the annual report of the department and in
the public accounts.
Second, I asked for a greater number of
votes with a better breakdown in the esti-
mates.
Third, I asked for speed up in highway
construction.
Fourth, for consideration concerning the
serious and disastrous economic effects of
indiscriminate bypassing.
Fifth, a review of the service centre policy.
Sixth, the elimination of tolls from both
the Burlington and the Garden city skyways.
Seventh, reconsideration of the policy con-
cerning information signs.
Eight, the establishment of more rest areas
on limited-access freeways.
Nine, the review of the policy on subsidies
by putting all cities and separated towns on
the same basis as is the Metro Toronto area.
Tenth, an upward revision of wages.
Eleventh, an accelerated roads programme
in northern Ontario.
Twelfth, the construction of a toll-free
bridge between Fort Frances and Interna-
tional Falls.
Thirteenth, greater consideration by way of
subsidies to communities bordering the
United States.
Fourteenth, the assimilation of The De-
partment of Transport into The Department
of Highways.
Fifteenth, a greater awareness to the neces-
sity of maximum safety features being built
into our highways.
Sixteenth, the elimination, abolition or re-
mission of fuel taxes on municipally owned
and operated transportation systems.
Seventeenth, a reconsideration of the ex-
tension of commuter services to the city of
Hamilton.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that when
we return to this House next year, these con-
siderations will have been implemented.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, I understand
we are close to the private members' hour
and I would rather not start for the few
minutes to go into my main remarks.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves that the committee rise and
report progress and asks for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
1118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the com-
mittee of supply begs to report progress and
asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East) moves
second reading of Bill No. 34, An Act to
amend The Assessment Act.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): As a
member of the select committee studying
the problems of aging, I have had the oppor-
tunity of learning of the problems of our
senior citizens across this province. The
greatest single problem common to most of
the aged is lack of money and frequently
expressed was a desire for some relief from
property taxation. Increasing tax rates have
resulted in an almost insupportable burden
on the individual required to live on a
fixed income.
The proposal I make in presenting this bill
does not provide, nor was it intended to
provide, the total answer to the financial
problems of the aged. But it will relieve to
some degree the tax burden on their home
property, if the municipality chooses to apply
this permissive legislation.
The exemption will only apply to the edu-
cation portion of property taxes. It permits
the council of a local municipality to pass
a bylaw authorizing and directing the treas-
urer of the municipality to credit against
the tax payable on not more than one
property, and in an amount not to exceed
$150 or the portion of the real property taxes
imposed for school purposes, whichever is
the lesser.
This relief will be available to a person
who
(a) is receiving a benefit under The Old
Age Security Act (Canada) or The Old Age
Assistance Act;
(b) has, or whose spouse has, been assessed
as the owner of real property in the munici-
pality for at least ten of the 15 years imme-
diately preceding the application;
(c) pays the balance of the taxes levied
for the year in respect of which the credit
is applied for; and
(d) applies therefor on or before the last
day of February in the year in which the
tax is levied.
A bylaw passed under this section may
provide for such matters necessary to the
administration of this section as the council
deems necessary and the council shall in-
clude in the annual estimates of the muni-
cipality such sums as are equivalent to the
credits granted under the bylaw.
Over the years prior to reaching pension
age, our older citizens have contributed in
one way or another to the cost of education—
either through direct taxation on property
owned by them or through the rents paid
by them which their landlord would naturally
set at a level to include, among other things,
his tax costs.
Several states in the United States of
America have already enacted legislation to
provide tax relief for their senior citizens,
and to give hon. members some idea of the
methods used to provide this relief I will
give a few examples.
Michigan grants a property tax exemption
on $2,500 of the valuation of an owner-
occupied home of homeowners of 65 years
of age and over whose incomes are $5,000
or less and whose homesteads have a state
equalized valuation of $10,000 or less.
The Act is administered by the state
department accounting division, which reim-
burses counties for this exemption. It became
effective for the 1966 tax year and it was
estimated that it would assist 194,000 home-
owners with an average exemption of $90.
Indiana grants an exemption of $1,000 in
assessed valuation to any resident 65 years
of age or over whose total annual gross in-
come from every source plus that of his
spouse— if any— does not exceed $2,250 a
year— who has owned and occupied a home-
stead assessed at $5,000 or less for at least
one year and who receives no other tax
exemption.
Massachusetts exempts $4,000 of assessed
valuation in respect to persons 70 years of
age and over, who have lived in the state
for the preceding ten years, who own and
occupy a homestead assessed at $14,000 or
less and whose annual net income from all
sources, both taxable and non-taxable, does
not exceed $5,000 for a married couple and
$4,000 for a single person.
New Jersey grants a tax credit of up to
$80 against the property tax on the self-
owned dwelling of persons 65 years of age
and older who are citizens and have been
residents of the state for at least three years
and whose annual income does not exceed
$5,000. Here income is defined to include
money from whatever source including, but
not limited to, realized capital gains and
the entire amount of pension, annuity, retire-
ment and social security benefits. It is further
provided that no such deduction from taxes
shall be in addition to any other deduction
MARCH 3, 1966
1119
or exemption from taxes to which said
person may be entitled.
It is of interest to note that this New
Jersey legislation was based upon a 1963
amendment to the New Jersey state con-
stitution which was approved by a vote of
1,165,739 to 406,002. These results indicate
that the people of New Jersey were over-
whelmingly in favour of providing tax relief
for senior citizens and I think this is a
reflection of a general attitude. I do not
believe that the citizens of Ontario care less
for the welfare of their senior citizens than
do the people of New Jersey.
Oregon makes provision for tax exemptions
for senior citizens with annual gross receipts
less than $2,500. Gross receipts include, but
are not limited to, pensions, disability com-
pensation, retirement pay, public welfare
and social security payments and receipts
from sales or services rendered. A percent-
age of the first $10,000 of the true cash
value of the principal personal residence of
persons 65 years of age and older meeting
the income test is exempted, based on the
age of the taxpayer or of the oldest of the
taxpayers sharing the residence. The per-
centage of true cash value exempted from
taxation ranges from 10 per cent to 100 per
cent depending on age with resultant exemp-
tions of $1,000 for those 65 to 68, $3,000 for
those 69 to 71, $5,000 for those 72 to 74,
$7,000 for those 75 to 77, $9,000 for those
78 to 79, and $10,000 for those 80 and
older.
Here provision is also made for tax defer-
ment for those unable to obtain complete
exemption and for those with annual gross
income over $2,500.
Wisconsin makes provision for income tax
credits and refunds to persons 65 and over,
to both homeowners and renters as a relief
from property taxes. In cases where house-
hold income is $1,000 or less, such relief
amounts to 75 per cent of the property tax
in excess of five per cent of household in-
come but not to exceed $300 in relief.
Where household income is over $1,000, the
relief is 50 per cent of the property tax in
excess of five per cent of household income
but not to exceed $300 in relief. Household
income is defined as the income of all per-
sons related to and living with the exempted
taxpayer and income is defined as adjusted
gross income plus pensions, social security
payments, alimony and non-taxable interest,
with gifts and income in kind excepted up to
$300. The same benefits are available to
qualified senior citizens who rent.
Property tax liability is assumed to be 25
per cent of gross rent, which is defined as
the payment solely for the right of occupancy
excluding charges for utilities and other
extra charges. In all cases where the amount
of property tax relief exceeds the income
tax liability, the balance is paid from the
state treasurer to apply on the payment of
property taxes.
The word homestead is defined in Michi-
gan as being "any dwelling owned and occu-
pied solely as a home by the owner thereof."
I presume this definition applies in the other
states.
A broad variety of proposed legislation
providing tax exemption, tax credit or tax
deferment for senior citizens has recently,
or is currently, being considered in a large
number of states of the USA. In the last
two or three years as many as 20 different
bills have been considered during a single
legislative session— Connecticut, 1963— re-
lated to property tax relief for senior citizens
and scores of other like bills have been pro-
posed.
I do not know exactly how many such bills
are presently being considered across Canada
and United States, nor do I know the likeli-
hood of their enactment but there is no
doubt that there is a strong trend to find
measures to more adequately solve this
aspect of the financial problems of our senior
citizens.
There is general recognition that:
1. The limited or fixed incomes of many
senior citizens is inadequate to meet even
basic needs in a period of increasing prices.
2. Property taxes tend to increase at a
rate out of proportion to any change in the
relatively static incomes of senior citizens.
3. Senior citizens are generally faced with
the necessity of meeting sharply increased
costs for drugs.
4. Advances in medical science have added
years to the life-span without the benefit of
employability beyond certain age limits.
5. Many earlier pension plans and social
welfare plans at present levels do not pro-
vide benefits which are equal to the lowest
needs in relation to the present price struc-
ture.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I
urge the support of hon. members for this
bill.
Mr. R. J. Harris (Beaches): Mr. Speaker, I
want to commend the hon. member for
Hamilton East for bringing this Act before
us today because I am sure every hon. mem-
ber in the House has sympathy for the
1120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
people, and it is well worth a few minutes
to consider a bill of this nature.
I have several reasons for participating
this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The most im-
portant as far as I am concerned is that, in
the historic riding of Beaches— which it is
my privilege to represent— I have had a large
number of senior citizens write, phone and
come to see me on this very question. I
realize that there are a large number of
these people who are just unable to cope
with this increasing municipal tax rate.
Yesterday, when the hon. member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer) was speaking in an-
other regard— I am very pleased to see him
come in— he coined a phrase that caught my
ear; something to the effect that the burden
is so heavy that we will see the taxpayers
rising in revolt. Maybe that is not too much
of an exaggeration and I commend that
statement.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the prin-
ciple that my hon. friend from Hamilton
East has set out in this bill is certainly a
good principle; namely, one that will bring
relief to many of our deserving senior citi-
zens who have worked hard throughout their
lives to build up an equity in their own
home and now— after all their hard work-
are in serious danger, in many instances, of
losing their home. I noted this morning that
Bill No. 25 from the city of Hamilton, which
is a private bill, will be before us next week
—on Tuesday, I believe— and we find almost
the same provisions in that bill. I want to
commend the city of Hamilton for bringing
this to our attention in that way.
Now there is no doubt that, in the very
near future, ways and means must be found
to bring relief to many of these people. I am
not altogether convinced that either Bill No.
34, or Hamilton's private bill, is the right
way to handle this.
Some hon. members may remember that
last year in the estimates of The Department
of Public Welfare I made a few remarks on
this subject and mentioned that these sug-
gestions should be of concern not only to The
Department of Public Welfare, but certainly
The Department of Municipal Affairs and to
The Provincial Treasurer's Department. I
would like to quote a few of the paragraphs
from those remarks I made last June 17, I
think, which will be found on page 4371 of
Hansard. I said at that time:
Persons over 65 residing in their own
homes be permitted to apply for and re-
ceive a deferment of their municipal taxes
until termination of their ownership by sale
or by death of the owner or in case of a
joint or common ownership by the death of
both owners and that these taxes which
would otherwise be payable be collected
by the municipality or by the province fol-
lowing termination of ownership in much
the same way as tax arrears are collected.
Now I said "or the province" because it may
well be that the burden of financing these
deferred payments should be lifted from the
municipality to the province. Just quoting a
little further, Mr. Speaker:
May I be the first to say that this sug-
gestion involves no sweeping act of public
largesse. The province will receive pay-
ment of the tax loans, it will cost the muni-
cipality nothing and there is obviously no-
means or needs test involved, it is just a
simple mechanism for helping a particular
group of our older people who might find
it of value.
And I suggested at that time as a first step
that the hon. Minister of Public Welfare ( Mr.
Cecile) and his research people should assess
whether there would be enough older people
to warrant its execution at that time.
Now again in the area of Beaches, which
it is my privilege to represent, I know there
are very large numbers of married senior citi-
zens owning their own homes who all of their
lives have been extremely thrifty and hard-
working citizens but today because of the
small income plus old age pension they just
cannot maintain their homes and pay the
necessary tax, maintenance and all the other
necessary living expenses. Again it is only a
matter of time until these homes are lost.
As I said at that time, we all knew that the
Senate of Canada had been studying aging
and that the committee of our hon. friend
from Durham (Mr. Carruthers) has been
at work on this problem for some time.
Also, throughout the province, many groups
of the public at large are increasingly direct-
ing their attention to the problem of our
older citizens. Out of this many new and
comprehensive programmes will evolve. How-
ever, in the meantime, I would suggest that
the hon. Minister of Public Welfare and his
department assess the value of this sugges-
tion.
Just a word on reflection, since I made
those remarks some eight or nine months ago.
It seems to me that if such a course as this
were followed, these people to whom we are
referring would retain their dignity and would
be able to retain their independence. They
would be close to their churches and shops
and friends; all the things they have been
MARCH 3, 1966
1121
used to all their lives. In this regard, I know
from my own experience that scores of people
I know who have had to give up their homes,
and who were fortunate enough to get into
senior citizens' apartments are still unhappy
about being uprooted and shifted away from
their lifelong environment.
We are all aware of the many stories we
have read and heard through various news
media in recent months, and I was very
pleased to learn a short time ago that our
own Department of Public Welfare is initiat-
ing new programmes. They will be, as I
understand it, Mr. Speaker, setting up a de-
partment of aging that will be devoted to
helping many of our senior citizens who are
faced with problems of this nature. I would
like to commend the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare and I, for one, certainly look for-
ward to learning a little bit more of this
project and hearing more before too many
weeks of this session go along.
I would just like to take a moment, Mr.
Speaker, to refer— particularly to those of us
who are lay members in this Legislature— to
The Assessment Act. I am thinking of section
131 that deals with cancellation, reduction or
refunds of taxes where an application to the
court of revision for a reduction in taxes may
be made and, in particular, I am thinking of
subsection (e) dealing with a person who is
unable to pay taxes because of sickness or
extreme poverty. Of course they can, through
this section, obtain relief. There are other
areas where assistance may be found for this
group of people referred to in this bill we
are debating this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in
my mind that the tax machinery in Canada,
to put it bluntly, is in a mess. The whole
structure has to be updated and streamlined.
We all know that the Carter Royal commis-
sion on taxation should be reporting very
soon. We also know that the Smith commis-
sion dealing with the many and varied phases
of the mixed-up provincial picture will be
reporting in the very near future. I mention
these reports, Mr. Speaker, because the rec-
ommendations that they will produce are
bound to touch on the municipal tax structure
which, in turn, has a bearing on the problem
that we are debating here this afternoon.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again com-
mend the hon. member for Hamilton East
for introducing this bill, because it will help
to focus public attention on this problem
and it is so very, very imperative that we do
that. As I pointed out a few moments ago,
a method of bringing relief to these people
must be found in the very near future.
But I cannot agree with the recommenda-
tions as outlined in Bill No. 34, that this is
the right way to do it because, among other
things, these recommendations would add an
additional burden on to the municipality by
shifting a part of the taxes on to an already
overburdened group of other people in our
society. There is every likelihood that it
might fall on the already hard-pressed
younger people; or on a good many of our
middle-aged group.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): They are
against the younger working people; they
do not care about that.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say something on the principle
of this bill which obviously is designed to give
relief to the heavy burdens of taxation car-
ried by our senior citizens.
It is interesting to note that it is very sim-
ilar to a bill that is before the Legislature
that was introduced by the hon. member for
Hamilton Centre (Mrs. Prit chard)— whether or
not she supports it I am not aware; but it
is, of course, the private bill from the city
of Hamilton. Since the bill before us has
been introduced by the hon. member for
Hamilton East, it appears that this matter
is of great and important concern in the
Hamilton area and I, from outside that area,
am here to add my thoughts to the principle
of the bill which I support.
Having said that, I want to spend a mo-
ment to point out the objections to this sort
of legislation. Down through the years it
has been assumed that all property owners
must pay their share based on a fair assess-
ment, and in this Legislature we have taken
steps to see that no fixed assessments would
be granted and that special exemptions would
be reduced to as few as possible. But natur-
ally there has to be some fairness and flexi-
bility to a situation such as this because we
are dealing with the old people of this prov-
ince and their need is coming to the point of
an emergency for a number of reasons that
I would like to bring to your attention, sir.
The statistics that I have available are
based on the special committee of the Senate
of Canada that dealt with aging and reported
just a few weeks ago. I have not read the
full report, but when Senator Croll intro-
duced it into the Senate, he said the theme
of the report is urgency— the things that old
people need, they need now— and putting it
off will not be of any assistance to them.
These old people, and the people who are
approaching 65, including many of the hon.
1122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
members of this House— and, of course, will
eventually include all of us, and we are in
a way preparing for the future— but these
people who would be included in the bill
have come through two world wars and a dis-
astrous depression, during which they have
been in many ways unable to provide for
their own old age. More than that they find
that living on a fixed income is becoming in-
creasingly difficult as they find themselves en-
twined in the spirals of inflation that have
struck our economy since 1945.
The hon. member for Beaches said that
the number of people concerned is rapidly
increasing. In 1900 five per cent of the pop-
ulation of Canada were over 65 years of age;
in 1960, 7.6 per cent; and it is expected that
in 1990 still only nine per cent of our popu-
lation will be 65 years or older.
But here is another interesting statistic and
the last one that I will refer to. At 70 years
of age, 61 per cent of the men in Canada
and 85 per cent of the women have to subsist
on incomes below $1,500. It is my view,
and it is a view that I hope would be held
by every hon. member of this House, that
we should not point to special assistance
based on a means test or a needs test to
look after the basic requirements of the
senior citizens of this province, and it is these
people that we are discussing this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, there are two arguments that
I feel are strongly in support of the passage
of the bill that is before us. The first is that
municipal costs have risen dramatically in
the last few years and these have had to be
supported by rapidly increasing municipal
taxation. It is my view and a firmly held
belief that the government of Ontario has
not met this need.
In education, the cost of the administration
of justice, and the administration and pro-
vision of welfare, the main burden of the
increased taxation in these fields has fallen
on the municipal taxpayers, among them
the older group that we are talking about
this afternoon. The government has not
done nearly enough for this group of people
or for municipalities in general and it is
really irrelevant for us to say that we must
wait for the Smith committee and the Carter
commission to report.
In one of the last meetings of the private
bills committee, a representative of The De-
partment of Municipal Affairs said that the
Smith report is sitting waiting upstairs some-
where in this building and that it will not
be released— this is what he said— until the
federal Carter commission report is released.
It appears to me that the one waiting on the
other, this Alphonse and Gaston system, is a
ridiculous system indeed, and it may well
be-
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt? I
would just like to ask a question. Did I hear
correctly that the hon. member said that a
representative of The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs had said this?
Mr. Nixon: At the committee on private
bills about a week ago Mr. Yates said the
committee report was ready and waiting for
the Carter commission to report. It seems to
me that the Carter commission—
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Well, if Mr. Yates has
that information, I would be surprised.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): The hon. Min-
ister had better go and see him some time.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: No, he had better come
and see me. I shall check that information.
Mr. Nixon: Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I was
quite startled when this came from the
people sitting at the head table of the com-
mittee. That was the way I heard it and
the way I understood it, and I would be
glad to get more definite information from
the hon. Minister when this is available.
But my understanding is that the information
is available, or it should be available, be-
cause the committee has been sitting for a
long period of time. For us to wait month
after month and year after year for the im-
provement in the tax position of the muni-
cipality is simply not good enough. We have
got to take some action now and this bill
would permit such action to be taken.
The second argument for the passage of
the bill that is before us is that the pensions
that are received by our older citizens are
inadequate. The $75 that is at present
payable as a federal pension should be aug-
mented by money that could be made avail-
able from this House in addition to the $75,
to bring it up to $100— or more if we could
afford it. It appears that as far as the federal
government is concerned, the economy is not
going to bear it all across Canada at this
time. As I said in this House a few days
ago, I am sure that under Liberal leadership
the economy will burgeon to the extent that
this money will soon be available. But this
in no way, Mr. Speaker, relieves us in this
House of the original responsibility for pro-
viding adequate pensions. It is our prime
responsibility.
MARCH 3, 1966
1123
Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question? When the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) and the government of Ontario
were trying to get the extra $25 for the older
citizens, why did the Liberal Party not sup-
port our endeavours?
Mr. Nixon: If the hon. member who has
just interjected had followed the speeches
of his own leader during the federal elec-
tion he would know that the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario suggested that the
premiums for the Canada pension plan could
be used in this connection. I feel that this
is an irresponsible suggestion.
The fact is that there are not sufficient
funds made available for the support of our
older citizens, and this, coupled with ever-
increasing municipal taxation, has put them
in a position where more and more have had
to go and appeal to the welfare centres of
these cities and in fact join the ranks of the
people who have to accept such assistance. I
do not think this should be necessary.
I do not personally believe that the type
of legislation that is before us is the best
answer. It is an ad hoc solution. If these
older people are having some economic diffi-
culties, here is an opportunity that they can
be relieved of at least one of their pressing
burdens.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any effort
on the part of the government of Ontario to
reduce local taxation by assuming more of
the responsibility for the services at the
municipal level that have to be extended to
people, or in the absence of any effort to
raise the general pension by this House, I
am in support of the bill that is before us at
this time and that constitutes an amendment
to The Assessment Act.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to support the second read-
ing of Bill No. 34, I agree with some of the
things that the hon. member for Brant has
said.
The amendments provide that the munici-
palities, may, if they want to do so, give
abatements to pensioners based on the por-
tion of their property tax that is earmarked
for education.
Of course, the principle entailed in the bill
is one that this party has been in favour of
for many years. I believe that all hon. mem-
bers of the House have admitted, at one time
or another, that the elderly are not getting
enough pension, that $75 a month is just not
enough for them to live on in decency in this
day and age.
I commend the mayor of Hamilton for
again submitting the private bill to make it
permissive for the city of Hamilton to give
such abatements. I feel that there should not
be a parochial approach to the problem.
Although we are not in favour of adding to
the categorical ways of handing little bits of
money to the elderly, we think it should have
been done in a regularized manner by an in-
crease in their old age pension, whichever
category they fall into.
The bill introduced by the hon. member
for Hamilton East makes it permissive for
any municipality to take such action where it
finds failure at the senior levels of govern-
ment to do so, and justifies looking after the
elderly in their own community.
I was surprised that we have so much sup-
port from Hamilton for the private bill. I
often wondered why the mayor of Hamilton—
and I feel he intends to try to take over the
leadership of the Liberal Party-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Gisborn: This is one of the little picay-
une political moves the mayor of Hamilton
is making to try to garner public support, but
it was quite obvious when the federal Throne
speech came down that I did not hear the
mayor of Hamilton trying to gather his Lib-
eral supporters across Canada to put some
pressure on the federal government to include
in their Throne speech an increase of the old
age pension to $100.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Gisborn: This is the approach that
should have been taken by the mayor of
Hamilton, who is an aspirant for higher poli-
tical office.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, come
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Gisborn: You will notice, Mr. Speaker,
that the amendment that our party made to
the Speech from the Throne concluded by
asking that this government increase the old
age pension to $100.
I would hope that if there is some sincerity
in the Liberal group in regard to the needs
of elderly people, let us hear from them and
from Liberals across the country. Put some
pressure on the federal government to get
out of this categorized method of giving
people a little handout here and there, and
raise the pensions to a point where we will
not have to take this kind of action. I think
1124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it is a little bit shameful that we in this
House have to again deal in a piecemeal man-
ner in regard to the needs of the elderly in
this province.
I will now answer the question-
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the hon. member why this bill does not
give the same relief to the categorical pen-
sioners as it does to the old age pensioners.
Mr. Gisborn: That is a question that was
omitted—
Mr. Nixon: I will say that it is a very seri-
ous omission.
Mr. Gisborn: The hon. member mentioned
that to the people who drafted it and, before
he introduced it, he noticed the omission. I
do not think it is one that would say that we
are not in favour of giving it to those in
disabled groups, or widow or deserted
mothers groups; we feel that all of those
people need more money.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to participate in this debate, I also
wish to commend the hon. member for Ham-
ilton East, not only from the point of view
that he has introduced this bill, but from
the fact that he is a very valuable member
of the select committee on aging; a member
who has dedicated himself to the relief of
the problems facing our elder citizens and
who has made a great contribution to the
work of our committee.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Keep it
up— keep going— do not stop!
Mr. Carruthers: I will just stop and say
this, that I value the services of the hon.
member for Hamilton East very highly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Carruthers: I am very sincere when I
say that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!!
Mr. Carruthers: I think we all realize, Mr.
Speaker, that the 508,000 senior citizens in
this province are facing a particular problem.
The hon. member for Brant has pointed out
some of the reasons for this and I would like
very briefly to review these.
In the first place, there was the depression
of the thirties. In those dark days, many of
our senior citizens of today lost their homes;
lost their resources and, during the difficult
years that followed, did not have an oppor-
tunity to accumulate the necessities of life
which would have carried them through this
day. There was also World War II which
followed immediately on the heels of the de-
pression and, during that war, many of our
senior citizens of today lost their sons and
daughters— and in many cases lost their
friends— upon whom they could today lean
upon for a certain amount of support.
Following World War II came automation
and many of our senior citizens were forced,
because of economic conditions and because
of lack of skills, into lower-paying employ-
ment. With this came the rising cost of liv-
ing, which placed them in a position in which
they could not meet their needs of today and
meet the standard of living which we consider
necessary in this day and age.
Many of them are living on fixed incomes
—incomes which are totally inadequate to
meet the needs of the day. Property taxes
are increasing disproportionately to the in-
come of these people; therefore this has
created a real problem for them.
Certainly, I think we all agree that the
increased costs of medical care and the
increased cost of drugs, particularly, have
placed a very great burden upon the eco-
nomic resources of these people.
It is also a factor, Mr. Speaker, that
people are living longer. The result is that
we have a very serious problem in the fact
that employment is not available for these
people over that longer span of life. The
pension plans that were provided in the
days immediate to the present period are not
sufficient to meet the requirements of these
senior citizens.
Now those are some of the factors that
have affected the economic and social life
of our senior citizens of today. I firmly
believe that the aim of this bill is good
but I cannot agree with the method. There
is some question as to the means of carry-
ing it out. Throughout our tours of the
province, Mr. Speaker, this matter was
brought to our attention on many, many
occasions, and as the hon. member for
Hamilton East has pointed out, the bill
points up the great need facing this group
of senior citizens. I think in the days ahead
that increased allowances may play a major
part in relieving the problems of the aged.
May I say that this government has done
a great deal already to assist our senior
citizens, and I wish to congratulate the hon.
Prime Minister and the hon. members of his
government, Mr. Speaker, on the action
that has been taken. We have seen a bill
introduced to prevent age discrimination for
MARCH 3, 1966
1125
the elderly in employment. We have seen
an office of aging established. We are aware
of the rest home programme for senior
citizens, and the new nursing home regula-
tions. All of these, Mr. Speaker, will play an
important part in relieving this very serious
problem.
Our most important problem, I think, the
most important issue here is how best to
enable our older people to make a contribu-
tion to society with dignity and without undue
hardship. Now without in any way playing
down the real hardships that the increasing
taxes particularly make upon our older citi-
zens, I do wish to remind the House at this
time that the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Lennox (Mr. Whitney) during our
tours, and on many occasions when this
problem arose, gave some very wise coun-
selling.
He said on those occasions that contri-
buting to the educational services through
taxation is a privilege whether we have
children in school or not. The point is, we
all benefit from the services of well-educated
persons. The senior citizens as well as other
segments of society.
Our doctors, our lawyers, our engineers,
our clergymen and so on, all of these con-
tribute greatly to our complete society. Per-
Tiaps the more important issue therefore,
as I said before, is to enable our senior
citizens to live in dignity and without undue
hardships.
I should like at this time to review just
'briefly some of the existing programmes. In-
deed, the hon. member for Windsor- Walker-
ville (Mr. Newman) I believe gave a good
statement on some of these schemes in the
House on February 10 last year.
In Canada, the three western provinces
liave adopted a system whereby they provide
general grants to homeowners to relieve the
tax burden. This has been one method.
That is, in British Columbia, in Manitoba; I
believe a similar system in Saskatchewan
is being adopted.
Mr. Bryden: I hope you do not approve of
that system.
Mr. Carruthers: No, frankly I do not.
Mr. Bryden: It is a method of bribing the
people with their own money.
Mr. Carruthers: Now, the hon. member for
Woodbine says that we should just pass this
bill. I do not think we should pass anything
in this House without giving it very sound
and very serious consideration.
As of January 1966, in a letter from Mr.
Sidney Spector, with whom our select com-
mittee met in Washington in 1965, the new
United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development has outlined the several
states' positions. In Mr. Spector's newsletter,
he states:
The public Act 386 approved on June
25, 1965 provides that persons 65 years
of age and over may elect to pay his taxes
in the year an election is made and in sub-
sequent years the amount of taxes levied on
such property for the year preceding such
election. But persons who so elect must
agree that the amount of reduced taxes
becomes a lien on the land to be foreclosed
on the death of the owner.
That is in Connecticut. Now they have plans
in Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Michigan, which the hon. member for Hamil-
ton East mentioned, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, and so on. Now all of
these programmes have a tendency to sup-
port the hon. member's proposal, but it is
equally obvious that these various proposals,
or the various methods used in the States
are a patchwork in their composition and
are not necessarily effective.
I might refer just briefly, and I will only
take another minute, Mr. Speaker, to the
excellent brief which the hon. Minister of
Public Welfare and his staff presented to our
select committee at the end of 1965. I am
hopeful that this province, under the broad
terms of the Canada assistance plan, if they
are able to get it into legislation, will ensure
that older persons receive income sufficient
to enable all to meet their tax bills, as well
as other expenses.
We know from the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare's statement that this is his intention,
with a budgetary means test providing
reasonable levels of income for the aged and
with the possibility of changes. Changes
which the Progressive-Conservative Party,
may I say, and the New Democratic Party
have advocated, as has been mentioned here
before this afternoon many times, that is in-
creasing the old age security pension pay-
ments and the forthcoming benefits under the
Canada pension plan.
I am convinced personally that these tax
burdens where they exist can be more equit-
ably relieved in other ways. Equitably in the
sense that with adequate income, older
persons may pay their own way without
having to declare their age, tax worries and
so on. Equitable in the sense that our system
of taxation may be kept uniform and free
from too great multiplicity of exemptions.
1126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support
of this bill, I would like to inform the hon.
members that on February 10 I made quite
extensive comments on this and it was most
reassuring for me to be there at the time
the mayor of Hamilton was present at one
of the committee meetings and attempted to
show to the committee the merits of the
Hamilton bill.
At that time, the committee did not see
eye to eye, but I, as one member, supported
him because I thought he was a forward-
looking man, a man—
An hon. member: A means test-
Mr. Newman: Maybe at the time it
happened to be a means test, but at least he
had something that he attempted to put
across, assistance to senior citizens by way
of tax relief. And this assistance has so
caught fire in other areas, that many of the
municipalities have passed resolutions re-
questing the provincial government to amend
The Assessment Act to enable them to give
municipal tax relief.
I can recall back 15 years or so ago, one
of the gentlemen in my community who
happened to be elderly at the time,
attempted to sell the idea of assisting the
senior citizens in some fashion, especially
with education tax. The education tax was
a real burden to the individual. This was
quite a few years ago, so you can imagine
the type of burden it must be today. Now
that person took many years before he was
able to convince members of the Windsor
city council as to the merits of his recom-
mendation.
Finally, in March of last year, the city
passed a resolution and the most unusual
thing concerning the resolution is that it was
introduced into the council by the fine lady
who ran against me in the last election. And
she had her ear to everything that was
going on in Queen's Park, so I would assume
that she was speaking for the government
at the time.
Now, not only did my own community
pass that resolution, but neighbouring areas
saw the merits of it and passed the resolu-
tion.
The senior citizens meeting in Guelph on
August 31 and September 1 were so con-
cerned over this problem that they passed
the following resolution:
That a request go to the municipal
board and the provincial government to
amend the school tax structure, to elimi-
nate the education costs levied against
homeowners by removing the education
tax from the municipal level.
This is referring to pensioners. So they cer-
tainly saw the merit of the resolution and
attempted to convince others that this gov-
ernment should act on it.
The various provinces throughout Canada
have at some time or other passed legisla-
tion that gave tax relief to, not necessarily
senior citizens, but to homeowners. Sas-
katchewan has done it this year. British
Columbia did this back in 1957. We call our-
selves the province of opportunity. Nine
years ago British Columbia did this. Mani-
toba does this today. And this is not just to
senior citizens, this is to homeowners. Now,
this bill is not to senior citizens, it is to old
age security or old age assistance-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Hitler
used to do it-
Mr. Newman: If the hon. member wants
to idolize Hitler, he can go ahead and do so.
The state of Michigan was so interested
in it, Mr. Speaker, that both the Republicans
and Democrats in the state fought with one
another to introduce legislation concerning
this type of assistance.
Allow me to read just portions of the bill.
This is the state of Michigan, 73rd Legisla-
ture, regular session of 1965. It is called the
enrolled House Bill No. 2001:
The people of the state of Michigan en-
act: Section 7 (c) The homesteads of per-
sons of the age of 65 years or over, who
have been residents of this state for at
least seven consecutive years immediately
preceding and whose gross income as here-
inafter defined combined with the income
if any for the immediately preceding cal-
endar year of a spouse and co-occupant
and concurrent owners of the homestead
shall not be more than $5,000 and whose
real property taxable under The General
Property Tax Act does not exceed $10,000
of state equalized value, shall be exempt
from taxation to the amount of $2,500 of
state equalized valuation.
For the purposes of this Act the word
"resident" means a person who resides in
the state of Michigan for at least six
months in each twelve-month period.
For the purposes of this Act the "per-
sons" means concurrent owners where one
of such owners is 65 years of age or over.
Persons eligible to claim the exemption
must file with the local assessing officer a
claim for exemption which shall be in
MARCH 3, 1966
1127
affidavit form as provided by the state De-
partment of Administration. The claim for
exemption shall be filed during the period
beginning with the tax day of each year
and ending at the time of final adjourn-
ment of the local board of review.
As used in this section, "homestead"
means any dwelling or unit in a multiple
unit dwelling owned and occupied as a
home by the owner thereof including all
contiguous unoccupied real property owned
by the person. For further purpose of this
section, the word "owner" includes any
person eligible for the taxation exemption
specified herein who is purchasing a home-
stead as defined herein under mortgage or
land contract.
The total amount of taxes lost by any
taxing unit as a result of the homestead
taxation exemption allowed by this Act
is shown on a statement. No homestead
shall be allowed more than one exemption
under the provisions of this Act. In all
circumstances the exemption allowing the
greater relief may be claimed or granted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, The Relief Act is of such
advantage to the senior citizens in the state
of Michigan that some of them only have
to pay very nominal taxes in the course of the
year. This bill exempts that portion exceed-
ing $150 or the portion of the real property
taxes imposed for school purposes, whichever
is the lesser, so with this bill anything up
to $150 would be permitted. I think if states
adjoining our province can look with such
favourable light upon tax relief to senior citi-
zens, I certainly think that this province of
Ontario should do similar. They should copy
some of the good suggestions made by juris-
dictions adjacent to us.
We should not think we are the only ones
that can come up with good ideas when it
comes to assistance. Other places have done
this and, because they have come up with
these ideas which are worthy of consideration,
I think we should give them our full consid-
eration. So many of the jurisdictions to the
south have done this. I can mention New
Jersey, giving those past 65 a deduction of
$80 from property tax. Georgia, a state that
is nowhere as affluent as is this province of
opportunity. Yet no action from the govern-
ment here for a similar type of legislation.
Rhode Island does it; I understand Maine
does it; in fact I understand, Mr. Speaker,
that approximately 30 states in the Union
give relief to senior citizens from education
tax or some other type of tax.
The political science club of the University
of Windsor was so interested in this problem
that it went into quite a detailed study of
it and submitted a letter containing a recom-
mendation to this government. The London
Free Tress was so impressed by it that it
even editorialized in its favour and asked that
this government consider this recommenda-
tion.
The House took recess at 6.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 38
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, March 3, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk; Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 3, 1966
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1131
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 1160
1131
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Thursday, March 3, 1966*
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
( continued )
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: State your point of order,
please.
Mr. Singer: I am advised that this after-
noon—unfortunately I was not here— a ruling
was made by you, sir, to rule out of order
any discussion of salaries by reason of the
fact that an arbitration is being conducted by
His Honour Judge Anderson. Although there
was a vote on that, sir, I do, with your in-
dulgence, want to comment just very
briefly—
Mr. Chairman: Just a minute, sir. I would
rule at this time that any decision made by
this House this afternoon cannot be re-
opened.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I say that this
is a matter really of the utmost importance
because this budget involves some one-
quarter of the total expenditures of the gov-
ernment. If we are balked at discussing the
whole question of salaries then I think we
are being cut off from a very important facet
of discussion.
Mr. Chairman: I would rule that this is
out of order at this particular time. As far
as a discussion of salaries is concerned it will
not be curbed. Salaries and wages will come
under the civil service estimates and they
can be discussed in their fullest at that time
if members want to do so.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I think that
since they form such an integral part of the
expenditure of $265,379,000, this point could
and should be further explored here at this
time. I wanted to draw to your particular
attention-
Mr. Chairman: I must suggest to the mem-
ber for Downsview that any discussion in
connection with the ruling that was made
earlier today is out of order at this time.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, even though
the ruling was made and even though I hear
your ruling and respect it, sir, I am respect-
fully asking that you do reconsider at least
to the extent of allowing me to expand a bit
on the point of order. If your ruling has
the effect that we in the Opposition are un-
able to discuss this very important one-
quarter of the budget on salary, then I
suggest to you, sir, that we are going to be
very substantially muzzled insofar as a
proper discussion of these estimates is con-
cerned.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I have assured the
member that there will be no attempt at
muzzling. As far as discussion is concerned
on the wages and salaries that are a quarter
of this budget, there will be ample oppor-
tunity to discuss them.
Mr. Singer: No, but Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I am ruling all
discussion in this connection out of order
at this time.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, with the
greatest respect, sir— and I hesitate to argue
with you out of my respect not only for
you personally but for your authority— I
think that we do deserve a fuller discussion
than perhaps took place this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman: I would tell the member
that we did discuss it thoroughly this after-
noon. There was an appeal to the ruling of
the Chairman, the ruling was sustained, and
I would ask now that we carry on with the
estimates of The Department of Highways.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortu-
nate that we are going to be muzzled in this
discussion. It is nothing more than closure;.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may
have your concurrence and the concurrence
of the House if necessary to commenii on
the observations—
1132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me, sir. I would
have to make sure that we have the con-
currence of the House. A pattern has been
established that we have the Minister speak,
a lead-off speaker from the Liberals, a lead-
off speaker from the NDP and then any re-
marks by the members. If it is agreeable to
the lead-off speaker for the NDP and the
House, it is certainly agreeable to your
Chairman.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I have no objections, if the hon.
Minister were to answer some of the com-
ments of the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Is that the wish of the
House?
An hon. member: No, that is the last thing
he wants to talk about.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
can assure you I made no notes on that topic
because we pursued it in the debate earlier
this afternoon. But I would like to state to
you and to the House that frankly, since the
Jion. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr.
Newman)— in what approximated an hour
and a half of observation and comment on
the subject of the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Highways— appeared to me to pro-
pose expenditures which upon calculation, I
think, we might find would lead to the bank-
ruptcy of the province, certainly I find myself
at somewhat of a loss to know just how to
comment.
I will try to proceed in order, sir, on some
of the matters that he proposed. I think, as
I recall it, he made some reference firstly to
the cost of the Macdonald-Cartier freeway,
which for all practical purposes, with the
exception of one section in eastern Ontario
and some facilities to provide for separations
of grades and crossovers, is close to comple-
tion.
He made repeated references to the cost
being something on the order of 20 times
what the original estimates were when the
project was originally conceived. He used,
at one time, a figure of $3 billion and then
on a number of occasions this afternoon made
reference to a figure, I think, of $2.7 billion.
It will be a matter of interest to the hon.
member and to the House to learn— and these
figures involved the cost of property and the
construction costs from the date of its incep-
tion-that the actual cost to March 31, 1965,
almost a year ago, was $319,324,157.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, in reply to the hon. Minister, I
have the previous Minister of Highways'
figures on this, made in 1960, showing a total
cost of $2.7 billion. These are his figures, not
my figures, from The Department of High-
ways.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
my figures are the ones I am placing on the
record now. These are my figures.
Mr. Newman: Did you not agree with the
previous Minister then?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is not a matter
of agreement with the previous Minister.
I can only conclude that the hon. member is
very, very confused here, because these are
the facts, as recorded by The Department of
Highways, since the inception of the construc-
tion of the Macdonald-Cartier freeway, for-
merly known as Highway 401.
As I said, up to the end of March last year,
$319,324,157. The estimated additional cost
accruing to this year, which will end on
March 31, is $34.6 million, and we estimate
that in the 1966-67 year, a further expendi-
ture of $39,734,000 will accrue. At that time,
for all practical purposes, the highway will
be finished and the total estimated cost then
will be $393,657,157.
If the hon. member had asked me for these
figures, I would have given them to him and
they are available in the records of the de-
partment. As a matter of fact, this is about
one-eighth of the figure that was bandied
about rather freely here on an earlier occa-
sion.
Mr. Chairman, I make reference to the
recommendations and the proposals advanced
by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville,
the Liberal Party critic for this department
In brief, as I recall it, he wants more roads.
He wants more roads of every type in every
area of the province and he wants them now,
so that what he is in effect proposing, I think
I would like to say, involves taxation increases
of such tremendous proportions that I can
only conclude that this must be the policy
that the Liberal Party would pursue. I am
quite frankly glad to have the observations
on record— they will become very useful.
I might pursue, if I could, the references to
the northern part of the province, and I think
this is a matter of interest. This information
was published in the Sault Ste. Marie Daily
Star on Friday, January 7, 1966. It is a full
page, showing 20 years of progress, dating
from 1945— back almost to that day when the
quiet revolution started in this province,
which has been referred to in the House, you
know. Not only the revolution, but the evo-
MARCH 3; 1966
1133
lution which has produced for the province, of
Ontario the—
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): What revolution?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I said the quiet
revolution.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) said that he would lead an
"evolution," not a "revolution."
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, but he said
"if there was a revolution"—
Mr. Thompson: Oh, no. He never said that.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh, yes, he did,
but he did not have to. The quiet revolution
started in this province in 1943 and it quickly
became the process of evolution. I simply
want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the
House-
Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Minister
believe in Darwin's theory?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Darwin's theory?
Oh, I believe in Darwin's theory very much,
but do not ask me to pursue that one any
more.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Now back to the
estimates, Mr. Chairman.
This very great and respected daily journal,
published in one of our major and rapidly
growing communities in the northwestern
part of the province, headlined this as show-
ing 20 years of progress, dating from 1945.
I think it is very interesting and well-
documented. It simply points out that in
1945 King's highways in the entire area of the
northern part of the province involved a mile-
age of 1,896 miles, and secondary roads,
1,540 miles, for a total of 3,436 miles. But
my word, Mr. Chairman, when you look at
the map and the figures for 1965, they are
really astounding.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): You should ac-
complish something in 20 years.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You are going to
agree that we have accomplished a very great
deal.
Interjections by hon. members. ^
; Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: So King's high-
ways in 1965 had grown from 1,896-miles to
3,345.7 miles, and secondary highways from
1,540 miles to 2,325 miles, in addition, as of
tfce date; of., publication of this paper, ;high~
ways committed and under construction were
438.9 miles, for a total of 6,109.6 miles
versus the figure I referred to previously,
3,436 miles. In other words, the mileage of
roads has almost doubled.
These are indisputable facts; they are all
available; they are all on record. I am prob-
ably prejudiced enough to say that the people
of the north are very much aware of it.
Very much aware of it indeed.
Now then, I might deal with the matter
of service centre locations. The hon. member
made reference to locating these service
centres and suggested that they should always
be located before a community.
Mr. Newman: Beyond a community.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Beyond a com-
munity, was this it? I say to the hon. mem-
ber that the policy has been to locate these
as closely as possible every 50 miles. In some
instances it is 48, sometimes it is 51, but
basically every 50 miles of the entire route
of the facility, the highway. For the life of
me I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, I find
it very difficult to know how you can have a
location either before a community or after.
They are always either before a community
or after, they cannot be anything else.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, it is ele-
mentary, is it not, really?
Mr. Gisborn: I would just draw to Mr.
Chairman's attention, do not forget as w6
go along that I conceded the floor to the
hon. Minister and not the hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
will try not to forget that.
Mr. Newman: May I reply to the hon. Min-
ister, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
am replying to the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville right now. I think that is fair.
Mr. Newman: I will give the hon. Minister
an answer.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right, I. wish
the hon, member would enlighten me.
Mr. Newman: Does the hon. Minister
mean to tell me he, has a town -point at
point A and he . cannot put -the service
centre just beyond the town at point A in-
stead of on this side of. the town, so that the
individual .driving- ; .tesoqmq
1134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: These are four-lane roads,
these are all four-lane roads, these are
limited-access highways, these are not two-
lane highways.
Mr. Chairman: Do you want the Minister
to answer?
Mr. Newman: This is all on limited-access
freeways.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister of Highways,
please.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
suppose we did that. You see, there are
matters of interchanges, there are matters of
flyovers, you are familiar with what I mean,
we have to find sources of water, we have to
find sources of all those things that make it
possible to operate these particular service
centres in the interest of the travelling public,
and that is why they are there.
They are to serve the demands of the
travelling public and these demands are very
heavy in this automated day and age. But
I still suggest to you that if we build one
after community A, it is obviously before
community B, and I do not know how we
can change that.
Mr. Newman: Just outside of Barrie, does
the hon. Minister mean to tell me he could
not have put it within the same distance
beyond Barrie as it is before Barrie going
up on Highway 400? Very, very easily. The
individual driving could go into Barrie for
service or not taking advantage of that would
have the service centre on the limited-access
400.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, now, I
guess the hon. member did not hear the
comments of the hon. member for Muskoka
(Mr. Boyer) this afternoon, but there was a
great enough storm developed because of the
location of the Barrie service centre. I can
tell the hon. member if we had moved it
farther north the storm would have been
much greater. They are concerned, really,
that we are going to move into an area. The
people who were concerned were not at
Barrie, they were some 25 to 30 to 35 miles
north. In any case, I think that is enough
on that.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): I take it the
lion. Minister is against the proposal?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I am slightly
against the proposal. You can understand it.
Now, on the matter of toll policy, 1 will
not have too much to say about that. The
toll policy of the government is well known, it
has been discussed on a number of occasions.
We certainly have a policy of toll-free roads
in the province— and I spoke about it a year
ago. And you made reference to them this
afternoon— we touched on the only exceptions
to that and I think I made reference to the
fact that a select committee on toll roads was
operative in the province a number of years
ago. They made some recommendations and
these recommendations are the basis for the
policy that we have today. We have carried
it out, we have lived with it.
The report was tabled in the Legislature
and I think accepted.
I think perhaps I would say this with re-
spect to the hon. member's reference to
studies in the state of New Jersey about sign
policy. He laid great stress on studies in
New Jersey that developed a certain sign
policy. I suggest to you that the policy we
have in effect here is basically a study of
what we think fits Ontario. We have exam-
ined sign policies in other jurisdictions of the
continent and I am prepared to say to the
hon. member that we may appear to be
restrictive in certain areas, certain situations,
but by and large the people of the province
of Ontario support the fact that we do not
clutter our roads with signs of all descrip-
tions.
I think I can safely say, Mr. Chairman, that
if we needed any endorsation of something
that the public accepts generally, it was of
interest to me to learn not too long ago that
President Johnson has appropriated millions
and millions of dollars and ordered that the
highways of the United States be restored
to something like the character of the roads
in this province of Ontario.
In connection with rest areas, I can say to
the hon. member that we have been studying
the matter of rest areas, certainly on con-
trolled-access freeways, and I hope that the
information that is made available to me
shortly involves the location of rest areas
based halfway between our service centres
on Highway 401 or the Macdonald-Cartier
freeway. Sites are being looked at now. 1
would hope that by the commencement of
another capital construction season that we
can start the building of some of these.
These are certainly sensible proposals. I
do not think it is possible to do what the
hon. member proposes all over the province
because, frankly, again that just adds to the
expenditures that the hon. member proposed
MARCH 3, 1966
1135
and interspersed remarks about all through
his address.
So again I have to suggest to him that
within the ability of the people of the prov-
ince to pay for these things, we will move
along with everything that appears to be
sensible and sound and good for the travel-
ling public.
There was some reference made to a pro-
posal by certain municipalities, resolutions
from certain urban municipalities with rela-
tionship to increased subsidies. The proposal,
as I recall it— and I asked about this— was
100 per cent, I believe, for connecting links,
70 per cent for arterial roads, 50 per cent
on all other roads and streets.
Now let me suggest to the hon. member
that it is only a matter of some three years
or less that amendments to The Highway
Improvement Act were introduced into this
House and subsequently passed, which
raised the rate of subsidy on connecting links
in small urban municipalities with a popula-
tion of 2,500 or less from 75 to 100 per cent.
Municipalities with a population greater than
2,500 were raised from 75 to 90 per cent.
Urban municipalities with connecting link
subsidies of 50 per cent were raised to 75
per cent.
I think really we have anticipated the hon.
member to a considerable extent as recently
as three years ago.
It is not too great a departure really from
what he proposed. We recognize the great
problem of urban municipalities in terms of
financing sensible revisions of their street
patterns and their transportation problems.
Regarding the matter of the city of Sault
Ste. Marie, this has been proposed to the
department quite some time ago. There was
a circular, I believe, circulated among all the
municipalities with respect to subsidies on
subdivision roads. And of course there is a
period during which cities undergoing amal-
gamation over a period of time, have an ad-
justment factor introduced there to ease the
burden on them from the annexation of
neighbouring municipalities with a higher
rate of subsidy.
They are averaged out as the hon. mem-
ber, I believe, knows. The subsidy rate of
the adjoining municipalities, that are taken in
in terms of annexation, are averaged with the
existing subsidies on their streets prior to
annexation. There is a period of adjustment
prescribed for this adjusted subsidy, which
enables them to move along. I would say to
the hon. member we are not completely satis-
fied with this, but that exists today and we
are pursuing this matter.
In general, with respect to subsidies, I
would like to remind the hon. member that
at the time the Metro report, shall we say,
was presented by the hon. Prime Minister,
he announced— with respect to the disparity
in the rates of subsidy presently existing in
Metro, wherein the city of Toronto, for ex-
ample, has a subsidy rate of 33% per cent
and North York 50 per cent— he did announce
that this matter was being studied and that
there would be an attempt made to establish
a basis of uniform subsidies prior to imple-
mentation date, which is to be January 1,
1967. I can suggest to the hon. member that
this was done, because not only the situation
in Metro was involved, but the situation in
every urban municipality from one end of
the province to the other is equally involved.
So I can assure you that the study proposed
by the hon. Prime Minister is under way.
It is being undertaken by the municipal
roads branch of The Department of High-
ways and we hope to come up with a basis
of uniform subsidy, an equitable rate of sub-
sidy that not only applies in Metro, but will
apply in every urban municipality of the
province. This was announced, as I say, by
the hon. Prime Minister, at the time the
Metro report was given.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have already
told you that he suggested it would be ready
for implementation of the date of the Metro-
politan Toronto report, which is January 1,
1967.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): How do we
know it will in fact be ready? You fellows
make announcements all the time that never
mature.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I say, Mr. Chair-
man, to the hon. member, that there have
not been too many commitments made around
here, in my experience, that have not been
kept.
Let me say one more word on this matter
of subsidies. The hon. member proposed that
certain things should be done at the level of
cities and separated towns and I agree with
him. But I would point out to him that, while
cities and separated towns enjoy a somewhat
lower rate of subsidy than rural munici-
palities, they separate from the county for
purposes which they believe to be their ad-
vantage—and, as such, they pay no rates to
the county. So that, if I may put it this way,
they certainly feel that they gain more on
the oranges than they lose on the bananas.
May I put it that way to you?
1136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Lemons.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, you are
familiar with lemons. I do not know what
you are talking about. There have been
enough lemons produced here this afternoon,
as far as I am concerned.
Now, I am almost through, because the
hon. member for Wentworth East was kind
enough to concede the floor and I am very
grateful to him.
Reference has been made here to the mat-
ter of U.S. border municipalities. Probably
Windsor is as good an example of a border
municipality that I can think of for the hon.
member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: The best.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The best, well
all right, I will not quarrel with that at all.
Now the matter of urban expressways I
think was referred to as one of those things
we should do in border municipalities where
there is this heavy surge of traffic across the
international boundary.
I think this was made reference to, and I
think the hon. member is very much aware
that we are in the process now of working
with the city of Windsor. Mayor Wheelton
and members of his council and advisory staff
were down to see me very recently, at which
time we agreed to provide the urban express-
way rates of subsidy to what I think is
known as E. C. Rowe avenue.
I can suggest to you that they went away
quite pleased. This subsidy, as I have men-
tioned before, constitutes instead of the
normal rate of street subsidy, 75 per cent
across the board.
Mr. Newman: That is the same as every
other municipality, no difference at all.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: What do you
mean?
Mr. Newman: Why, when we turned
around and asked about municipal subsidies,
50 per cent the same as Metro gets for cities,
you immediately turn around and say in link
roads we get 75 per cent. Well, you give 75
per cent to everybody, but to Metro you
give 50 per cent—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, now, let
me tell the hon. member something in this
respect for his edification. Metropolitan
Toronto has no connecting links. Metropoli-
tan Toronto has no urban expressways.
Metropolitan Toronto gets a straight 50 per
cent across the board for Metro roads. The
hon. member for Downsview knows this
very welL There are no 75 per cent sub-
sidies for connecting links, urban express-
ways, or anything else in Metropolitan
Toronto. I am sure the hon. member wants
to be put straight on that.
Mr. Bryden: You think that is right?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I do not
think it is particularly good, I think we have
got to get some uniformity in this across
the province, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Bryden: Well, you have been the
Minister for some time.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, there has
not been a change in the Metro form of gov-
ernment for quite a while.
Mr. Bryden: You people have been the
government during the entire period.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Chairman, could I ask the hon. Minister
about the Queensway in Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well now, Mr.
Chairman, I think when I sit down, I think
in all honesty, the floor was conceded to me.
I think really, Mr. Chairman, I have com-
mented on everything that I wanted to for
now, with one exception, and I think during
the course of the estimates presentation, the
hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Noden)
will want to make some comments on it. The
floor is, of course, for the hon. member for
Wentworth East when I sit down. But I
make reference now to the bridge between
Fort Frances and International Falls, and
let me bring the hon. member up to date.
There have been proposals of course, from
the state of Minnesota for a crossing of the
river and there have been proposals from
the government of Ontario. Officials of The
Department of Highways of Ontario have
met on a number of occasions with officials
of the state highways department in Minne-
sota. Both departments have presented pro-
posals for a crossing at Fort Frances and it
was finally agreed that they would be re-
ferred to a local committee.
There have been a variety of proposals and
a variety of locations proposed where this
river crossing should take place. One of the
crossings, in particular, would involve tre-
mendous property damage !to the town of
Fort Frances. There axe- -a great- variety of
:;; march ?a 1966 n ,
1137
things to be decided aiid this has been turned
over to a local committee to examine the
recommendations : from the state of Minne-
sota, | s together , with the recommendations
from the province of Ontario and, in due
course, try to advise us and to advise the
Minnesota people what would constitute a
proper location for the river crossing facili-
ties.
We think this is a sensible way to pursue
it; we do not think it is up to us to impose
our ideas on Fort Frances and we do not
think it sensible for Minnesota to impose
their ideas on Fort Frances.
We think it is better to put our ideas
before them and let them have something to
say about what goes on in their own re-
spective communities, That is precisely what
we have done and that is where the matter
stands now. ! *
I hope that the hon. member thinks that
that is a sensible way to pursue things. We
do, and frankly, so does the town of Fort
Frances. ,;
Mr. Gisborrt: Mr. Chairman, when I con-
ceded the floor to the hon. Minister of
Highways to answer the criticism of the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, I
did it willingly. But in the half hour, if what
the hon. Minister has said is indicative of
the criticism of the hon. member for
Windsor- Wall^erville, neither amounted to
very much.
I .also would add that neither one would
have the right to say the same about myself
when I finish my effort.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Let us not
carry it too farl r .
Interjections by lion, members.
Mr. Gisborn: Seeing the happy faces on
the front benches of the Liberal Party, I
have to prepare myself for almost anything.
.MrV Chairman, earlier in this session when
I was assigned the responsibility by the
New Democratic Party to act as critjc of
The Department of Highways, I at once
beg^ft to ,wonderr what might be said or done
to improve the building of the kind pf
highways that we need in this province to
take care of the ever-increasing use by auto-
mobiles and the trucking of materials! I have
gathered together i some collective thoughts
andj of course, jwant to present them to the
HrniseJ, my.-.v^ ■,■■-■■;.;■■»
-I: realize ■■■■'. that ^because of the -complex
ramifications of the operations of! the! gov-
ernment of Ontario, a large and diversified
province and an ever-growing province, that
I have not had the time nor applied myself
to this particular department, as perhaps
one should. I assure the House that from now
on, I shall be more diligent in this particular
field and maybe next session I shall be able
to make a better effort and lay heavier
impact upon the government.
Prior to my coming into the House in
1955— and I learned this when I came in— I
The Department of Highways was considered
the "pork barrel" department of Ontario. This
was where the slush funds came from that
paid for some of the campaign expenses of
the Conservative Party. Now I think that
those allegations were well-founded by evi-
dence prior to my coming into the House; I
have no evidence that that is the case today
and I assume that it is not.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my criticisms
can be constructive and that my ideas will
be given consideration by the government
and by the House, so that we can co-1
operatively develop the kind of highways
system in Ontario that will be conducive to
the people of the province and not in just
getting from one place to another.
Mr. Chairman, there has been relatively
little controversy connected with The Depart-
ment of Highways. It is such a neat depart-
ment, so factual— it builds highways all over
this province, it cuts up the land into odd-
shaped parcels bordered by those magnificent
concrete-and-asphalt monuments to the auto-
mobile.
Yet, despite its blandness, the depart-
ment spends the second-highest amount of
money, exceeded only by The Department of
Education. This year's estimates call for a
budget of $107,886,000 of ordinary expendi-
tures, and of $265,379,000 for capital ex-
penditures-together a total of $373,241,000.
Now, it seems to me that in order to spend
such a vast amount of money from the public
Treasury the hon. Minister of Highways
would need a pretty solid philosophy of
spending. Undoubtedly he is putting a lot
of thought into where those millions of
dollars go. Which new highways aire to be
built, which old highways are to be ex-
panded, and so on.
But, Mr. Chairman, does the Minister have
the right idea how to spend this money?
Here, I submit to him we are already hi
trouble. His department's spending is largely
piecemeal, without a sophisticated highways
plan that takes into account the" concept
of a newoirk of highways geared to human
beings and their well-being; ratheE; than to
1138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the cold figures of how fast a car can travel
from A to B.
This, I submit, is the greatest failing of
this department. It does not relate the auto-
mobile and the highways to our cities, towns
and villages, it does not relate the automobile
and the highways to the people who live in
these urban and rural areas.
This failure to comprehend the functions of
a highway started many years ago, and now
the department must pay for its mistakes
in the past. The deptartment had to cut a
wide swath through the heart of Metropolitan
Toronto, slicing it in two parts, when it built
the No. 401 highway, or as it is known now,
the Macdonald-Cartier freeway.
This is a really shameful way of infringing
upon the lives and the comfort of the people
whose homes lay in the path of the 401.
They were expropriated and had to move.
Homes near the new 16-lane highway were
inconvenienced, living near the 401 has be-
come a nuisance, and the only person who
benefits from this highway is the speedy
traveller who was able to cut down his
travelling time.
Let me make this point as clear as I can:
traffic and roads are not ends in themselves,
they are services to people only. When we
have reached the stage where these traffic
needs, and the roads built to alleviate these
needs, disrupt the lives of hundreds of
citizens, we have reneged on that simple
principle.
Why do we feel we must cater to these
fleet-wheeled steel beetles to the extent that
highways become more important than a
homogenous urban development that is now
dominated, rather than serviced, by bands
upon bands of concrete and asphalt?
But the hon. Minister of Highways' phil-
osophy, from what I can judge, goes along
with the 1958 engineering study entitled
"Ontario's roads and streets," undertaken by
the municipalities of Ontario and the hon.
Minister's department.
This was the time when the hon. member
for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cass) was Min-
ister of Highways. I quote from the report:
Highways are needed to serve and en-
courage our economy. Materials, man-
power and markets must be available
readily and efficiently for a prosperous and
progressive way of life.
There is not a word in this report about the
infringement on the people of Ontario by the
highways. All we read about is, for ex-
ample: "Are Ontario highways, roads and
streets adequate for today's traffic? What are
the needs of today?" and so on. The trouble
with such reports is that they are prepared
only by highways and traffic experts.
I will make my point even more clear. The
report says: "Everyone is conscious of the
growing number of motor vehicles and of the
increasing dependence on them." The state-
ment ends there. But in Britain, several years
ago, the Buchanan report had a chapter that
dealt with "The war between the car and
the city." Colin Buchanan is, besides being
a traffic engineer, also a philosopher, when
he states: "The car is a menace that can
spoil our civilization." How true. But do we
find similar thoughts in The Department of
Highways, from the hon. Minister on down?
Not a word.
Well, the Buchanan report is so important
that I want to read its key sentences into
the record from time to time, and then com-
pare its conclusions with what has happened
in this province. Buchanan states:
In all consideration of urban form, the
question of facility of movement of both
persons and goods is of crucial importance.
No single system of transport can provide
for all the movements involved; co-ordina-
tion between systems is required. The
United States demonstrates what happens
when the motor vehicle is given free li-
cence to lead development where it will.
When Buchanan writes about the U.S., we
can safely assume that the situation on our
roads is very similar to that in the United
States.
The basic fault of all this highway plan-
ning lies in the fact that we build roads in
anticipation of increased traffic volume be-
cause more and more people will drive more
and more cars. Highway construction, if we
follow this thought to its logical conclusion,
is often a retroactive programme to meet
existing needs, and sometimes is an anticipa-
tory programme to meet future traffic needs.
So far, so good.
But any government, and in particular the
hon. Minister of Highways in this province,
must come to grips not only with the tech-
nical problem of building more and better
and longer and faster highways, but it must,
before anything else, start thinking whether
or not the highways we build should be
there in the first place.
Buchanan has analyzed the four basic ways
in which motor vehicles are used:
Transport of raw material, merchandise
and food; conveyance of passengers in
bulk; conveyance of persons individually
or in small numbers; mobile services such
as fire departments, etc.
MARCH 3, 1966
1139
There is no question that this Department of
Highways is catering first of all to the "con-
veyance of persons individually or in small
numbers"— that is the private cars with driver
alone, or one passenger; the tourists with
trailers; the salesmen; the hundreds of thou-
sands of people who will readily jump into
their car to get from A to B without even
considering mass transportation.
Why? Because there is no adequate sys-
tem of mass transportation we have no choice
but to drive our own car over hundreds of
miles, arriving tired, endangering our lives
and the lives of others on the road.
Why are we in this situation where traffic
needs can only be guessed at roughly? Again,
Buchanan has the answer: "Essential traffic
is calculable, optional traffic depends on
many uncertain factors."
What is essential traffic? Certainly our
system of transportation of material goods
must have priority. Police, fire departments,
doctors and similar persons must be able to
get from A to B in a hurry. But this sort
of traffic is predictable.
Optional traffic is all the rest. And we
build highways to cater to optional traffic:
to the tourist because he chooses to come
by car, because he brings dollars to Ontario;
to the vacation travellers within Canada who
use these highways; to the many people liv-
ing in this province who would rather drive
than use commercial transportation. This
optional traffic is indeed an uncertain factor.
Weather plays a great role.
But we never know how many people in
cars will want to use certain stretches of
highways at a certain time. Therefore we
have built for them highways that can ac-
commodate the greatest number of cars at
any given time. During periods when traffic
is minimal— during the night, during bad
weather, and in the winter, and so on— these
highways are little used. They are there,
but they don't accomplish their purpose for
much of the time. This, I contend, is uneco-
nomical thinking, because highways must be
constantly patrolled, serviced and repaired.
Despite all the planning and highway
building in the past, many of our highways
are still jammed bumper-to-bumper during
peak traffic periods, and tempers flare easily
on a 100-degree humid summer day when
drivers and passengers breathe exhaust fumes
instead of Ontario's clean, fresh country air.
But I suggest that there are alternatives to
our outmoded highway system.
To quote Mr. Buchanan: "The problem is
to rationalize the arrangement of buildings
and accessways. The basic principle is circu-
lation." What Mr. Buchanan means is this:
There must be areas of good environ-
ment—urban rooms— where people can live,
work, shop, look about and move around,
in reasonable freedom of motor traffic.
What is needed is a complementary net-
work of roads— so-called urban corridors—
for effecting the primary distribution of
traffic to the environmental areas. The de-
sign would ensure that traffic is related in
character and volume to the environmen-
tal conditions being sought.
The result is a town with a cellular
structure consisting of environmental areas
set within an interlacing network of distri-
butory highways. This concept requires to
be explored and developed into a set of
working rules for practical application. The
function of the network— of highways-
would be to serve the environmental areas
and not vice-versa.
All this sounds pretty highfalutin, so let me
put it in focus. If the central areas of towns
and cities are not capable of accommodating
heavy traffic, it is obviously unwise to feed
into the centres wide roads and highways
which would stimulate traffic from the subur-
ban areas. And yet this is exactly what is
happening all over the province.
In other words, if a four-lane highway
feeds traffic into a two-lane street in a city
or town with inadequate parking facilities,
you obviously get a hopeless traffic jam in
and out of the city.
In the report of the steering group on
Colin Buchanan's working group report
—known for short as the Buchanan report— the
authors state:
There is an enormous waste of man-
power. No longer in our cities can life
be divided between work, sleep and leisure;
there is a fourth division of time spent
sitting in vehicles that, if they are moving
at all, are moving far too slowly. There
is a waste of capital. Too many vehicles
have to be provided to do the necessary
work of transport, and the time required
to produce almost anything is unduly pro-
longed. There is a waste of fuel— almost all
of it imported.
All of this, while compiled in and pertain-
ing to Britain, is equally true of our traffic
scene in Canada and Ontario. I do not
think there is one expert in traffic or high-
way designs who would dare to disagree with
such fundamental truths. The problems is
that despite such investigations the remedies,
applied are old-fashioned and outmoded.
1140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the same report of the steering com-
mittee the authors state:
Some of the roads are magnificent
engineering achievements driven through
the hearts of the cities with great ingenuity
- —but also, all too often, with a brutal dis-
regard for the appearance and the amenity
o£ the cities they serve.
This criticism, please note, is not made about
British cities, it pertains to American and
Canadian cities which were studied by
British traffic experts in the course of their
investigation. The last quote describes
adamantly the shortfalls of Highway 401,
now known as Macdonald-Cartier freeway.
And yet this freeway was hailed as a great
accomplishment when it was designed and
built.
Let me reiterate that solutions that appear,
on the surface, to be inescapable, do not
always constitute the right approach. When
our cities were built, the needs for increased
motor traffic could not have been anticipated.
So we must correct the mistakes of omission
made in the past. But what matters is the
attitude, the overall philosophy, of how to
relate highways to cities, and traffic to man.
A man called S. Chermayeff in his book,
"The New Nomads," has realized this need,
and he has put it into three admirable sen-
tences:
We don't get together any longer neces-
sarily because we are neighbours; we get
together because we have something in
common or a task to perform. I am con-
vinced that we are going to regroup,
largely because of the compulsions of the
rise in population, the rise in technology,
and the infinite complexity of our systems.
And I don't wish to accommodate any
transportation system at the expense of
other values.
This writer is warning us not to fall prey
to worshipping the automobile as an end in
itself. However, the automobile is here to
stay, and rightly so. So we must tackle the
problem of how to steer it away from our
immediate environment where the auto-
mobile causes confusion, danger, inconveni-
ence, foul air and, specifically, ugliness in
our' landscape.
This concept, if it is realized, requires
planners of outstanding calibre. How good
these highway and city planners must be is
described in a paragraph of a magnificent
book entitled "Planning for Man and Motor,"
written and compiled by Paul Ritter, who is
director of the international traffic separa-
tion planning research office in Nottingham,
England.
It takes the whole man, the feeling
philosopher, not only the objective scien-
tist in each one of us, to take properly
into consideration functional and ethical
implications, imagination, aspirations. The
planner must be a man who can imagine,
visualize and subscribe to the vision of
another, and then work for its realization.
Is the hon. Minister of Highways such a man,
such a planner? Is he both philosopher and
objective scientist? The hon. Minister is
neither, in the context of highway planning.
He is a politician who must begin to realize
some of the obvious problems entailed in
planning highways. He, as a politician, must
be expected to be intelligent and sensitive
enough to appoint such people, such philos-
ophers and objective scientists. Only if he
does that can we expect his department to
come up with the kind of answers this prov-
ince needs. But of course it does not end
with The Department of Highways.
The department must, if it is to function
along these lines, become a part of an overall
effort by the government of this province to
grasp the challenge of our decade. What is
this challenge? Among other matters, it is
mobility— or transportation, or movement on
roads, whichever way we describe it.
Here is what Ritter has to say about this
challenge:
This is the century of the common man.
The luxury of planning is to be for all.
The motor vehicle is to serve every family.
All this is a challenge of immense propor-
tions. It is not a matter of mere accom-
modation, not a matter simply of good
looks or smooth traffic flow. The task is
to provide an environment conducive to
better satisfaction of primary needs. The
positive attributes of a wonderful mobility
given efficient vehicular service, and the
planning of communities taking into
account the advantages of co-operation, by
those who wish to co-operate, give an in-
crease in the choices available to each
individual, extending his capacity and his
opportunities.
These are great words, they are good words.
But do we have, in Ontario, wonderful
mobility?
To some of us this mobility may appear
wonderful at times. At other times we wish
we wouldn't have to drive because our frus-
trations mount, our health deteriorates, our
blood pressure rises, and our well-being is
undermined. Let me quote Alec Issigonis,
MARCH 3, 1966
1141
the brilliant chief engineer of the British
Motor Corporation who was quoted in the
New Statesman of August 6, 1965, in an
article entitled "The Steel Beetles," written
by' William Connor, better known as
Cassandra:
I have given up driving for pleasure.
The car is going to contribute very largely
to wrecking our civilization.
In the words of Paul Ritter, it is time every-
one of us co-operate, and that includes The
Department of Highways, it includes the
hon. Minister in particular, and the govern-
ment in general.
Let me return to the Macdonald-Cartier
freeway as an example. When it was built,
it contained two lanes in both directions.
Soon the traffic planners found it became
congested, particularly during morning and
evening rush hours, and during peak periods
in the summer holiday travel.
Now, when a road or a highway or a free-
way becomes congested, there are 12 obvious
remedies. They are: (1) It may be widened;
(2) A highway or a freeway can be built;
(3) Obstructions such as pedestrians, or traffic
lights, or parking can be taken out of the
road; (4) Traffic may be diverted; (5) Paths
or public transport may be made more attrac-
tive; (6) The goals toward which the traffic
streams may have their position changed;
(7) The working hours which create the
congestion could be staggered; (8) Parking
costs at the destination could be raised, dis-
couraging travel; (9) The use of the road
could be charged for with a similar effect;
(10) Smaller vehicles could be used; (11)
More people could travel per car; (12) Any
combination of the above could be tried.
These 12 points are a veritable profusion
of alternatives. But what did The Depart-
ment of Highways decide to do in the case
of. the old Highway No. 401? It decided to
widen it to up to 12 and more lanes. And
now comes the main point of these 12
alternatives, according to Paul Ritter s book:
The obvious first solution, to Widen the
road, is, ironically, likely to be the least
effective.
In other words, The Department of Highways
has chosen, very likely, the least effective
method to remedy the congestion on the old
401. This proves, beyond any doubt, that the:
planners in The Department of Highways
are not sufficiently adept in adopting new
methods, in incorporating new philosophies
of travel and highway construction. But it is,
and I want to make this point very strongly,
not necessarily: their fault. It is up to the
hon. Minister to provide his experts with
the kind of help and guidance they need.
What kind of traffic must our roads, out
highways, our freeways, accommodate? The
function of private vehicles, besides all the
other types of vehicle traffic, I have outlined
earlier, is six-fold:
(1) Travel to work; (2) School and univer-
sity traffic— children being taken to school
and students driving to their alma mater;
(3) Shopping; (4) Visiting — which includes
visits to lawyers, doctors and social visits;
(5) Sports and cultural events; (6) Weekend
and holiday travel.
In the report of the steering group on the
Buchanan report, the authors draw analogies
between Britain on one hand and Canada
and the United States on the other.
If the coming great flood of vehicles
means freer and easier transport of goods
and persons, it cannot help but be bene-
ficial. If, however, it leads to a clogging
of the arteries, it may lead to a general
thrombosis.
I submit that all over Ontario, our "highway
system is already suffering from thrombosis.
Another aspect of car ownership is even
more relevant in the report:
Before very long, a majority of the
electors in the country will be car owners*
What is more, it is reasonable to suppose
that they will be very conscious of their
interests as car owners and will give them
a high priority, it does not need any 'gift
of prophecy to foresee that the govern-
ments of the future will be increasingly
preoccupied with the wishes of the car
owners.
I presume the hon. Minister of Highways will
agree with me that what is described in this
paragraph is already true in Ontario. This
government has indeed acceded to the w,ishes
of the car owners, often at the expense of
other commodities or necessities. It is. acceded
to the driving electorate to the point where
highways have become political tools, fiave •
become Vote-getting tools. Mr. Chairman, this
is done according to the motto: "Keep the
driver happy and you keep 90 per cent o'F'the
population happy." I would hot even attempt
to make an issue out of this fact were it
not that our highways do not fulfil the
functions they have been .assigned. We have
already heard why. r , '/....
The report; goes on: : ,. ;
These matters are not purely speculative*;
We can draw on a mass of evidenqe avail-
able from the United States and Canada,
which are, broadly speaking, a- generation
further into the motor: age!, tlfcn Britain.!-
1142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. Minister could argue: "So what's
wrong with giving the driving public more
and more highways?" Again the report of
the steering group on the Buchanan report
gives the irrefutable answer:
The American [and so, the Canadian 1
policy of providing motorways [the English
word for our highways] for commuters
can succeed, even in American conditions,
only if there is a disregard for all con-
siderations other than the free flow of
traffic which seems sometimes to be almost
ruthless.
And the report criticizes further:
Even with all the advantages that their
circumstances provide for the success of
a motorway policy, many Americans
[and so, Canadians] are coming to doubt
whether it provides a final solution. Each
new motorway, built to cope with exist-
ing traffic, seems to call into existence
new traffic sufficient to create a new
congestion.
The obvious answer to this congestion of
our highways is to build a new system of
interurban railways. And I must agree, Mr.
Chairman, that the first major step in this
direction has been made recently with the
planning of the rapid transit system between
Dunbarton and Burlington.
But many more rapid transit systems or
interurban railway systems must be built
soon to ease the traffic congestion. I can
imagine that the planners are afraid their
spanking new rapid transit systems would not
be used by enough commuters. The British
report seems to support this fear: "The
car commuter cannot be forced back on the
public transport— not, that is to say, in a car-
owning democracy."
However, several traffic experts have
recently estimated that car commuters will
indeed resort to public transport if they find
that highways are clogged and slow and
expensive to travel, while a rapid transit
system is cheaper, clean and fast. Just con-
sider these benefits of rapid transit, as
presented by L. M. Schneider in his article
in Traffic Quarterly of January, 1961. It is
entitled: "Impact of rapid transit extensions
on suburban bus companies."
Mr. J. F. Edwards (Perth): Mr. Chairman,
may I make a point here? A lot of the heavy
stuff which is not going by rail— steel, logs
and some explosives— should be back on the
rails where they belong.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, if some hon.
member will decipher the question and let
me know what he means later on, I will try
to answer it.
Mr. Edwards: Sure, I will tell you. I will
tell you right now. The Department of High-
ways has spent a lot of money building high-
ways to carry a lot of the heavy loads of
steel-
Mr. Bryden: You tell the hon. Minister of
Highways that.
Mr. Edwards: I want to do it here, if you
do not mind. As far as I am concerned, we
have railroads in this country which are
doing a fair chore; they want to cut lines
off, they want to do this, they want to do
that-
Mr. Chairman: Let us get back on the
rails again.
Mr. Edwards: I am just asking a question.
I am not talking on the estimates. Are you
in favour of that, are you in favour of truck-
ing steel from the Sault instead of sending
it by rail?
Mr. Gisborn: No, I think the transportation
of heavy material should be done by rail,
moved by locomotive.
Mr. Edwards: I have a few more points,
too.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, I was just
going to quote from an article by L. M.
Schneider in Traffic Quarterly of January 1,
1961. It is entitled: "Impact of rapid transit
extensions on suburban bus companies."
He says these are the benefits as against
car commuting: (1) reduced automobile con-
gestion; (2) improved property values; (3)
reduced travel times; (4) access to new jobs;
(5) smog reduction; (6) lower commuter costs;
(7) greater residential availability; (8) greater
cultural accessibility; (9) new leisure oppor-
tunities; (10) expanded sales markets; (11)
lower (car) insurance rates; (12) auto acci-
dent reduction; (13) expanded labour
markets; (14) preservation of scenic beauty;
(15) new civil defence facilities; (16) lower
freight costs; (17) better city planning; (18)
wider access to schools.
Some of these 18 points in favour of rapid
transit systems should tickle the capitalist
palate of government members.
What are some of the types of possible
rapid transit systems? Buses are still the
cheapest form of mass commuting; but they
have the disadvantage of being as slow
as any private car during rush hours. In
effect, slower still because of frequent stops.
MARCH 3, 1966
1143
Then we know of the duo-rail system of
streetcars and suburban trains. Streetcars
are outmoded and have been scrapped in
many countries, except in Ontario. They are
even slower than buses.
Suburban commuter trains are different;
they would work, except that we have but
a very few lines. In order to be fast and
effective they need uncongested areas with-
out intersections and other obstacles.
The monorail system has been built experi-
mentally in Seattle, in Tokyo and in Turin,
Italy. In Germany, in the city of Wuppertal,
a suspended monorail has been working for
the past 40 or 50 years, but it has not been
copied anywhere else except in experimental
form.
Subways are good for sleeping, as the
title of a play goes. They are also good for
fast and clean commuting. But they only
solve the commuting needs of a large metro-
politan city such as Toronto and Montreal.
A possible alternative is self-guided bus
trains, where the buses arrive at a predeter-
mined place, are coupled together, and make
the journey into the heart of the city or the
town together. This system is also experi-
mental and is described in detail in Paul
Ritter's book on page 99. I will leave that
to the hon. members who are interested to
look it up and get some education in regard
to public transportation.
Reviewing my remarks, I find it unfortu-
nate that The Department of Highways is
concerned almost exclusively with the plan-
ning and building of new highways. We
cannot afford to divorce our Department of
Highways from The Department of Trans-
port, because the role the automobile plays
today in the life of man is staggering.
Everything connected with driving, there-
fore, be it roads or safety, warrants the
scrutiny and the constant attention of both
departments, in fact, of The Department of
Municipal Affairs as well as The Department
of Economics and Development.
Again we see little evidence of a cohesive,
co-ordinated approach. This government
prefers piecemeal solutions.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, unless this
government comes to understand the com-
plicated and intricate area of man and
motor,, getting from A to B will be more
and more unpleasant. There is no longer
any excuse for catering to the motorist with
more highways without considering the fact
that the same motorist is also a human being
who likes breathing, likes living in a beautiful
landscape, and likes going to work as fast
and as safely as his wife and family would
want him to.
Mr. Chairman, if I might mention— and
I will not try to impose something that you
may think out of order— but tonight we took
a vote on a challenge of a ruling by the
chair. I think it was both on a technical,
and perhaps a precedented reason, or some-
thing that has happened just lately, such as a
board of arbitration being established to make
certain investigations. I am not, at this point,
going to argue the pro and con of the vote
or the reasoning, but I do think that it is
time that, during estimates, the Minis-
ters should at least have some responsibility
and some interest in the wages paid to the
men who are in their departments and under
their jurisdictions. Not that they should
establish them, but I think they should have
the fortitude to make comments on them.
I think it would give some direction to the
people who are responsible for arriving at a
basis, and it would help out greatly in this
problem of salaries in the departments.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
as on the previous occasion, I hardly know
where to start with any comment. I suppose
it is possible to agree generally with the
theory and the philosophy that was ex-
pounded here by the hon. member. I did not
detect more than a line or two of anything
original; I gathered that he was reading
someone else's views rather exclusively into
the record.
Mr. Bryden: Not quite.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, very gen-
erally, they were someone else's views.
Mr. Bryden: They were views worth list-
ening to, except that the hon. Minister has
not absorbed them.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think I would
like to say, on that score to the hon. member,
that reference was made here to the question
of whether the Minister of Highways was a
planner, philosopher, scientist— I do not know
whether—
An hon. member: And a politician.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. Well, we
are going to come to that later.
A politician? Yes, I admit to that. A
philosopher? I am not too sure. I have cer-
tain philosophies, of course, that we in The
Department of Highways work together on. A
scientist? No, I make no profession to being
1144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a scientist, but I can tell you this: The
Minister of Highways does not have to be a
scientist, he does not have to be a planner,
and he does not have to be a philosopher to
any considerable extent, because this Mini-
ster does not have to be. He is surrounded
in The Department of Highways, with the
best planners on the continent, and with
the best engineers, and I can assure you
that the advice and direction I get from these
people is highly valuable to me.
Mr. Thompson: How about philosophy?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Philosophy? I
will admit to a little bit of philosophy— and
it is riot all political.
Again, let us see if we can pick any pre-
cise detail out of this scattergun generaliza-
tion of somebody else's thinking that the
hon. member presented to the House.
Mr. Bryden: What is the hon. Minister's
basis for saying that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Because he read
it off!
Mr. Bryden: That does not make it a
scattergun summary of other people's think-
ing, but it has apparently made the hon.
Minister confused and very scattered.
Interjections from hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor,
please.
Mr. Gisborn: I would say this, Mr. Chair-
man: If the hon. Minister can prove with-
out a doubt that the conditions the hon.
member for Windsor- Walkerville and I have
put forward do not exist, then I will say that
there is no reason to accept some ideas and
reasoning to better the conditions.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right! Let us
start off with what the hon. member refers
to as "piecemeal" spending. I can assure the
House and the hon. member that it is not
piecemeal spending. The spending of The
Department of Highways is part of a well-
pTahried programme. Every dollar that is
expended by The Department of Highways
is either part of a new plan, or a stage of a
new plan.
Mr. Gisborn; If they are all like the Queen
Elizabeth plan-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon-. Mr. MacNaughton: When the Queen
Elizabeth was built 30 years ago it wis re-
garded on this continent, ! as .the hon. mem-
ber knows, something well in advance of its
day. I think it has the record of being the
first limited access facility ever built through
open country.
Interjections by hori. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I can tell the
hon. member and the hon. members of the
House that the results of the Niagara trans-
portation study, which Were presented a year
ago lanuary, proved very conclusively to
everybody who was there, that the planners
of that day could not have chosen a better
route or a better way to get from the Niagara
peninsula to Toronto. It stands today just
as well as it did on the day that it was
planned, 30 years ago.
An hon. member: Who built that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It does not really
matter. It was built in the days of the Liberal
administration; and for this, more credit to
them. That does not detract one bit from it.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If the hon. mem-
ber is interested in this— he wanted some an*
swers and I am trying to give them to him.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor,
please.
, Hon. Mr. MacNaughton; , Reference was
made to the Queen Elizabeth Way, built
30 years ago, not being properly conceived
nor properly planned^pos§ibly because we
have to widen it today., Is this the reason the
hon. member advances? Probably because. we
have to put control of access On it?
Mr. Gisborn: But yoii have been. doing it
every year since.it started!, ,
Hori. Mr. MacNaughtorit Exactly. We are
doing it in stages and we are doing ib in
those areas where, priority: demands it. • _
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister if 'his' consultant,1 his
planner, Dr. Plcva agrees with him that this
was such a well-pja,nried highway? Is he in
agreement on this?
How. Mr. MacNaughton: I can tell the hon.
member that Dr. Pie va; attended the pres-
entation of the London area transportation
study and, I think, vouchsafes the planning
MARGH 3, 1966
1145
of The Department o£ Highways over the
period of this last number of years as being
quite satisfactory.
Mr/ Thompson* I am thinking of the
Queen Elizabeth highway. Is Dr. Pleva in
agreement that the Queen Elizabeth highway
is the ntost resourceful and the best approach
for a highway to be built to Niagara Falls?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Could
the hon. Minister vouchsafe that?
Hon. Mr.; MacNaughton: Yes, I can.
"Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister says
that he is— I just want to get his answer.
He says that he is in close consultation with
him?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I see Dr. Pleva
from time to time. He is not one of our
consultants.
Mr. Thompson; The hon. Minister was ex-
plaining that when he was asked about hav-
ing scientists and planners; he mentioned
his name and I want an answer from the hon.
Minister as to whether Dr. Pleva agrees that
the Queen Elizabeth highway is the best con-
structed and put in the most resourceful
position.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I made no men-
tion of Dr. Pleva's name at any stage of my
remarks.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister men-
tioned that, he does work with his depart-
ment.
;Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no, I did not;
the hon. leader of the Opposition raised the
name and I said that he was at a transporta-
tion study in London. I never raised the
name, the hon. leader of the Opposition did.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister knows
the man.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Very welh
Mr. Thompson: Since you know him well,
Could 'the h6m -Minister tell me if he is in
agreement that the Queen Elizabeth highway
Hon. Mi^. MacNaughton: He has not taken
me into his confidence on that. I say that we
know. I regard our planning people as being
just as igbod as Dr. Pleva* quite frankly,
just as -good. That is not to say that Dr.
Pleva is not a very careful man in terms of
planning, land 'use and everything else; I
know that her is & foremost authority on it
and regarded as such, but when it comes to
planning roads, knowing where they should
go and why, I do not think the people of the
province of Ontario have to take a back seat
to the planners we have in our department
at all— not at all!
Mr. Thompson: May I say that the hon.
Minister has not answered my question. I
asked him if either Dr. Pleva or—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I said that I did
not know.
Mr. Thompson: What about Dr. Krueger?
He helped the hon. Ministers department.
Does he agree that the Queen Elizabeth
highway—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We have never
consulted Dr. Krueger.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Minister has
never consulted him?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am just going
to try to close off this matter, Mr. Chairman,
by paying tribute to the people who planned
the Queen Elizabeth Way 30 years ago.
They did a splendid job, because it is serv-
ing the driving public in that corridor just
as efficiently and well today as it did, then.
All the projections that we can make
through to 1985-
Mr. S. Lewis: Are there many projections?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, there are
enough to convince us that it is still going
to serve the travelling public in that corridor
as far as highway facilities are* concerned;
so this is i once when I have to pay tribute
to the planners who worked for. ilie Liberal
government ■ of the day. ; ; ••
. Mr. S. Lewis: It happens rarely. :
, Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Now then, Mr.
Chairman, I was going to make' mention of
the fact that the hon. member was reading
material — I believe Tie was quoting, from
Buchanan there at one time, WaS he riati*
He did qualify it later on by saying he
was dealing with England, and with 'respect
to England he is quite right. )
; t Mr. Gisborn : But they investigated the
American system. - ,
1146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, but he was
largely back to the traffic density problems
in and around London and parts of England,
I think, in terms of that treatise that he
wrote.
Mr. Cisborn: He based the mish-mash of
uncontrolled—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well then, he
had better go back to Britain, because they
are going to be involved in tremendous ex-
penditures to catch up on the backlog of
lack of planning and vehicle density.
Mr. Gisborn: That has nothing to do with
the problem.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I tried to pay
strict attention to the hon. member when
he was reading mostly somebody else's
remarks. I wonder if he paid as strict atten-
tion to the remarks I made when I addressed
the House.
Mr. Bryden: When the hon. Minister was
reading somebody else's remarks, he means.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no.
Mr. Bryden: He is floundering when he is
trying to go it on his own.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We attribute
these remarks to nobody. But I think, Mr.
Chairman, the whole theme of what was
said to the House there indicates the extent
to which I concur that some of the state-
ments, made by others that the hon. member
read, have some validity.
He made reference to the matter of know-
ing how and why roads should go in a
certain direction, why they are located where
they are. Of course, I explained to the House
a year ago that this was the very purpose
of our area transportation studies, the reason
we have divided the province into 19 areas.
The hon. member made reference to
studies commencing in 1957. We have im-
plemented the general recommendations of
those reports and now we are into the more
specific character of highway planning. I
have already told the House that we have
completed three of these studies. There will
be more completed in 1966, and they will
continue. Already some of the recommenda-
tions from these reports are in varying stages
of implementation.
There was reference made to the county
needs study which was completed. This was
done, as I pointed out to the House, to de-
velop a desirable system of county roads;
because if they are not integrated with our
King's highways, then the highway system of
the province does not fulfill the complete
service that it could.
These county needs studies are completed
and already the counties are moving to-
wards the implementation of the recom-
mendations of that study. It is a basis upon
which we determine their eligibility for
direct assistance, shall I say. We determine
where the need exists for expenditure of
direct assistance funds. These studies were
largely completed towards the end of 1965
and I can say to the hon. member we are
in the course of implementing the recom-
mendations now.
I can say to him that in the counties of
Lambton, Lanark, Frontenac, Hastings, and
in many others, this implementation process
is under way and the studies were completed
only in December, 1965.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask
the hon. Minister, what does he mean by
implementation? Actual construction or just
figures on paper?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I mean the
approval and allocation of funds in terms of
direct assistance, better known as develop-
ment roads, pre-engineering designations
which will lead to construction designations
as soon as the design and engineering is
completed. In all these counties, and there
are more, they simply know now that they
will get the money to build these road re-
quirements above and beyond their normal
subsidy or bylaw programme. This is what
we call direct aid.
I am sure you know what a development
road is. And this was the purpose of it— to
determine not only the extent to which
county roads have to be integrated with our
King's highway system, but also the study of
what is taking place in these 19 transporta-
tion areas. We are now in the process of
putting them together. The plan is there
to work against now, for the future. But
implementation is already under way.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may
ask the hon. Minister another question on
that: From the point where you originally
start a study in a community, up until the
time you get your first vehicle on the road,
how long does it take?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say, in
some cases, two years and in some cases five.
We project the needs over a 20-year period
and we usually divide it into three stages.
The first stage is for early implementation,
MARCH 3, 1966
1147
because they are priorities; second priorities
are in the second stage; and the third stage
has lower priorities. But we move into it
in this area. Not only do we accomplish it
in this way; it simply means that everything
that is done in that area becomes a part of
the implementation of the plan. It is a
staged programme. I am sure the hon.
member would agree with the sensibility of
that.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask the hon. Minister a question?
In regard to this needs study, some of these
roads are going to be handed back to the
municipalities. Is that right? To the town-
ships?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
Mr. Spence: That is a step backwards, is
it not?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I think I was attempting to deal with
this general matter of planning. This should
really come up under another vote.
Mr. Spence: I will withdraw my question
and ask it later.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
have not much more to say. I can agree with
some of the general observations that were
made. I think I am going to get on with
this matter of direct questions and perhaps
we can answer the hon. members as we go.
One more word with respect to Highway
401 with reference to the widening of the
Toronto bypass, as the hon. member calls it.
He calls this poor planning, but of course
when the original bypass road went through
there, there was very little of Toronto up
there. There was a little bit of dislocation
in Weston, probably a little bit in the area of
Avenue road, but this area of the city had
not developed at that time. Since then, that
transportation facility I think has made a
greater contribution to the development of
that portion of Metro than probably any
-other single facility. It is rather obvious,
with the extent that Toronto has grown north
-almost up to Steeles avenue, if you wish.
But I would make one more reference to
the planning and pay tribute to the people
who planned for it. They were foresighted
•enough to acquire most, if not all, of the
property requirements at the time, so that
this entire widening process has been
possible with the acquisition of very little
more land. As a matter of fact, it will be
< of interest to the House, I think, to know
that the cost of additional land to undertake
this entire widening process, I think, was
something in the order of $8 million— a very
small amount when you consider what is
being done up there.
I think this is foresight; I think it is good
planning; because it was done quite some
years ago as we are reminded from time to
time. I call this foresight. And I think 401,
in its entirety, has lent to the development
of the southern portion of the province. We
are told it has. Ask the people in Kitchener
what they think about 401. It puts people
on Bay street and King street from Kitchener
in an hour.
Mr. Gisborn: At 60 miles an hour?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, an hour
and a quarter— who is going to quibble over
that? You can get from Guelph down here
very handily, I am sure.
Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, so there is
no misunderstanding, 401 was started origi-
nally some years ago; we are now in 1966.
Some of the ideas that I put forward are
some that I think will deserve consideration
for 20 or 25 years from now. I would have
hoped that the hon. Minister would have
made some comment on the need for rapid
transit, such as the experiment they are try-
ing—whether they intend to expand this sort
of system. If the experimental case from
Burlington to Dunbarton is successful— this
is what we want to know, and is this the
programme-
Mr. Chairman: I suggest to the member
that any questions as far as expansion of the
rail service can be brought under the actual
vote.
Mr. Bryden: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. Minister did not comment on that
at all.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
am prepared to comment on that in general
terms and we can come back to the detail on
the vote, if it is all right with you, sir.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will answer this
question of the hon. member. I think it is
rather implicit. It has been said many times
that this experimental service we hope to
have underway in about a year from now—
from the earliest announcement and in many
subsequent announcements, it has been said,
it has been printed and recorded— will be
expanded. I have pointed out to the House
1148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that there are a number of rail lines con-
verging on Toronto. As a matter of fact, I
put it this way to the hon. member and I
will come back to that: You only have to get
out of Toronto to realize the extent of the
tremendous opportunity to develop one of
the greatest urban transportation systems in
the world. You only have to go to cities like
Los Angeles which has virtually been ruined
with concrete expressways. You only have to
go to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, any
of the cities you want to mention, and see
their transportation problem to realize the
great, great opportunity this capital city of
Ontario has to become the finest transporta-
tion urban municipality in the world. You
do not have to go to London, England, to
do it.
Now then-
Mr. Bryden: You would not even subsidize
the subway.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well-
Mr. Bryden: Even now you subsidize it on
a two-bit basis. You do not give it a proper
subsidization in relation to highways.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Let me come to
that. We subsidize at the same rate as we
would subsidize it if it were a surface facility,
the rate that is permitted—
Mr. Bryden: You did not—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh, yes, we do.
Mr. Bryden: You did not— on the express-
ways in Metro Toronto, you pay 50 per cent
of the cost, on the subway you paid a third,
I think it is, and only a third of the right-of-
way.
You have to have cars on subways or did
you hear about that? You are not even ap-
proaching the problem. You are discriminat-
ing in favour of expressways and it is a very
shortsighted policy.
Mr. Chairman: I think I will have to
ask the members to refrain from participation
now except under the specific vote. I would
ask the Minister to continue with his ex-
planatory statement.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If I may con-
clude, I would say it must be implicit, there
is no doubt about the importance we place
on ma5s transportation, there is no doubt
about that.
Mr. Gisborn: All I can say, Mr. Chairman,
after the last, comments of the hon. Minister,
is if we cannot put enough emphasis on the
need for rapid transit, then my whole efforts
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am suggesting
that we wait for the vote which comes under
806 or 811 in connection with it.
Mr. Chairman: Now 801 is before us.
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister made a
few comments concerning my remarks in
there and I think that he misunderstood-
Mr. Chairman: Is this under No. 801?
Mr. Newman: Yes, it is under all of these.
Mr. Chairman: No, no, if it is under 801
we are ready to proceed with it.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, how do you
get under a general vote when one, of {he
questions we have asked is whether the Kon.
Minister was ready to consider the amal-
gamation of the two departments, The De-
partment of Highways and The Department
of Transport?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Newman: Well, where do you put it
then, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Thompson: It is obviously under ad-
ministration. Administration of two depart-
ments coming into one?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
It is a matter of government policy, it does
not come under this vote. If they want to
advance that as their proposition, then bring
it up in the Throne debate or the Budget
debate, or the hon. leader of the Opposition
can bring it up when he winds up the
Throne debate.
There are lots of opportunities. It is not
the Minister's responsibility during, the esti-
mates to talk about the amalgamation in
detail of his department with another.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, with all
due respect to the House leader, 1 suggest
that under general administration, which is
the item we are discussing, that surely a
member of the Opposition can suggest the
broad outline of administration which we
think a particular department should em-
brace and this is what we are suggesting.
Most logically and lucidly the hon. member
for Windsor-Walkerville is suggesting' that
you should include a larger area of respon-
sibility.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to point out
to the leader of the Opposition- and the
MARCH 3, 1966 Vi)
ai49
members that this year's estimates have
been'. broken down into, I think, about 11
estimates in comparison with last year when
we had three only. There are several oppor-
tunities' to discuss all phases of this as we
go along and I suggest we follow what you
requested, some form of order.
No. 801, please. The first item, travelling
expenses, maintenance, collection of bridge
tolls—everything under 801, please.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under col-
lection of bridge tolls, is the department con-
sidering eliminating the tolls on the Burling-
ton skyway in the near future?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The answer is
"no." ; .
Mr. I>. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, in regard to the Burlington sky-
way and the Garden city skyway I have
heard rumours to the effect that the cost of
collecting the tolls on these exceeded the
tolls gained. Could the hon. Minister verify
this, .question, please?
'Hon. 'Mr. MacNaughton: I am sorry.
Mr. Chairman: The member was asking
whether the amount collected was less than
the. amount of cost.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is correct.
I have this information in some detail here.
I can provide it for the hon. member.
Nowj on the matter of traffic and toll
revenue, on the Burlington Bay skyway the
total, in 1965 is $966,570, which, as a matter
of interest, is an increase of $121,788 over
the previous year. Again a matter of interest,
since the tolls were rather sharply reduced
what.it does do is reflect a very substantial
increase in vehicular use.
The tolls pay for maintenance, they take
care of maintenance, they take care of staff,
they take care of part of the interest on the
debt— not quite all of it— but they do not pro-
vide yet for any debt retirement, I can
assure the hon. member.
I: have similar figures for the Garden City
skyway if he is interested. On the Garden
City skyway, the total revenue is $635,139,
which is an increase of $54,000 over the
previous year again. Since the tolls were re-
ducecj there are more trucks; particularly in
the trtick classes there is a greater vehicular
use.' : ■:.•.,..-■; : i,
•Mr. Patersoti: The tolls on these bridges,
I believe are what, 15 cents, but a person
utilizing these quite frequently can buy, what
is it, 17 for a dollar-? v. :
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Twenty for a
dollar.
Mr. Newman: Under what vote could I
ask the hon. Minister questions on property
rentals, gas pump revenue, workmen's com-
pensation, price index?
Mr. Chairman: When we get down to item
8, we will have workmen's compensation.
Mr. Newman: Well, I have a series in
here that may be scattered anywhere, you
just tell me when I can ask and I will be
glad to abide.
Mr. Chairman: Fine. Anything further on
item number 8? On workmen's compensation.
The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, page 35 Of
the hon. Minister's annual report, I notice
that the workmen's compensation from the
years 1964 to 1965 have dropped substanti-
ally. Is that because of the decrease of num-
ber of personnel? In 1964 it was $280,000.
In 1965, it is down to $229,000. Is that as a
result of less work being done by the depart-
ment, farming out the work, fewer employ-
ees? What is it, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is a better ac-
cident experience. The rate of contribution
is adjusted from time to time and as the
claims experience goes down, then so is the
rate adjusted.
Mr. Newman: It has nothing to do with
the fact that more work may be done by
private contractors than by the hon. Min-
ister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right. That
is quite right.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have a
second question. Would it come in this vote
somewhere? ■ "'■
Mr. Chairman: What do you mean by
price index?
Mr. Newman: The tender price index, page
34 of the hon. Minister's report;.
Mr. Chairman: That would be m the capi-
tal section, 807, I think.
Mr. Newman: Now I have several ques-
tions under property rentals. I might as well
ask them now and get them over with, Mr.
Minister.
1150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I must say Mr.
Chairman, in answer to that, that these are
expenditure estimates. I think it is fair to
say in a general way no revenue accrued to
any department. It accrues to the consoli-
dated revenue fund. Now these are expendi-
ture estimates only.
Mr. Newman: I know they are expendi-
tures. I simply want to know why for
example, property rentals in 1964 rose from
$267,000 to $716,000 in 1965. There is a
real substantial increase, $500,000 almost.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Would that be
for rental?
Mr. Newman: I have no idea what it is.
It is on page 38 of your annual report, Mr.
Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would like to
ask the hon. member whether he is making
reference to rent we pay for properties we
lease, or rent we receive?
Mr. Newman. Statement of receipts, page
38.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I doubt very
much if I have a record of that. It shows in
the annual report?
Mr. Newman: Yes, Mr. Minister, on page
38. You can supply it to me later, that is
quite all right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right. It is
not in the expenditure items that I have
here.
Mr. Newman: All right. While you are
doing that, also Mr. Minister could you give
me the answer to why the gas pump rev-
enue has dropped from $28,725 to $2,325, a
drop of maybe 1400 per cent over the year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You volunteered
to receive that information at the same time?
Mr. Newman: Yes, sir, that is quite all
right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no, I think
I can give that information now. It is a field
we have abandoned. We have cut out of
this. We frankly found it was costing us
more to collect these rentals than we were
taking in.
Mr. Newman: And as a result what is hap-
pening?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We discontinued
it entirely.
Mr. Newman: There are no more pump
rentals then? No revenues from pump ren-
tals?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: As I understand
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
Mr. Paterson: Under item 5, roads pub-
licity, could I ask a question concerning the
department's highways maps? Is this roads
publicity?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think that prop-
erly would come under that vote. Yes, maps
are included in that.
Mr. Paterson: I happened to take a tour of
the Tourism department this past week and
a comment was made about a show in Phila-
delphia and the great mass of circulars and
maps that were being distributed down there
were from the Highways department. The
inference seemed to be that these were given
out holus bolus and that they could obtain
them from you in any number of quantity,
rather than using their own printed matter.
I just wondered if the hon. Minister could
comment on this for me.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I can. Other
than a few routine distributions, we send
some out to our district offices, but the bulk
of our maps are distributed , by The Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information, that is the
form this distribution functions for. Now, Mr.
Chairman, I will have to ask the hon.
member to ask the question of the hon. Min-
ister of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld).
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welling-
ton South.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask one question.
The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville
was discussing, a few minutes ago, the
revenue from the service stations on 401.
During the course of the past few years
there have been a number of these stations
gone into bankruptcy. Has The Department
of Highways become involved in this, or have
they lost any money to any extent in this
bankruptcy operation?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: None of the
service centres, as such, have gone into bank-
ruptcy. This would be impossible really, be-
cause they are all operated by the oil
companies. Now there have been some
restaurants get into difficulty in these service
centres*
MARCH 3, 1966
1151
Mr. Worton: Well, that is what I mean.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We do not get
involved in that. That is a problem that is
entirely that of the oil companies because
all these arrangements are with them and
then they make the arrangements with the
catering people.
Mr. Worton: This is what I am getting at,
Mr. Minister, your revenue is guaranteed by
the oil companies?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, our contract
is with the oil companies entirely.
Mr. Worton: And they have gone into
bankruptcy but your stake in it is guaranteed
by the oil companies, and there has been no
loss whatever?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No loss accrued
to the department.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
East.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question, I am not sure
whether it comes under item 5 or comes
under 804. It is concerning the overhead
signs on the highways. Would this come
under item 5 or—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: 807.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. Minister a question on the revenues
from all the service centres on 401? How
much revenue was there this past year de-
rived from those service centres? The total.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The estimated
total revenue for all the centres presently
operating for the fiscal year ending March
31 of this year, will be $999,234. Rounded
out, $1 million if you like.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Minister, may I ask if
all the service centres are built around 401,
or are there more to be built?
Mr. Chairman: I think as far as that ques-
tion is concerned, we can wait until we get
into the actual building and construction
which is not before us at the present time.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister whether he exercises price
control over articles sold in the service
centres?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would not say
it is a complete control. We inspect these
people and expect them to be as reasonable
as they can, consistent with the character
of the service they are providing.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey North): Tell the
truth.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: What did the
hon. member say? The hon. member for
Owen Sound, I want to know what he said-
Mr. Newman: He did not say anything,
Mr. Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, that is just
right, he did not say anything. If he said
what I thought he said, I would make him
apologize.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Minister, may F
suggest to you then that your department
have a little closer scrutiny at the prices,
because charging 25 cents for a ten-ounce
glass of coke, half ice, is just a little too
much for a family that may be travelling the
road with three or four children.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I agree with the
hon. member. If he would care to give me
the name of the service centre, we will
certainly take a look into the situation.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Minister, I have
just paid for it less than six weeks ago.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Which one?
Mr. Newman: I will give it to you.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Will you, please?'
It is an exhorbitant charge, I agree with you.
Mr. Newman: I think so too.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question. I understand that the halfway
point in the trans-Canada highway is located
in the northern part of our province. There
was a dispute in that area whether it should
be located in a small community to give some
economic benefit to this community at the
time that the historical branch of our Ontario
government erected their plaque. It was
erected in the middle of nowhere. I just
wondered if the deparmtent have any plans
of making this area more attractive to give
full cognizance to the fact that this is the
midway point in the trans-Canada highway?'
Mr. Chairman: I am not sure what this
comes under. Is there anything under this^
particular vote, 801?
1152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Paterson: I am not sure either.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, under 801, this
might be the appropriate place for me to ask
the hon. Minister a few questions concerning
the roads on Indian reserves.
I understand that in the improvement of
these roads the provincial share is paid for
with a grant that goes to the Indian council.
Mr. Chairman: Is this for the construction
of these roads? I think anything for the con-
struction of the roads would properly come
under—
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I will ask the question
where you say, sir, but of course this is on
Indian reserves where it means dealing with
the government of Canada and I do not be-
lieve that the estimates elsewhere deal with
a matter like that.
Mr. Chairman: I think that practically
everything under ordinary expenditures and
maintenance comes right up to 806 and then
we start into discussion of the construction of
the roads at 807.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think the hon.
member will find it comes up under the muni-
cipal roads branch. I think it is 804.
Mr. Nixon: I will ask it then.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Will you, please?
Because it has to do with municipal road
subsidies and so on.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, where could
we discuss the regulations in reference to
roads and bridge contracts?
Mr. Chairman: Under 807, I would say.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under this
vote, roads publicity. We notice, on High-
way 40.1, our provincial Rondeau park; there
is no sign stating that Rondeau provincial
park is on road 15. Is it the policy of the
government not to advertise provincial parks
on 401?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would think the
access road to the park should be marked
and I am surprised to hear that it is not.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
. Mr. Paterson: I wonder if this is the vote
on which we could ask questions regarding
St. Clair parkway?
Mr. Chairman: Under the planning branch;.
Mr. Newman: .Mr. Chairman, may I sug-
gest to the hon. Minister that he look into
signs for Jack Miner bird sanctuary, too, on
401?
An hon. member: You are just wasting time
now.
Mr. Newman: Well, are you fellows not
interested in selling a tourist attraction in that
area?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I just want to
suggest to the hon. member for Essex South,
under vote 808.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
under item 5 of vote 801, in regard to road
publicity, I am quite sure that the hon. Min-
ister is well aware that the hon. Prime Minis-
ter has stated that the ground rules for
interprovincial conferences are not laid down
by him, but I would ask the hon. Minister
whether the ground rules insofar as confer-
ences with other highway Ministers are con-
cerned are not laid down by him and whether
publicity and the media through which the
public are informed are not of public impor-
tance?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I do not
know whether that is quite appropriately
categorized here. But I will say, because it
is a good question that has to come up some-
time, that the province of Ontario and the
Minister of Highways did play host to the
other nine Ministers of Highways across the
country.
But he did not make the rules. The con-
ference made the rules, which I think is quite
appropriate and it was decided to meet in
camera for a variety of reasons, principally
that no Minister was able to commit his gov-
ernment completely to the recommendations
of the conference. It was felt, sensibly, that
he should take it back to his government.
This was an exploratory thing, which was a
very useful meeting. Much information was
put together. The views of the ten provinces
were discussed thoroughly, consolidated in a
report, the reports were sent back, they were
prepared here, sent to the Ministers of the
various provinces who attended, to be sub-
mitted to their governments for approval,
modification or otherwise.
When that has been done-and I might say
all the provinces have not as yet indicated to
me what the action of their respective govern-
ments was-rwhen that is done, we iwill act as
MARCH 3, 1966
1153
a clearing house and see what steps should
be taken for the next round. Whether it is
another conference, or the manner in which
we present the views and deal with the fed-
eral authorities, I do not know. But this is
the reason why the Ministers in attendance,
or just the conference, if you like, set the
ground rules.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I certainly
heard what the hon. Minister had to say about
the problem, but it seems to me that there
can be very little in the area of the highways
Ministers of the various provinces throughout
Canada that would require that kind of elab-
orate cloak of secrecy, which the hon. Min-
ister imposed on the conference to which he
was a party.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On a point of
order. The Minister did not impose this
cloak of secrecy. The conference decided it
would be done this way.
Mr. Bryden: What was your position then?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We were hosts.
Mr. Bryden: Who called the conference?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The conference
rules were set before the meeting took place.
Mr. Bryden: Who called the conference?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Who called the
conference? It was not called, it was done
by agreement with the Canadian good roads
association when all the Ministers met out
there in Saskatoon. It was suggested that
this would be a good thing and we took the
liberty of inviting them to Ontario. We like
to bring people to Ontario. We like them to
see Ontario. We like to do this, we like to
be good hosts, you see.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the
hon. Minister has explained somewhat of
the background of this conference, but I
would like to have the precise details as to
how the conference took place, whether it
was in fact in the area of the interests of the
provincial-
Mr. Chairman: I am going to suggest to
the member for Riverdale that we get to the
estimates.
Mr. Renwick: Well, it is publicity.
Mr. Chairman: No, I cannot accept at the
present time what you said, that it comes
under publicity of the roads.
Mr; Renwick: Where would it come?
Mr. Chairman: Now this is a different
question entirely.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, surely if
this province was host for a conference, the
public Treasury, at the advice of the hon.
Minister of Highways acting as host, must
have paid for it. And it comes under the
first vote, I would think.
May I say, sir, that on this basis, assum-
ing that that is correct, and I notice the hon.
Minister is nodding, I listened very atten-
tively to what he was saying about the reason
for secrecy. First of all that the conference
has decided this secrecy, but the basis on
which the province decided concerns me.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
of order. I am not quite certain that the hon.
leader of the Opposition is quite in order
on this.
Mr. Chairman: I would agree with the
member for Riverdale. Now regarding the
point that was made, I have no desire what-
soever to restrict discussion. If you want to
discuss it under this particular vote at this
time, I would ask the leader of the Opposi-
tion to yield the floor to the member for
Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the matter
which concerns me and which I think the
hon. Minister should explain to this House
is whether or not this conference fell within
the area that the hon. Prime Minister was
speaking about. The hon. Prime Minister
stated that despite his views about the
secrecy of conferences, he in fact did not
lay down the ground rules. Did in sub-
stance this province and the hon. Minister
of Highways invite the other Ministers of
Highways from across the country to come
here for a conference," thinking that it would
be a very good idea and were the ground
rules not in fact set prior to the arrival of
the Ministers here, because very elaborate
arrangements were made for publicity on
those conferences? It would certainly appear
that it was the intention of this hon. Minis-
ter at the time the conference was convened
in these buildings— or at the Royal York
hotel— that the very fullest publicity would
have taken place about that conference.
There must have been a decision made at
the conference held here which precluded
him from carrying out his evident intention
of providing the fullest disclosure.
Now, if the hon. Minister was the host and
did invite the Ministers of Highways for
the other provinces to attend this conference^
then I think the ground rules were within the
1154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
purview of this government and that the
fullest publicity should have been given to
the activities of that conference.
My reaction simply is why did they post
three Ontario provincial policemen at the
doors of that conference in order to preclude
the dissemination of information? And why
did they hold various news conferences at
which they had nothing to communicate to
the public?
I think that the hon. Minister should
answer these questions and he should answer
them now.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I will answer
them briefly. I have already pointed out
that the conference set the rules; it was their
wish that these meetings be held in camera.
Each province came here to present certain
views and to hear certain views and, I
suppose, the views of their respective depart-
ments. But none of them came prepared to
say what developed at the conference and
what was written into the conference report
could be accepted as part of the policy of
their governments until they returned and
disclosed it to their governments.
Now in the light of that the rules were
set and they were observed. It is one thing
to be host— but I do not think it is up to a
host to impose rules on guests assembled for
that purpose. We simply offered the facili-
ties of Ontario and the Ontario government
for this purpose. We did make provision for
publicity because we had no reason to know,
until the rules were set, that there would not
be any, so we made provision for it.
We had quarters for the reporting staff of
the various media— they were there. Now
there is no point in asking me whether I think
it should have been done differently or not;
that does not matter. The conference decided
otherwise and the conference was conducted
that way. I certainly am not going to com-
ment on the wisdom, or otherwise, of the
decision that was made; I do not think that is
proper, but that was why it was done.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister disclose to us what position he
took as host of this conference when the
question of publicity came up?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Shall I simply say
that I concurred with the majority opinion of
the conference as a member thereof. That is
all I did.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister indicate whether or not he was
part of that majority or whether he was op-
posed to the decision of the conference?
Mr. Chairman: I think he indicated that he
concurred with the majority.
Mr. Renwick: May I ask the hon. Minis-
ter one further question, Mr. Chairman, be-
fore we leave this difficult subject— about
which he is very reluctant to answer any
questions related to it—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have answered
every question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Renwick: Would the hon. Minister of
Highways disclose, since he has no objection
to disclosing the position of this government
and since he made all the arrangements for
the publicity to take place, what was the posi-
tion of this government in the matters which
were discussed at that conference?
Before the hon. Minister answers my ques-
tion, could I perhaps have the opportunity of
conveying to him what I am trying to ask
him about?
Mr. Chairman: If it has anything to do
with publicity under this vote?
Mr. Renwick: Yes. Certainly it has a lot
to do with publicity because we are talking
about the cloak of secrecy with which the
hon. Minister surrounded this conference.
The hon. Minister says that it may well be
that the other Ministers at the conference
were not prepared to disclose to the public
what they had discussed, because it might be
taken as committing their particular govern-
ment to viewpoints about it.
If this hon. Minister made preliminary
arrangements for the kind of publicity which
we think the conference deserved, and which
would have taken place had he not been
overruled at the conference, will he now tell
us what the position was of this government
about the questions which were raised at that
conference?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not going to
give an elaborate answer to this; I undertook
to obey the conference rules and, as a mem-
ber of the conference, the answer is simply
"no."
I am not prepared to disclose this informa-
tion until all the governments represented by
their Ministers of Highways have had a
MARCH 3, 1966
1155
chance to either approve the report, submit
a modification of some sort to it, or to dis-
approve it.
When all that information is together, the
position of the Ontario government will be
incorporated in it and the conference will
probably reconvene and a determination be
made at that time. So I am not prepared to
disclose it now, sir, and I think, with respect,
that we have allowed much latitude on this.
This expenditure here in terms of roads
publicity is really not associated with this at
all, but it appeared to me to be as good a
place as any to discuss it.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the number
of dollars involved is not at issue in this ques-
tion; the important point is the question of
the principle which is involved.
Does the hon. Minister expect that we here
in this Legislature and the people in the prov-
ince of Ontario are going to await the full
agreement of the ten provinces of Canada
before we find out what took place at that
conference? If so, none of us will, in fact, be
here when that decision is arrived at. I think
and my party thinks—
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Duff erin): You
win!
Mr. Renwick: That may very well be true
—and true of others, as well.
But I was thinking of those of us who
might well be here the longest period of
time—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That will be us,
of course. We will still be here to deal with
the report.
Mr. Renwick: I am certain that you will
outlive me.
I would think that the hon. Minister must
not, against his own personal convictions,
cloak what took place at that conference,
under the suggestion that we must await until
all ten provinces represented by their indi-
vidual Ministers of Highways have come to
full agreement with all the governments
across the country before we in the province
of Ontario would have any idea of what was
discussed at that conference.
Now let us not think for one moment that
this is a terribly controversial problem. This
must have to do with highways— it must have
to do with roads. It does not really have to
do with whether or not Confederation is
going to continue or dissolve— it is not one of
that kind of problem. Surely the hon. Minis-
ter has put himself in a ridiculous position
when he agreed to that kind of a decision,
that the Ministers of Highways are entitled to
have all their conferences clothed in a cloak
of secrecy and that we should not know any-
thing about them whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, I am certain that the hon.
Minister does not agree with it; why does he
not come across and tell us what, in fact,
took place at that conference and simply say
that it is a lot of nonsense?
Mr. Chairman: I think that the Minister
has indicated to the member that his decision
has been bound by the conference.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If this is a ques-
tion—I regard it as a speech. I have already
indicated that commitments were made-
nothing to do with the validity of them, or
anything— but I happen to be one that be-
lieves in keeping commitments when I make
them, and so do the other members.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. S. Lewis: The hon. Minister has a
commitment to this Legislature, as well, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Renwick: I am one of the mem-
bers that has a high regard for the hon.
Minister, and his energy and devotion to the
department in which he is concerned. But
I think that even he will recognize that the
decision which he made does not stand up;
it does not recognize, in any way, the fact
that questions relating to highways in the
province of Ontario and the connection be-
tween the highways in this province and in
other provinces, the general area of dis-
cussion of Ministers of Highways, are not
matters, really, which should be cloaked from
the public interest of this province.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is the hon.
member's opinion and he is entitled to it. I
am not quarrelling with it.
Mr. Renwick: The hon. Minister is not
quarrelling with it, but is he, in fact, agree-
ing with it?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the hon. Minister: Does he not think that it is
a ridiculous situation that the Minister of
Highways has placed himself in?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. member
can ask me, but I certainly am not going to
answer.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am very
interested that on the front row benches are
1156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
three discordant voices to the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario, the leader of their party,
because he said very clearly that he thought
it was ridiculous to have this secrecy and he
hoped that there would be changes, but
apparently there are three Ministers and
let me just mention them for Hansard, the
hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), the
hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. Min-
ister of Highways, who obviously are in dis-
agreement with the hon. leader of their party.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: May I say this as well,
that I would hope— there is a very funda-
mental principle attached to this. Now I
appreciate that the hon. Minister of Highways
is saying that he made a commitment because
he was the host Mr. Chairman, I realize
some of them are sensitive and some of them
have great yearnings to take over in the front
bench, but I think their yearnings will last
for many, many years. The contribution is
simply one of cackling over there.
The hon. Minister has said that when he
was host he felt he had to comply with the
guests at the conference. At a conference
at which he is not the host, could we have
from him a commitment that he would stand
with his integrity in connection with secrecy
of conferences?
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I am not going
to permit this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Thompson: Your hon. Prime Minister
is saying he is against it.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the
leader of the Opposition to stay with vote
801.
Mr. Thompson: I am very much on it. I am
wondering in view of the cost of this con-
ference, how much publicity we got from it
and that is what we are trying to seek. It
seems to be the princple that they do not
want to give any publicity in connection
with what went on. The hon. Minister is then
saying that in Dominion or provincial con-
ferences across this country— if he goes as a
guest even— he will still adhere to the prin-
ciple that they would be secret.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would adhere
to the conference rules if a majority of those
who are conferees decided to do it that
way. I might not particularly agree with
the rule, but if the. majority at the conference
decreed that those were the rules of conduct
of the conference, I would, of course, go-
along with it.
Mr. Thompson: I am asking the hon.
Minister this: When he goes to the confer-
ence, before he goes— there are other ways
of trading secrecy, I guess, than by drowning
out the voice of an Opposition leader.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not trying
to drown him out.
Mr. Thompson: May I say this now— no, I
appreciate the hon. Minister was not. May I
ask: Before he knew what the majority
rule was, where would he stand?
Mr. Chairman: No. I am going to suggest
to the leader of the Opposition that this is
a hypothetical question. Let us deal with 801.
Mr. Thompson: It is not a hypothetical
question, Mr. Chairman. The leader of
this party the hon. Prime Minister of this
province, has stated that, as a matter of
government policy, he is against secrecy
at these conferences. And from the hon.
Minister of Highways we cannot elicit that
he would follow his hon. leader with respect
to this principle.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This is a pretty
specious thing; I hope we can dispose of this,
Mr. Chairman. This was the first meeting
of what will be a series of conferences. I
simply suggest then that it is an incomplete
conference. This is an initial report involving
the views of ten provinces, written into the
report.
Certainly, after the views of the respective
governments have been obtained, this con-
ference is going to have to reconvene, no
question about that— in due course I think it
is going to have to reconvene because there
may be modifications of the views, there may
be disapprovals, there may be approvals. I
think it would be prejudicial to the continu-
ing conferences that might have to take
place if these interim things were disclosed.
I simply ask the hon. member and the hon.
leader of the Opposition to take my word
for this— if they will— because to say what
position I might have taken really does not
matter. This is hypothetical, really. I think
at this time it is. There will be a time for
full disclosure of these things when finallza-
tion is obtained.
Mr.. Thompson: Ah, well, that is just my
point One of the other real concerns I have
is just exactly what the hon. Minister is
saying: There will be disclosure whert firializ-
ation takes place and that very statement
MARCH 3, 1966
1157
makes a rubber stamp of this whole Legisla-
ture.; The problem that we are having today
— and Ido not appreciate this sort of "quacky"
shouting out which is all some illiterate
members do with respect to the rules of
Parliament; they are a disgrace as representa-
tives when they stand up here shouting in
that way.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, may
I say that the observations the hon. leader
of the Opposition is making do him no
credit, nor to this House.
Mr. Thompson: Who has the floor?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I rose on a point of
order-
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tions has the floor but I assumed that the
deputy leader stood up on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I rose on a point of
order.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, I did not hear
it.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: And I think the
comments and observations of the hon. leader
of the Opposition, directed at—
Mr. Thompson: What is the point of
order, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The point of order
is simply that the conduct of the hon. leader
of the Opposition is unparliamentary— and
I think apparently it lies in his mouth.
Mr. Chairman: I would rule that dispar-
aging remarks about other members are
definitely out of order.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I am sorry, sir. I
am just reporting with respect to the shouts
and yells which we have been receiving from
other hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the members
of the House to give attention, please, to the
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: May I say on this, sir,
that my other concern and my other princi-
ple is this: Is your concern that when the
province of Ontario meets with other prov-
inces you will not disclose to the public or
to the Legislature— this Legislature which
will be making the decisions— what the deci-
sions are which you have been discussing,
until they are finalized? And I say that that
is making a rubber stamp of this Legislature.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I disagree.
Mr. Thompson: I turn again, sir, if I
could, to come back to this point: Does the
hon. Minister disagree with the hon. Prime
Minister of Ontario, with his remarks that
these conferences should be open? Does the
hon. Minister disagree with that remark of
the hon. Prime Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I did not say
that at all.
Mr. Thompson: I ask: Does the hon.
Minister disagree with the remarks of the
hon. Prime Minister of Ontario, that these
conferences should be open?
Mr. Chairman: I suggest to the leader
of the Opposition that that is not relevant
to this discussion. I am sorry, I—
Mr. Thompson: With deepest respect to
you, we have talked about the money spent-
Mr. Chairman: And now you are asking
about the Prime Minister's decision and
I am saying it is not relevant to this vote.
Mr. Thompson: —which is a policy in con-
nection with publicity about conferences and
we are talking about—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, surely
the hon. leader of the Opposition will recall
that the observations made by the hon. Prime
Minister of this province, were made with
respect to federal-provincial conferences.
Mr. Thompson: I would say, if they are
made with respect to federal-provincial con-
ferences, they are conferences from across
this province, from all across Canada. And
they are going to have the same influence in
my opinion, and be a new approach taken,
to shaping our Confederation. I congratulate
the hon. Minister of Highways on having
initiated and being the host of drawing all
the provinces together and then making pres-
entations to the federal government. This
is a very worthwhile project and it is going
to have as much influence, in my opinion,
as federal-provincial conferences. And the
same principle— as the hon. Prime Minister of
this province has said— applies to all provin-
cial conferences, as to federal-provincial con-
ferences. That is, that they should be open.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 801 carried?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I just want to ask a question of my
hon. friend in relation to what we have been
1158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
talking about. It relates to the apparent
agreement that was reached, or the dis-
cussion that took place, in regard to the
trans-Canada highway— the addition of four
lanes to that highway and the subsequent
suggestion that the federal government
should pay half the cost of that highway.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I should judge that
this question properly comes under the con-
struction vote.
Mr. Gaunt: Well, it is in connection with
publicity and the conference and so on.
Mr. Chairman: That would likely come
under construction, which would be under
our capital disbursements, 807.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I am just
mentioning this as a follow-up to what was—
Mr. Chairman: No, it has nothing to do
with the follow-up of this at all.
Mr. Gaunt: I am talking about the con-
ference and we have been talking about that
all night, or half the night.
Mr. Chairman: You are specifically asking
—as I follow your remark, you are asking
about the construction as far as the federal
highway is concerned.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we know
there was one thing publicized, and that
was that the reason for all these provinces
coming together was questions about a trans-
Canada highway. This was one of the de-
liberations.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If you know that
then, there is no-
Mr. Thompson: —and this is why the hon.
member for Huron-Bruce wants to bring
that up; which, I suggest to you, sir, is per-
fectly correct.
Mr. Chairman: I am suggesting to the
leader of the Opposition that we have several
votes in which, if he wants to deal with the
construction-
Mr. Thompson: No, it is not construction.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, for the sake
of continuity, I brought it up at this time.
However, I am willing to abide by your
ruling. It does not matter when I bring it
up really.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further under
801?
Mr. Bryden: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would
direct the hon. Minister's attention to item
number 6, which is described as relating to
contingencies and sundry awards. I would
like to ask him to explain what contingencies
and sundry awards are.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have it here.
This is an item that we simply put in the
estimates to cover unforeseen expenditures,
such as special investigations, legal fees
under unusual circumstances, and miscell-
aneous. The department also has under
consideration the establishment of a staff
suggestion programme to reward employees
for worthwhile suggestions relative to im-
proving the efficiency of operations, and in
reducing operating costs, and we have made
provision for some funds here.
Mr. Bryden: If you have in mind a pro-
gramme of staff suggestions, why do you
not put it in that form? I suggest to the
hon. Minister that this is really what he
started out to say; it is an item that covers
nothing. The department has just put some
money in there in case something arises that
it has not thought of now, but which it might
think of later.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister that
even though the amount involved is only
$10,000, this is a heritage of the remote past
that should be abandoned. There is ample
procedure through special warrants and
Treasury board orders to deal with legitimate
contingencies that arise later, which were
not foreseen. There is no need for this
disgused type of unforeseen and unprovided
for vote. While I am on my feet—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, you know,
it is very difficult to disguise anything from
an alert Opposition, because we will answer
all your questions. You asked about this.
Mr. Bryden: You have not answered this
one adequately.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, we have.
Mr. Bryden: You have something in your
mind that you might do something about, so
you put an item in that you call contingencies
and sundry awards, which will cover any of
the things that you might think of later but
which you have not really thought of now or
on which you have not matured your think-
ing.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh yes, we have.
Mr. Bryden: You have? Well, why did you
not put it in— precisely what you mean?
: MARCH 3, 1966
1159'
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We said awards.
Mr. Bryden: Awards. Well, sundry awards,
I would suggest to the hon. Minister, covers
a great many different possibilities. I suggest
to the hon. Minister that, if he has some-
thing specific in mind, he should describe it
and put in the precise amount that he intends
to spend on it. If he has nothing specific in
mind, then he should not put the item in at
all. If later something matures, some policy
matures that is legitimate, he can deal with
it by the regular procedure. I suggest to him
this is really just a relic of the old "unfore-
seen and unprovided for" item that we have
gradually been knocking out of the estimates
of other departments.
I want to add one thing, however, Mr.
Chairman, in case I may have sounded
mildly critical of the hon. Minister on this
item. I would like to congratulate the de-
partment on the new look of their estimates.
Some of us, including hon. members on the
other side of the House as well as on this
side, used to be quite critical of the depart-
ment for the fact that they gave us I think
only three votes in which to deal with $200
million or $300 million. I am pleased to
note that the department has altered its
approach in that respect and, I think, to the
benefit of the House. However, I would sug-
gest that they should not come in with an
item so vague as "contingencies and sundry
awards."
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on this
point, could I ask the hon. Minister: When
he presented this item to the Treasury
board, had it gone further than this?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Which item?
Mr. Thompson: Contingencies and sundry
awards. When it was presented to the
Treasury board, was it broken down more
fully than this, or not?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I do not
think so, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that
$10,000 was broken up very much.
Mr. Bryden: This is chicken-feed to the
highways department.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, probably
the hon. member is right; but I do not think
there is much subterfuge associated with a
$10,000 item. I really do not think so.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister, in just taking item 801, in fact all of
his estimates: When they were presented to
the Treasury board were they presented
in more detail than they are in this book?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: They are pre-
sented in the manner prescribed by Treasury
board, but they are set up differently.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, it sure is set up differ-
ently—much more detail for the Treasury
board than when you present them to the
Legislature. Would you deny that, Mr. Minis-
ter? Would you deny that there was more
detail given to the Treasury board than to
this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No more basic
detail, no.
Mr. Thompson: But there was more detail.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, it is set up
in a different manner.
Mr. Thompson: In what way was it dif-
ferent, Mr. Minister? I suggest you read
Professor Schindler's book in connection with
presentations to the Treasury board, and
its analysis, and you will find that the
difference was detail and far more scrutiny.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister to provide us in the House
with a breakdown of salaries paid to em-
ployees, the same as was provided by the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Grossman) the other day?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In all categories
and classifications?
Mr. Newman: That is right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In all categories
and classifications?
Mr. Newman: I am merely interested in
the lower categories— below what is recorded
in the book here.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Below what is
recorded in the book? Yes, we can do that;
it will take a little time, we have a lot of
employees.
Mr. Chairman: Anything more on 801?
Carried?
Vote 801 agreed to.
On vote 802:
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the House leader how long we are going to
continue tonight?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I was trying to get
some indication of the temper of the House.
1160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bryden: Well, at least part of the
House is unfavourable to continuing past
10.30.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The point I was
directing my remarks to was whether or not
it was the wish of the Opposition to get
the next two votes through and then adjourn.
I take it that you would like to debate item
802. In those circumstances, I move that the
committee rise and report a certain resolution
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report a certain resolution
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I think we should be
prepared for third readings, House in com-
mittee.
Mr. R. Cisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, we were informed by the Whip late
this afternoon that we would be on Throne
debate tomorrow, and we have made arrange-
ments to have our speaker here tomorrow.
Is there any difference, any change?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, we will put
Throne debate first, ahead of the other
items, if that is the arrangement.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.35 o'clock, p.m.
No. 39
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, March 4, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto*.
I i^i
i
CONTENTS
Friday, March 4, I960
Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. MacDonald, first reading 1163
Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, bill to amende Mr. Freeman, first reading 116$
Tabling answers to questions on the order paper, Mr. Robarts 1164
■Jributes to Mr. Oliver, 40th anniversary 1164
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. L. M.
Hodgson, Mr. Davison, Mr. Bukator 1167
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Bukator, agreed to 1187
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1187
?fl-J7AJ£
AT/iO
11&
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery, Holy Angels
separate school, Toronto, and in the west
gallery, Queen Elizabeth public school, Port
Credit and school No. 4, Markham town-
ship, Markham.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
1961-1962
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Ontario Human Rights Code,
1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, in brief explanation of this bill: at
present the prohibition against discrimination
in respect of accommodation applies to apart-
ments in buildings containing more than six
self-contained dwelling units. The purpose of
the bill is to extend the prohibition to apart-
ments in a building with two or more self-
contained dwelling units.
THE HOURS OF WORK AND VACATIONS
WITH PAY ACT
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Hours of Work and Vacations
With Pay Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr, Speaker: Orders of the day.
'Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two
question^: my first One is to the hon. Minister
Of liafedtir * (Mr. Rowntree) and I would ask
Friday, March 4, 1966
him what progress is being made in getting
together the parties concerned in the Tilco
Plastics Company strike?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I presume that the question
really means more than just getting the parties
together; the hon. member is really talking
about what progress is being made, but he
does not say that. However, I will answer
on that basis— according to the spirit of the
question.
We have been successful in having meet-
ings with both sides to the dispute— separately
—and we have also been successful in having
brought the parties together and further steps
have been arranged to advance the matter
toward what I hope will be a mutually satis-
factory solution.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might explain to the hon. Minister of
Labour that I was talking about getting them
together mentally, as well as physically.
My other question, Mr. Speaker, is to
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart).
Are the members of the Legislature
entitled to attend the meeting called by the
government for 10.30 next Monday morning
to explain to other farm commodity groups
its action on the bean growers board take-
over?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must be
psychic. I have a copy of the letter here
that was sent out to the commodity board
directors and their secretaries and there is no
mention made whatever of anything to do
with beans. The meeting called is not in-
tended as a public meeting; it is simply a
meeting confined to the commodity board
directors and their secretaries to discuss
marketing legislation and responsibilities
under The Marketing Act with those boards
and the farm products marketing board.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister has
not really answered my question; has he
any objection to members of the Legislature
benefitting from the governments further ex-
planation of the responsibilities of the mar-
keting board?
1164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that I feel that the meetings should
be confined to those people who are
most interested, the members of the com-
modity boards and their secretaries. If we
were to throw it open to one segment of
society, I would feel that it should be open
to all segments of society. It seems to me
it would be confined to those who have been
invited specifically.
Mr. Mac Donald: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to appeal through you to the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts). When we have had
Goldenberg reports, when we have had other
reports, the members of the Legislature have
had opportunity to obtain—
Mr. Speaker: Order! I am afraid the
member cannot make a statement during the
question period.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day.
Recently the hon. member for Bruce (Mr.
Whicher) addressed to certain hon. Ministers
a number of questions and I would like to
table the answers to these. In addition, I
would like to table the answer to question
No. 2 on the order paper.
The hon. Prime Minister tabled an answer
to a question as follows:
2. Mr. K. Bryden ( Woodbine ) : Inquiry
of the Ministry: (1) Has the Hydro-
Electric Power Commission of Ontario
acquired title to the lands described as
"the remaining lands" in the agreement
between Dimensional Investments Limited
and the commission dated March 11, 1959?
(2) If so, what amount or amounts were
paid for the said lands, when and to whom?
(3) If not, what steps are being taken or
have been taken to acquire title to these
lands?
Answer by the Hydro-Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario:
1. Yes, on December 17, 1964, without
cost to the Hydro-Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario in excess of the original
purchase price.
2. The amount of $22,000 was paid on
August 14, 1964, to Her Majesty in the
right of Canada on behalf of the Indians
of the Sarnia reserve.
3. Not applicable.
Mr. Speaker: At this time, in order that we
may have a little more freedom in the House,
I am going to adjourn the House during
pleasure in order that the members of the
press gallery and the photographers may take
a few pictures of a very important ceremony
that is about to take place.
The House is adjourned during pleasure.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, this is an unusual procedure, but I
might say that it is in addition a very unusual
occasion. On this Friday morning, March 4,
we are making a change in the order of the
House so as to pay honour to one of our
members, the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver). This is the closest sitting day
we could get to his actual birthday. He was
born on March 6, 1904, at Priceville and
has lived there ever since.
The other great significance of this day is,
of course, that the hon. member was first
elected to the Legislature in 1926 as a can-
didate of the United Farmers of Ontario
party, and has been re-elected at every
general election since that time. That makes
a total of nine elections, and any way you
look at it that is a very long, very honour-
able, very noble and indeed remarkably
successful record, and on this we congratu-
late the hon. member.
He has served his province and his people
very well in the governments he has
supported and of which he has been a
member. He was Minister of Public Works
and Welfare in the Hepburn Cabinet of
1941. In 1942 he resigned his portfolio, but
in 1943 he resumed the same portfolio under
the leadership of Mr. Nixon, the father of
the hon. member for Brant. In July, 1945,
he became leader of the Opposition when
the government changed. Then in 1954 he
once again became leader of the Opposition.
The hon. member has been renowned from
the days of his youth as an orator, a speaker
of great renown, as a prominent public de-
bater, and I might say that in my years in
this House, particularly when he was leading
the Opposition, on many occasions we heard
that very resonant and very magnificent voice
delivering great blasts at this government in
fine style.
Perhaps some of us are a little dis-
appointed we do not hear it as frequently
as we used to, although sometimes he was
able to make one squirm just a little bit
under the impact of his words and his de-
livery.
In any event, it is a very great pleasure
for me to have this opportunity of making
these few remarks. The hon. member and
myself on a personal basis have been close
friends and associates in various forms of
activity over my years in the Legislature.
MARCH 4, 1966
1165
While we strive mightily, perhaps I should
say we eat and drink as friends.
And so, sir, in view of the fact that the
House now stands adjourned, I might feel
free to present to the hon. member this
scroll, which reads:
To Farquhar Robert Oliver, MPP, on
behalf of the Legislature of the Province
of Ontario, I extend to you our sincere
congratulations as you celebrate your 62nd
birthday and your 40th year as a member
of this House. During that time you have
served the people of Ontario not only as a
private member for Grey South, but as a
member of the executive council in two
governments and as Leader of the Opposi-
tion for ten years. It is the hope of all
of us that you will be able to continue this
service to our province for many years to
come.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to leave my
seat and cross the floor to present this to the
hon. member. I do not want any conclusions
to be drawn from my actions. The fact that
we are adjourned at pleasure makes it pos-
sible for me to do this, without in any way
endangering my political reputation.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join
with the hon. Prime Minister in his generous
remarks to the dean of this House. For me,
and for my party, this is a very happy and
proud moment.
It is a very important and remarkable
and memorable occasion when we have the
dean representing his 40 years in public serv-
ice.
Indeed, sir, I think that not only the occa-
sion transcends party lines, as it has been
shown by the hon. Prime Minister, but also
I think the man himself transcends party
lines, in the affection and respect in which
he is held by all the members of the House.
He is a man whose roots sink deep into
the soil of Grey South, and indeed into the
province of Ontario. I think that is prob-
ably why with the strains and the buffetings
of political life; the storms and the hurricanes
which would blow over lesser trees, that this
solid gnarled oak stands firm and immovable,
no matter the political climate.
If I could change my metaphors or similes,
it seems to me the life span of the political
gladiator is not too long. When I look across
at the lions on the other side, at times they
appear ferocious, and I am sure that over
the years they have taken many a bite and
a cut and thrust at the man who sits on my
left. But he ventures into the arena, faces
any lion with a zest and a vigour and he
seems to come out completely unscathed.
I say, sir, that he is known as having a
reputation as an orator, and I assure the hon.
Prime Minister that there will be other occa-
sions when that firm, resonant voice will be
heard in this Legislature, and, I hope,
making the hon. Prime Minister and his
colleagues squirm just a little.
I call the hon. member for Grey South my
friend, and I feel deeply honoured in doing
this. I call him my adviser, and I feel en-
riched by doing this. I also feel enriched,
sir, when I think of his humility and when I
feel the warmth and the kindness of this
man. On many occasions I have, after talk-
ing with him, felt able to stand up straighter
and to go out feeling taller. I think, sir, I
am not alone in this. I think not only the
people of his riding, but the hon. members
of the Legislature and also the people of
Ontario, feel the same way in having known
for so many years the hon. member for Grey
South, the dean of the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there is very little more that I can
add, but I would like to echo the sentiments
of the hon. Prime Minister and the hon.
leader of the Opposition in their remarks
with regard to the hon. member for Grey
South.
I am certain that every hon. member of
this House, no matter where he sits, feels
that Farquhar Oliver is the kind of person he
can approach with a political problem, a
public issue, or a personal problem and feel
that he is talking to a friend.
I caught a delightful nuance in the hon.
Prime Minister's remarks, and I must say
that I cannot quite agree that I have shared
in all of the activities of the hon. member for
Grey South. But that simply means that con-
ceivably I can have a closer friendship with
him than others, because some of those ac-
tivities may mean there is a pecuniary barrier
introduced, and I am told that that barrier
sometimes results in friendships becoming a
bit strained.
I know this is all very oblique, Mr. Speaker,
and you have no idea what I am talking
about, but I would like to join with every
other hon. member in wishing the hon. mem-
ber well. I do not know whether I can go as
far as the hon. Prime Minister who virtually
said that he was not going to run a Conserva-
tive candidate in Grey South in the next
election. I will have to give that matter
careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, with re-
gard to the New Democratic Party.
mas
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. M- Gaunt (Huron-Bruce); Mr. Speaker,
I certainly want to be associated with the
wprds of congratulations and good wishes
that have been extended to my friend, the
hon. member for Grey South. I tell you
quite frankly, sir, that my hon. friend and
colleague was one of two men who were re-
sponsible for my entrance into the political
field. I do not know whether to thank him
for that or not, but that is beside the point.
In any case, the name Farquhar Oliver is
synonymous across the province with long
dedicated service in the field of politics. The
stature of the man stands tall in the minds of
those of all political persuasions.
As the hon. Prime Minister said this morn-
ing, my friend was elected in 1926 for the
first time, and he has continued to be re-
elected in each succeeding election since that
time.
This represents 40 years in political life,
a real accomplishment when you consider
the number of casualties that have taken
place over that time. He has had the honour
of representing a rural riding steeped in
rural tradition. It is somewhat similar to
my riding in that regard, perhaps not to the
same extent that some of the eastern Ontario
ridings are, but nonetheless it does have a
real rural traditional history.
On reflection, my hon. friend was elected
to the House ten years before I was even
born.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Grey South has contributed a great deal to
the field of politics during the past 40 years.
I am certain that he will contribute even
more in the next 40 years. As the youngest
member in our party, I want to say that I
have been attempting to emulate in part
some of my hon. friend's political sagacities.
I would be quick to add, however, that I
have not picked up his cigar-smoking traits,
I tell you that my constitution just would not
stand it.
On the occasion of his 40 years in this
House as well as the occasion of his birthday,
I want to join with all hon. members in the
presentation of this tractor, which you see
here in front of him as a symbol of his first
love. As you know, he was a farmer, and I
think this represents the farming industry and
is a symbol of such. I join with the entire
House in wishing him continued political suc-
cess and health and happiness in the future.
It is an unusual occasion for an unusual man,
Mr. Speaker.
M*. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great privilege this morning
for me to join in this tribute to the Dean of
the House— the hon. member for Grey South.
The Dean has made a tremendous contribu-
tion to this House; a tremendous contribu-
tion to the province of Ontario; and I would
like to say, too, that I am very proud and
honoured to call him not only a neighbour
but a friend.
If I could wish him something this morn-
ing, I would say may he live as long as he
wants and never want as long as he lives.
I would also say that he has those qualities
of heart and mind that all of us admire. He
has a philosophy of life that is expressed
perhaps best of all in the words of Edgar
Guest:
I would like to think when life is o'er
That I had filled a needed post.
That here or there I paid my fare
With more than idle tale or boast;
That I had taken gifts divine;
Breath of life and manhood fine;
And tried to use them now and then
In service of my fellow men.
That is the hon. member for Grey South. To-
day we pay tribute to a great man and an
outstanding parliamentarian.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, I would not have missed this for
anything, but I almost did. There was talk
last night, I understand, about the secrecy
of some meetings that the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. MacNaughton) was connected
with. They could not have been more closely
guarded than this little secret because I
almost went home this morning. I am cer-
tainly glad that I did not go.
On an occasion like this, of course, one's
mind runs in two directions at the same time.
In the first place, you are happy, of course,
at the achievement of 40 years of service in
this House and to the people of your riding.
But in the same train of thought you realize
that a great many years have been spent in
achieving this occasion.
But looking back on 40 years of political
life in this province, I have very few regrets.
I have many fond memories; I have made
many good friends; I have made some con-
tribution, I think, to the public life of
Ontario and I believe that it is the right and
the opportunity, and almost the obligation,
of young men and young women to be in-
terested in politics to a greater degree than
the young people are today.
I am upset and disturbed when one recog-
nizes the lack of understanding of politic*
and the failure to appreciate what i politics
means in this province and in this country.
MARCH 4, 1966
1167
And I have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that
in the lives of many it is said that: "Politics
is not a good business. It is for somebody
else, it is not for me."
Well, after 40 years in politics, I can say
that politics is not a dirty business. Politics
is the business of the man and the woman
on the street and everyone. If politics are
bad in the eyes of some, it becomes bad only
because they have failed to make their full
contribution towards government in this
province and in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am not usually lost for
words, but apparently occasions like this
seem to hurt me more in my ability to project
myself than those occasions when Mr. Drew
and Mr. Frost used to be after me in all their
fury in the old days.
There is something about a time like this
that affects one, and I just say that the feel-
ing that you get is all right, and it is easy
to contain. I thank all those who have said
kind words— the hon. Prime Minister, and
my own leader, my good friend who is
making a great contribution and who will
make an even greater one in the public life
of this province.
Thank you all for remembering me on this
occasion.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech from the
Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to par-
ticipate in the Throne debate and to offer
my congratulations to the hon. member for
Lambton West (Mr. Knox) and to the hon.
member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton) who
moved and seconded the address in reply to
the Speech from the Throne. The fresh way
in which they carried out their task was
appreciated, as we have seen, by all hon.
members of the House. I am certain that
their admirable performance will bring
honour to themselves and to their con-
stituents.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, at this time
to offer my felicitations to the hon. member
for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) on his birthday
and on his anniversary in this House, I
would like to tell him that I hope the time
will be a short one when he is once again
able to take a seat as Minister of Her
Majesty's government on the other side of
this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, as one of
those who admired your tact and skill in
presiding over the deliberations of this legis-
lative chamber, I would like to join with all
hon. members in offering you my congratula-
tions and best wishes.
I would also like to congratulate the hon.
member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) on his
appointment to the post of Deputy Speaker
and I wish him every success in assisting
you, Mr. Speaker, in your onerous duties.
On September 15 of last year, two by-
elections were held. In Nipissing, in spite of
the Tory steamroller, the lavish use of money
and advertising and the many visits from the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) and mem-
bers of his Cabinet, the people of Ontario
made it quite clear they did not want a
glamour boy; they wanted a hard-working
man who would remember them when he
got to Queen's Park.
They wanted a Liberal and above all, they
wanted a winner. They got one in the person
of Richard Smith.
On the same day in the riding of Bracon-
dale, the people picked another outstanding
man in the person of George Ben, to repre-
sent them. We welcome both these men
into the ranks of the Liberal caucus and
have no doubt they will make outstanding
contributions to the workings of this House.
Mr. Speaker, our winning of these two
by-elections has been, and is regarded by
many, as a manifestation of a vague, general
uneasiness, to be found in the cities and also
in the rural areas; an uneasiness which arises
because the public of Ontario is gradually
becoming aware of the fact that this Tory
government is not all that it claims to be.
For years the voters have been fed with
the pablum of good government, but the
time has come when the baby has grown.
Now the people of Ontario no longer wish
to be fed baby food. They have become dis-
contented with the old ways in which this
supposedly progressive government conducts
the affairs of this province. As a result, it
is the opinion of my colleagues and I that
these two by-elections in Nipissing and
Bracondale and the results thereof are but
an indication of what is to come.
1168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I have no doubt my colleagues across the
House are at this moment smiling to them-
selves smug with self-satisfaction. They are
probably thinking they have been in power
so long that they have nothing to fear. Like
ostriches, they are putting their heads in
the sand. They see nothing, hear nothing
and feel nothing. They are content that all
is well.
I think they are wrong. My colleagues on
this side of the House think they are wrong,
a growing number of people in Ontario think
that they are wrong. Time will prove us to
be right.
This Tory government has become so smug
that it believes it can do what it likes, to
whom it likes, at any time, no matter how
dangerous and sinister this may be. I have
only to refer to the infamous and ill-fated
police bill to show what a complacent Con-
servative government is capable of commit-
ting.
It might be said that this unfortunate bill
was but a slip and could not happen again.
This may be true, but I would remind the
hon. members of this House that a scant
few days ago we found Mr. Vockavitch, and
other innocent homeowners in the township
of York, thrown out of their homes. And
what was his crime? He dared to oppose the
taking of his home. He dared to challenge
the paltry sum offered to him on the expropri-
ation.
Mr. Speaker, unjust expropriations not only
in the township of York, but in other munici-
palities throughout Ontario, have occurred.
What has the government done to humanize
and bring up to date the whole matter of
expropriations? Precious little.
As things stand now, an owner who feels
he has been unjustly victimized must be pre-
pared to submit himself to the jackboot and
the whip in the middle of the night if he
dares to protest an expropriation and if he
dares to try to protect his land.
It has been submitted many times and in
many forms, that although the right to ex-
propriate for the public good should continue
to be available as needed, this government
should have long ago posed legislation where
all expropriations in Ontario be dealt with
in a uniform manner, in each and every
case.
I submit that the following should be avail-
able as a minimum for the protection of the
individual:
1. In appropriate cases, the owner should
be guaranteed the right of a hearing before
the expropriation.
2. The owner should be guaranteed fair
and equitable compensation for his prop-
erty. In arriving at the purchase price,
consideration should be given to the fact
that an owner's land might become steri-
lized and decrease in value, solely because
of the threat of expropriation.
3. Immediately on the taking of the
said land, the owner should receive a cash
advance equivalent to a substantial portion
of the purchase price, so that he might
be able to secure alternative accommoda-
tion, or make other business arrangements,
as the case may be.
4. The owners of lands adversely
affected by the threat or actual expropria-
tion of land adjacent to or in the neigh-
bourhood of their own, should have the
right to tender their lands to the expropria-
ting authorities without waiting for an
expropriation which might never come.
In any event, the individual rights of an
owner should be protected and guaranteed.
The taking or expropriation of his lands
should never be allowed, unless it is quite
clear that the lands are necessary for the
public purpose. If expropriation is necessary,
it should occur only after the owner has had
a chance to make representations on his be-
half. Then he should be guaranteed a just
price for his lands.
In no event should the conservation or
other authorities be able to announce a plan
for the redevelopment of a certain area which
might not commence for some years— or not
at all. Later, at the time when compensation
is payable, the authorities should not be able
to argue that the land has become devalued
and that the market value has dropped and
therefore the compensation paid should not
be based on a much lower than fair price-
in fact, on a give-away price.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government stands
indicted more for what it has not done, than
for what it has done. It is to be castigated
for its sins of omission, more than for its
sins of commission. One need only to point
to the pockets of poverty to be found all
over rural Ontario— to the farmers who have
difficulty in making a living, no matter how
hard he might try— to realize the shortcom-
ings of this government, which has been in
power so long that it has become cosy and,
to use the words of my hon. leader (Mr.
Thompson), it has become fat, arrogant and
complacent.
I would like to make a few observations in
connection with the field of hospital accom-
modation. During the Throne debate last
MARCH 4, 1966
1169
year, I brought to the attention of this
House the fact that we in Etobicoke had set
up a board of governors, and under the
guidance of the Ontario hospital commission
we were planning a 400- to 500-bed hospital,
on a twelve-and-a-half acre site located in
Rexdale, in the township of Etobicoke.
At that time, I drew to the attention of
the House the fact that a group of interested
citizens with courage and determination could
do something to alleviate the hospital short-
age, and that the citizens of Etobicoke were
prepared and eager to try.
Mr. Speaker, I felt that this might be an
appropriate time to tell the House of the
progress of the Etobicoke General Hospital
Corporation.
To date, an architect has been hired and
sketches commissioned. An administrator is
actively being sought. All elected mem-
bers of this House and of the Parliament at
Ottawa, who represent any part of the town-
ship of Etobicoke, have been brought into
the picture. The project has truly become
a township-wide drive for the erection of a
hospital to serve all the citizens of Etobicoke.
Residential and industrial commercial
campaigns are in the works. We are all quite
certain it will not be long before the Etobi-
coke general hospital, with an initial 425
active treatment beds, plus 75 psychiatric
beds, becomes a reality. As a matter of fact,
at a recent meeting with the Ontario hospital
services commission, approval was given for
a building which would ultimately include
600 active treatment beds, 75 psychiatric
beds and 75 chronic care beds.
We are trying to erect in time a hospital
that will be a fully accredited hospital, with
teaching facilities, training for internes and
so forth, in conjunction with one of our
major universities. I would ask the hon.
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond) to seriously
consider assisting the board of governors in
that regard.
I would also ask the hon. Minister of
Health to give serious thought to approving
the erection of a regional nurses training
school under the government's new plan. This
school could be erected on our site, which
is more than six miles from any other nearby
hospital where potentially a nursing school
might be located.
Mr. Speaker, we in Etobicoke are proud
of the progress which has been achieved in
connection with our new hospital. However,
we are running into many of the problems
referred to by the hon. member for Scar-
borough North (Mr. Wells), during his recent
speech in this debate. We have found that
circumstances exist which are quite similar to
those which led to the forming of the United
Appeal. Corporations and other organizations
who might be likely contributors are ap-
proached not once, but many times by many
different groups throughout Metropolitan To-
ronto, all of whom are planning to build
another hospital. It would seem that the set-
ting up of some central agency to deal with
financing of hospitals is a most urgent
requirement.
During his speech, the hon. member for
Scarborough North suggested that construc-
tion grants should be raised by a Metro-wide
tax revenue and that fund-raising drives
should be conducted by the new Metro-
politan Toronto hospital co-ordinating council.
Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. mem-
ber when he states that large downtown
hospitals have made the raising of funds by
suburban hospital boards a most difficult
matter. However, I would take his sug-
gestions one step further. I would say that
inasmuch as the government is going to
make pension plan contributions available
for school construction, it should consider the
urgency of the need for hospitals in Metro-
politan Toronto. Recognizing the fact that
there is such an urgency, the government
should then make available loans from the
pension moneys.
I suggest that the government could pay
the appropriate interest rate on these loans,
thus freeing the hospitals to pay back the
principal alone over an extended period of
time. Of course these loans would be com-
plementary to the existing scheme for low-
cost loans to the building of hospitals. Also,
in deserving cases, the government could
forgive the principal and interest, and pay
back the pension fund money to the federal
government out of the general revenues of
the province.
In case, Mr. Speaker, one might feel that
there is no urgency in the need for hospitals
not only in Etobicoke, but throughout the
whole area of Metropolitan Toronto, a sup-
position which might be arrived at by a
reading of the Throne speech, where no
indication was given of an intention to
expedite the building of hospitals— then I
would refer, Mr. Speaker, to the recent sub-
mission of the Ontario hospital association to
this government, which charged that the gov-
ernment grants were so small that hospital
construction was seriously threatened.
Mr. Speaker, a hospital costs about $21,000
a bed. The total contribution available from-
all levels of government amounts only to>
1170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
$10,000 a bed. This leaves approximately
$11,000 to be raised by the hospital corpora-
tion.
The present government loan programme
lends up to $5,000 a bed. However, the
only source of revenue the average hospital
has, is one-half of what it gets from private
and semi-private beds. This is committed to
pay off loans.
All might appear to be well until a few
years after the hospital is opened; it finds
that it must make another addition, and so it
does not take long before it becomes obvious
to the board of governors and to those who
use the hospital, that loans are not the final
answer to the problem.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that much larger
government grants are required if anything is
to be done with the problem. Dr. Harvey
Agnew, once a key man in hospital staff
work in Toronto, and now a leading profes-
sional consultant on hospital matters, has
stated and I quote:
When the survey of hospital needs in
Metropolitan Toronto was made using 1961
statistical figures 43 per cent of the popu-
lation of Metropolitan Toronto lived in
the seven or outer fringe communities, yet
only 17 per cent of the hospital beds were
located in these municipalities. By 1980
it is anticipated that 58 per cent of the
population will be in these fringe areas.
It is absolutely vital that a much higher
percentage of the hospital beds be there
and it is the responsibility of these com-
munities.
The highly respected Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission says Ontario needs 5.6 beds
per 1,000 of population.
Let us take a look at the township of
Etobicoke. Township officials report that
Etobicoke has a present population of some
250,000 persons, with a projection that the
new borough of Etobicoke will have over
300,000 population in the next few years. I
personally believe that the figure will be
even higher, somewhere closer to the 350,000
figure.
These people will be wanting hospital
services in Etobicoke by 1969. This means
a minimum provision of approximately 1,900
beds at that time.
Presently, we have two excellent local
hospitals, one the Queensway hospital located
in the south part of the township, open
since August of 1955, with 132 beds. Now,
due to an extension of facilities and services,
the Queensway hospital has a total number
of 347 beds.
Secondly, we have available Humber
memorial hospital, which is located in the
town of Weston, immediately east of the
township of Etobicoke. This hospital opened
in 1951, with 54 beds, and now has in the
neighbourhood of 323 beds. Between the
both existing hospitals, total bed capacity is
therefore approximately 670 beds.
There is no doubt that both the Queens-
way General Hospital and the Humber
memorial hospital could be added to in
stages, as time goes by.
However, by 1969 Etobicoke, to serve its
local needs, plus the needs of thousands
who come from farther east, west and north,
will not be able to survive without a total
capacity, I believe, of some 1,900 beds. Even
as I speak, Mr. Speaker, we have an admitted
shortage of 750 to 1,150 beds, depending on
how far one feels we should have gone, how
much we could have provided for special
services, such as pediatric care, chronic care,
psychiatric care, and so on.
It is impossible to provide 750 to 1,150 or
1,500 or 1,900 beds in a hurry. We all know
that building a hospital with all its intricacies,
all its fire-proofing, all its special wiring serv-
ices, heating, ventilating, feeding, all its labs,
laundries, operating rooms, emergency wings,
clinical spaces, staff housing and other ameni-
ties, is not the same as building a factory
or a warehouse or an office building.
With the coming in of the government's
medical care plan, such as it is, which will
be in operation long before the Etobicoke
general hospital is completed, it becomes
very apparent that services such as we are
planning to provide will be in critical short
supply in Etobicoke for many years to come.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
there is a hospital need in Etobicoke. All
of the hon. members who represent suburban
constituencies know full well that Etobicoke
is not alone in its need for new hospital
beds, and that the need is urgent.
Before I leave the subject of hospitals, I
would state, Mr. Speaker, that I refer to the
sins of omission of this do-little cosy Tory
government. Well, Mr. Speaker, on February
9, 1966, a member of the Queensway hos-
pital board of governors attended before the
township of Etobicoke board of control, and
made a plea for funds to increase the size
of that hospital to 700 beds.
He pointed out that Ontario hospital serv-
ices commission had recommended a total
of 1,200 hospital beds for Etobicoke. To
date, the township has only 347 beds. He
estimated that an additional 360 beds would
MARCH 4, 1966
U71
cost his board about $9 million, of which
approximately $6 million would be provided
through federal, provincial and Metro grants.
His appeal to the board of control was for
assistance in raising the approximate differ-
ence of $3 million required for the addition.
It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that it made it
quite clear that the appeal was being made
to the board of control of the township of
Etobicoke, because no fund-raising appeal to
the public by any organization in the last
year or so had reached its objective. This
bears out, Mr. Speaker, my previous com-
ments in connection with the difficulty which
not only the Etobicoke general hospital, but
all suburban hospitals are having in raising
funds.
At the same meeting, another member of
the board of governors of the Queensway
general hospital went so far as to call for
hospital lotteries to solve the bed shortage in
Etobicoke. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
dwell here on the pros and cons of hospital
lotteries, but I am going to state that it is
indeed ludicrous and a sorry commentary on
the performance of this Tory government
where, on the one hand we have a desperate
need for hospitals, and the other we have a
government which looks at the problem, sees
so little and moves so slowly that desperate
measures such as lotteries must be con-
sidered.
To those who are still not convinced that
the situation is desperate, perhaps I could
remind them of the case of five-year-old
Rosino Minardo of Grace street, Toronto,
who died on February 21, 1966, while wait-
ing for a hospital bed so that her tonsils
could be removed. I could further remind
them of the death of 27-year-old Maurice
Fraser, the father of five children, who knew
he was going to die, and tried three times to
be admitted to hospitals before he was pro-
nounced dead on arrival at Queensway
general hospital on January 23, 1966.
And if that is not enough, Mr. Speaker, I
would refer the hon. members of this House
to the case of Irwin Kerr, of Guestville
avenue, Toronto. Here we have the case of
a man who died nine hours after being re-
fused admittance to Humber memorial hos-
pital and Northwestern general hospital
because no bed was available. At the inquest,
the jury urged the Ontario hospital services
commission and the provincial health de-
partment to take steps to end Metro's bed
shortage. The administrator for the Humber
memorial hospital, Robert Ferguson, among
others, warned that the situation is critical
and that the same could happen again. In
fact, the coroner at the inquest, Dr. F. B.
Cruickshank, told the jury that the bed
shortage was desperate.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the word is "desperate."
His feeling was that the shortage of beds is
a matter for deep concern and immediate
action.
The sad conclusion that can be reached
from all these cases is that if a bed had been
available, the chances are that these lives
could have been saved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of
Health— I should say here that I feel he is
conscientious and extremely able and that he
has done all he can— has stated that his 1965
goal of 625 more hospital beds for Metro has
been bettered by 140 beds. He has stated
that he expects the 1966 goal of 393 more
hospital beds to be exceeded by 400 beds.
However, the fact remains that projections
and fancy figures are of no use to those who
die today or may die tomorrow because there
is no bed available. Flights of fancy are of
no use to the next of kin of those who die.
One wonders whether the recommendations
of the jury at the inquest of Irwin Kerr are
going to be buried along with the recom-
mendations of many other juries sent out to
investigate other areas of provincial concern,
such as grand juries who examine jails, or
juries who hear of construction accidents
which need never have happened if super-
vision had been correct as required by law.
One wonders just what is needed to spur
this government to take a hard cold calculat-
ing look at the hospital situation, so that
massive immediate money and help is made
available to cure the hospital bed shortage.
I have said, and I will say again, that this
government stands indicted for its acts of
omission. Nothing bears out this statement
more than the present hospital bed shortage
in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout all
of Ontario.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I
know much of what I have this morning has
been said previously about the hospital bed
shortage, and no doubt will be said again to
an unhearing and unfeeling Tory government.
Let us all hope that at long last it bestirs
itself to correct the situation at once before it
deteriorates even further. The hospital bed
shortage is a crisis as grave as that which
exists in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, I would like here to quote
from an editorial which appeared in the
Toronto Daily Star on February 23, 1,966.
In part the editorial says:
If we are ever going to match the pace
1172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of hospital construction with the obvious
need, hospitals will have to be financed out
of taxes, not left to private charity to
bridge the chasm left by provincial and
federal grants and loans.
There should be no financial gulf and
the OHA is right to press its case on
Queen's Park. Federal and provincial grants
amount to $8,000 a bed. Building costs are
soaring. The first 300-bed stage of York
general is now estimated to cost $24,000
a bed and government loans added to the
$8,000 in grants won't entirely fill the bill.
They would involve massive repayments
the hospital boards couldn't meet under
present arrangements.
The OHA's request for an immediate
increase in construction grants to $14,000
a bed is reasonable. The association says
that the federal government is woefully
short of holding up its end. The Ottawa
grant is only $2,700 a bed.
If Premier Robarts can squeeze more
from Ottawa, let him go to it, but the
primary responsibility to produce the neces-
sary money is his, whether he gets more
out of Ottawa or takes it out of his own
government's kitty. The provincial govern-
ment collects insurance premiums for hos-
pital care. It has the responsibility to
ensure that the care is available.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the views in this
editorial clearly set forth the wishes and de-
sires of the people of Ontario. It is my sin-
cere belief that the government should
seriously consider the use— with the appropri-
ate safeguards— of massive sums from the
millions which will become available from
Canada pension plan contributions in the
very near future. These moneys could be
iised to give hospital construction the im-
mediate assistance it requires.
Mr. L. M. Hodgson (Scarborough East):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of
pleasure this morning to rise and participate
in the Throne Debate.
I followed with interest the previous hon.
speaker's (Mr. Braithwaite's) remarks in terms
of hospital construction in this metropolitan
area. I would point out that we in Scarbor-
ough are building the Centenary hospital and
we are developing an extension to the Scar-
borough general hospital.
Shortly we are beginning a campaign
of public subscription for funds for these
two hospitals, and the people of Scarborough
Tiave taken a great deal of interest in this.
They are determined that we are going to
progress and develop hospital beds for people
who require them.
I would like to ask at this time, if this
House would give us moral support in our
campaign to raise funds for the construction
of these hospitals. We are very grateful and
very much appreciate the help that has been
provided by The Department of Health and
the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond)
and the great interest that has been taken
in the programme of construction.
Since I spoke last in this House on this
debate, two new hon. members have come
in and I would like to say in congratulating
them on their election and on taking their
seats in this House, that I hope they enjoy
their stay as much as I have enjoyed mine.
I do hope also, that I shall continue to be
senior to them.
This morning I wish to address the House
on the ever-increasing social problem that
involves many of our citizens and possibly
each and every one of us at some time
throughout our lives. That is the problem of
moving motor vehicle traffic safely through-
out this province. In the last couple of years,
I believe, there has been more discussion of
the traffic accident problem than ever before.
Just over the previous weekend, a Toronto
newspaper, the Telegram, carried a very ex-
cellent three-part series discussing the result
and the problem of traffic accidents in this
country.
As we have heard from other hon. mem-
bers of this House, a new book "Unsafe At
Any Speed" by Ralph Nader, has created a
great deal of alarm and a great deal of inter-
est in the governments of the United States
and here as well.
In 1965, for instance, statistics taken in
the first nine months of that year, indicate
that the number of motor vehicle accidents
increased by 16 per cent. The insurance
industry reminds us of this tremendous in-
crease in accidents, with its ever-increasing
costs.
About two weeks ago, the President of the
United States pointed out to the American
people that the traffic accident toll in the
United States was their greatest problem,
second only to Vietnam. On March 3, a
story was carried in the Globe and Mail of
Toronto stating that the President of the
United States had asked Congress to create
a Cabinet-level department of transportation,
with command over $700 million budget and
a six-year programme of traffic safety, to try
to bring about a realistic solution to this
problem.
MARCH 4, 1966
1173
It is a point of interest that the United
States government is forming this depart-
ment, when this government took similar
action in 1957.
In Ontario, in 1964, the drivers of Ontario
travelled over 20 billion miles, had 111,000
traffic accidents, injured over 54,000 persons,
killed 1,454 and, as I pointed out previously,
the accident toll for 1965 appears as though
it will be in the order of 16 per cent greater
than that of 1964. Although 1964 and 1965
are showing the highest number of accidents
ever occuring within this province, there is
a certain amount of sunshine— a bright side.
In the 10-year period from 1954 to 1963,
the motor vehicle accident rate was reduced
from 5.4 accidents per million miles to 5.2
accidents per million miles. Deaths were
reduced in that period from 9.1 per 100
million miles to 7 in 1963. Fatal accidents
were reduced from 7.8 per 100 million miles
to 6 in 1963.
If we go back and look at the traffic pic-
ture a few years ago— take the year 1932—
we find that deaths per 100 million miles
were 18.7 and fatal accidents per 100 million
miles, 17.2.
So you can see, Mr. Speaker, although the
number of accidents are increasing, the rates
are reducing. But it would be interesting to
speculate what the number of people killed
and injured would be if we had not had this
tremendous improvement in accident rates
per miles driven over the years. These im-
provements have been brought about by
many different factors. First, and I think
one of the more important, is the improved
road design and maintenance and the pro-
gramme of maintenance carried on by the
municipalities of the province of Ontario.
We have improved our vehicles greatly, we
have improved the method and the tech-
nique of enforcement, and we have increased
the awareness of drivers and pedestrians of
the traffic problem within the province.
Now, to discuss the motor vehicle for a
moment. I would say this and say it quite
quickly: Motor vehicles can be made safer.
In 1955, studies from the Cornell University
on crash research brought about many im-
provements. Some of these are:
1. Safety catches
2. The implementation of padded dash-
boards
3. Dish-shaped steering wheels
4. Seat belts, and
5. A generally improved design in the
vehicle to absorb shock on impact.
Speaking of those improvements of that time,
I would like to quote a friend of mine, Roy
Haeusler, a very prominent vehicle safety
engineer in the United States
"Seat belts have now been available since
1956." This is ten years later and this vehicle
engineer Roy Haeusler, with the Chrysler
Corporation, points out that we are not
even in the shape where we have half our
people using lap belts. Many of those who
are wearing them are not wearing them as
they should, putting them on snugly and
doing them up properly. In other words,
after ten years of progress in seat belt use,
we still have not reached the point where
half the people are using belts.
Speaking of the Cornell studies— this re-
search was done collectively by the auto-
mobile companies.
Those companies have proven that
vehicles can be designed to prevent injury.
In 1965, the General Motors Corporation
spent $1.25 million on vehicle safety re-
search.
This appears to be a very large sum to be
spent in one particular area. However, when
you consider that against the profit of that
organization of $1.7 billion, I wonder if they
are doing enough.
To help encourage the standardization of
safety features in vehicles in the United
States, the President of the United States, in
his request to Congress, has now asked that
this new department of transportation set up
uniform standards for vehicle safety to be
used across the United States. We have also
seen where the motor vehicle companies are
ever increasing their attempts to bring about
a safer vehicle. I think we are now coming
to the point where the floodgates are open-
ing and there will be great improvement in
this area.
The greatest problem of vehicle safety at
the present time is the lack of service. The
best designed vehicle is a hazard if it is not
maintained in safe running order. To
accomplish this, it is important that vehicle
inspection on a selective compulsory basis,
such as forecast in the Speech from the
Throne, be continued and expanded.
Critics say that vehicle inspection should
be carried out on an annual or semi-annual
basis, not on a selective basis. I do not agree
with the principle of regular annual or semi-
annual vehicle inspection. This programme
leads to vehicles being driven for a long
period in an unsafe condition. If a driver
knows that his inspection date is, say, four
months hence, there is little need for him to
1174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
maintain his vehicle until that date appears.
A selective, compulsory inspection pro-
gramme creates the necessity, through pre-
ventive enforcement, for vehicles to be in
safe operating condition at all times. While
speaking on enforcement, I would point out
that active enforcement by the police has
proved to reduce the number of traffic acci-
dents.
It is recognized that approximately 15 per
cent of our drivers need to be brought before
the courts and penalized. However, the total
accident problem cannot be solved by en-
forcement alone. People will continue to
break the law, either from a lack of knowl-
edge, or a disregard for the law.
I would point out here, as a point of inter-
est, that we used to hang those who stole
bread. So I would say the penalty, regardless
of how severe it becomes, will not completely
solve the traffic accident problem. To argue
this point that all traffic accidents cannot
be prevented solely by enforcement, I would
point out that of the 189,000 drivers involved
in accidents in 1964 in Ontario, 3,584 were
impaired and 11,000 had been drinking.
This is a total of 8.1 per cent of all the
drivers involved in accidents; 89.7 per cent
of all drivers involved in accidents were
apparently normal. Therefore, total enforce-
ment and prevention of drinking and driving
would have reduced the accident toll by
eight per cent only, if drinking had been
the sole cause of the accident in each case.
It is suggested, and I would suggest, that
constant research should be continued to
develop new methods of enforcement. In
past years, breathalyzer tests, radar and air-
craft have been used for traffic enforcement.
The modern age and advancing technology
will develop many new aids for enforcement
officers, and we of the Legislature should be
quick to accept these.
The one method of enforcement on our
highways not used is the plainclothesman in
an unmarked ear. If we feel it is an advan-
tage to observe offenders in a clandestine
manner from the air, why can we not do
the same at the highway level? Since the
beginning of The Department of Transport
in 1957, great emphasis has been placed on
the testing of new drivers and selective re-
testing of others. It is important to know that
our drivers have the fundamental knowledge
of the road and the ability to drive a motor
vehicle in a responsible manner. Personally,
I would like to see the programme of re-
testing extended, and more and more people
called to our driver examination centres to
prove their ability to drive and their knowl-
edge of the rules of the road.
The greatest opportunity to reduce the
accident toll lies with driver education, and
I speak here primarily of education in the
secondary schools. Graduates of a course in
secondary school driver education have far
less accidents than non-graduates. It has
been estimated that graduates have up to 30
per cent less accidents than non-graduates.
Driver education gives the opportunity to
break the chain of the father— the one re-
sponsible for the traffic accidents today-
teaching the son; the friend— the one that is
responsible for the traffic accidents today-
teaching the friend. Driver education in-
creases that great group of people who have
taken the time to learn to drive safely and
defensively.
The present course, as it is offered in On-
tario, is now in 150 schools. This is from a
total of approximately 500 secondary schools
in the province. In the school year 1960-61,
36 schools in Ontario offered driver education.
I might point out as a matter of interest
here, at that particular time, I was with The
Department of Transport and meeting with
the various school boards in the province,
trying to implement and promote the pro-
gramme of driver education. Many of the
principals I talked to at that time felt that
it was not part of a programme that should
be offered in the secondary schools.
But now, five years later, in talking to
many of those principals, some are the
strongest advocates of driver education and
one happens to be my brother.
In the present year, 1965-66, over 140
schools offer this course, graduating approxi-
mately 7,000 students. As well as this pro-
gramme of secondary school driver education,
we have in Metropolitan Toronto, the pro-
drivers club and last year they graduated
approximately 1,800 students. Private driving
schools throughout the province are adding
to this number of people who have taken the
time to learn to drive in a safe and defensive
manner.
A secondary school driver education is
supported by The Department of Transport
in Ontario, and The Department of Educa>-
tion. The Department of Education gives
grants for the in-class . portion and the in-
struction, and The Department of Transport
provides books, dual brake systems, report
papers and other assistance in operating this
course. It is recognized, as pointed out ear-
lier, that driver education in the secondary
schools can reduce the number of accidents
MARCH 4, 1966
1175
appreciably. The amount of reduction is not
known exactly. I would think that the gov-
ernment should introduce a cost-benefit
study of this programme.
In Ontario, we have been graduating
people in driver education since 1949. The
first course started in Kitchener and these
people, the graduates of those courses, over
the years, would be the people who could
prove the results of secondary school driver
education. The results of this study, I am
sure, would be favourable and this could be
used as a basis for giving increased grant
assistance to the secondary schools, and
possibly total grants for the carrying out of
the driver education programme.
An average student in the school system
of Ontario spends ten to 12 years preparing
himself for life. It seems a small sacrifice to
spend 50 hours of that time learning to drive
a vehicle in a safe manner. Expansion of
driver education courses can lead to accom-
modating all students coming through our
secondary school system. I would suggest
that a certificate of graduation from a recog-
nized driver education course, could become
necessary to the issuance of a driver's licence.
A point of interest here is that we are
continually asking people to drive safely.
We have our countryside littered with signs
saying: drive carefully; drive cautiously; do
this and so on. But I wonder if our people
have really taken the time to know how to
drive safely and how to drive defensively? This
course of driver education becomes more im-
portant when we consider that one in seven
persons employed in the province of On-
tario today, works in the automobile industry.
They are either driving, servicing, repairing,
or making automobles.
Now, finally, sir, I would like to talk for a
moment about community safety councils
throughout the province. At the present time,
there are approximately 50 community safety
councils functioning. These councils are made
up of publicly spirited citizens, giving of their
time to improve living conditions within their
own community. These are the community
volunteers. These are the traffic safety co-
ordinators within any one community. These
are the instigators of community safety pro-
grammes. Traffic safety in all its ramifica-
tions has to be carried out at a local level.
You have to approach traffic safety from your
own street and your own street corner. The
accident problem cannot be solved by direc-
tives from central government.
Over the years in Ontario, active com-
munity safety councils have been responsible
for the implementation of many programmes,
driver education, safety lectures in the schools
by policemen, community safety drives,
pedestrian safety programmes, bicycle safety
rodeos, driver rodeos, and many other func-
tions, to bring the attention of the people of
any one community, to the need to live
and work and drive safely.
It is important that the community safety
programme be expanded throughout the
province, and in order to do this, I would
suggest that the province consider a grant for
safety councils, based on a per capita of
five cents, with a limit of $500 per counciL
This grant would not be used for the imple-
mentation or conduct of safety programmes,
but rather for the administration and main-
tenance of the safety council itself. We have
some councils, Mr. Speaker, operating in the
province, and I know that their total budget
comes from the pockets of the people that
are giving of their time. I think that the gov-
ernment can give some assistance to these
people.
There is ample precedent for the govern-
ment giving grants to volunteer safety organi-
zations. A few years ago, The Department of
Agriculture when setting up the farm safety
councils, provided a grant. At the same time,
the government has provided grants for the
Ontario safety league, the Canadian highway
safety council, and others. I can assure you,
Mr. Speaker, that from my experience of
working with the interested persons of this
province, that a grant of this amount would
go a long way towards implementing active
community safety programmes.
In conclusion, I would say that traffic acci-
dent prevention must be looked at in a very
broad sense. We should not narrow our view
and think we can solve this problem by im-
proved vehicle design, greater enforcements,
or driver education, any one thing. These
things will have to develop and progress
parallel. Action must be taken to educate our
drivers and pedestrians to prevent the actual
occurrence of an accident.
There is a rather interesting editorial in the
Toronto Daily Star of Thursday, February 24,
in support of the safety vehicle, and it points
out:
When it comes to attacking slaughter on
the highway, Ontario belongs to the "loose
nut" school.
This is a body of horse-and-buggy
thinkers, whose approach to highway safety
is concentrated on the driver, or— as mem-
bers of the school call him— "the loose nut
behind the wheel."
Transport Minister Irwin Haskett earns
his membership by stating that "nine out
1176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of 10 accidents are due to carelessness of
the driver," while missing an opportunity
to take meaningful action against the real
killer— the car itself.
Well, I would say diat we in this province
have always had a policy of approaching the
traffic problem in many ways, and not solely
concentrating on one particular area.
At the conclusion of this editorial the hon.
Minister of Transport was quoted as saying
that Ontario would study any results that
might come out of the New York project after
it is completed. This is the project of which
the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young)
spoke.
He— Mr. Haskett— cited careless drivers
as a major cause of highway deaths and
added that Ontario will not select one facet
—presumably building a safer car— and ex-
ploit it out of all proportion.
Well, I believe, sir, the most successful way
to attack the traffic problem is to build safer
vehicles; but also to create within the driver
the ability to prevent an accident from occur-
ing. Do not let us try to solve the whole
problem after the point of agony.
These few suggestions I have made will,
I feel, do much to help this Legislature
improve the safety drive that has been con-
ducted in this province of Ontario for some
time.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the
attention of the House that we have with us
this morning, students from Vincent Massey
collegiate from Windsor-Sandwich in the
east gallery.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, I have for many years been con-
cerned that the aged be able to retire with
an income sufficiently large to provide them
with the necessities of life and a few of the
comforts as well.
Now while I do not feel the Senate has by
any means justified its existence, the Senate
committee on aging has embodied in its re-
port a proposal that has a great deal of merit.
I refer to its proposal to provide a guaranteed
annual income of $1,260 or $105 per month
to all people 65 and over who are single and
$185 per month for married couples.
The federal government would pay the
difference between actual income and the
guaranteed level. Presumably this assistance
would be determined from income tax re-
turns and would do away with the objection-
able means test required by the Canada
assistance plan.
Now this method, Mr. Speaker, would be a
way of helping Canadians over 65 who will
not get increased old age benefits from the
Canada pension plan.
Of course, I do not think the amount is
high enough when a special committee of the
Canadian conference on aging states that a
single elderly person living alone needs a
monthly income of $138.96 and a retired mar-
ried couple $223.82, but it is a great improve-
ment over the present $75 monthly pension.
With Prime Minister Pearson refusing to
raise the pension to $100 a month, some
action must be taken and taken quickly to
assist these elderly people to a decent stan-
dard of living.
Some federal government members are
opposing the committee's proposal because,
they say, it would excite squabbles with the
provinces over federal responsibility in the
field of social welfare.
Let this Ontario Legislature be the first
province to set aside this petty type of
jurisdictional pride and give the federal gov-
ernment some indication of support and assur-
ance of co-operation towards any means of
raising the living standards of Canada's pen-
sioners or let this province initiate a similar
type of assistance on its own.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak of a matter
of grave concern to the citizens of Hamilton.
I find it difficult to understand why Hamilton
received such minimal consideration as the
terminal point of a rapid railway commuter
service by the committee established to make
a study of Metropolitan Toronto and region
transportation.
Surely it is only common sense to under-
take an experiment of this nature by provid-
ing commuter service between the two largest
potential users, that is, Toronto and Hamilton.
I claim that the success of this experiment is
jeopardized if Hamilton is not designated as
the western terminal point.
I understand that early in their studies the
committee consulted railway officials and con-
cluded that heavy freight traffic to Hamilton
would prevent bringing the rapid commuter
system to Hamilton. On this point I would
like to read a portion of the brief presented
by the corporation of the city of Hamilton on
November 25, 1965:
When the announcement was made that
the commuter service would terminate at
Burlington, it was pointed out that the
passenger service on CNR facilities could
not be continued into Hamilton on a
frequent schedule because of the very
heavy freight traffic on this stretch of track.
MARCH 4, 1966
1177
We propose a solution to that problem
by making the T. H. & B. station in down-
town Hamilton the commuter terminal
here. There are complete facilities there
for such a terminal point, an excellent sta-
tion, more than adequate trackage, to-
gether with facilities for the servicing of
trains, the turning around of trains and
the overnight storage of trains. Burlington
does not have these facilities at the present
time and the ending of the commuter
service at Burlington would appear to re-
quire a substantial capital expenditure
which would not be required in Hamilton.
The problem of the usage of track facili-
ties between Burlington and Hamilton does
not appear to be as serious as indicated.
We realize that there is very heavy freight
traffic on this stretch of track, but if the
T. H. & B. station were used as the termi-
nal, the pressure on the use of the track
would be reduced from that part between
Burlington and Hamilton to that part be-
tween Burlington and Bayview, from which
point trains would proceed over the T. H.
& B. track to their station. It is estimated
that a train proceeding at high speed
would take no more than five minutes to
cover the distance between Bayview and
Burlington.
Surely it would be possible to schedule
commuter trains, at least on an hourly
basis, into and out of Hamilton so that
they would not interfere with the freight
traffic of both the CNR and the CPR,
which use the track between Burlington
and Bayview. While there should be no
need to reroute freight via the CPR line
through Guelph junction, consideration
might be given to the greater use of the
CNR beach strip line, which might ease
the pressure between Burlington and Bay-
view. We have discussed this arrangement
with railroad people informally and un-
derstand from them that this plan is quite
practical and workable as a means of
bringing the commuter service into Hamil-
ton.
It is going to involve some study and
co-operation by the railway companies,
working with your committee. We respect-
fully suggest that you call together, at an
early date, officers of the CNR who will
be operating the commuter service, and
the T. H. & B., and the CPR, both of
whom are involved in the use of the facili-
ties between Bayview and the T. H. & B.
station.
I suggest that the railway companies
could assist your committee by co-operating
towards this solution. The railways have
responsibilities to the city of Hamilton
just as our governments have and they are
not meeting those responsibilities if they
advise your technical committee, in effect,
that they are so busy using their trackage
for profitable freight business for Hamilton
that they cannot provide our citizens with
this passenger service.
Mr. Speaker, this portion of the Hamilton
brief clearly indicates that the commuter
service should extend to Hamilton because it
is practical, since arrangements can be made
with the railways for the use of tracks— and
it is economical, since we have the station
and other necessary facilities already avail-
able in Hamilton.
While the hon. Minister of Highways is
familiar with the location of the T. H. &
B. station, Mr. Speaker, I want to em-
phasize for the benefit of the other hon.
members that this station is located right in
the heart of the city of Hamilton and is most
convenient, indeed, to our city transportation
system.
It is, as well, within walking distance of
three major hotels— the nearest is one-and-a-
half blocks away, while the other two are
within three-and-a-half and four-and-a-half
blocks.
To give an idea of the potential customer
gain to be made if the service is extended to
Hamilton, I would again like to quote from
the brief:
A survey made two or three years ago
by the Ontario government indicated that
there were at that time approximately
12,000 persons moving between Hamilton
and Toronto each day.
The location of the commuter terminal
at the T. H. & B. station in downtown
Hamilton would put the commuter trains
in direct contact, through the Hamilton
street railway, with 300,000 persons who
would not be available at Burlington.
There are approximately 8,000 persons
on the mountain who might use the com-
muter service if it was in downtown
Hamilton.
Through the Hamilton chamber of com-
merce, a survey has been made to get
some idea of the potential for the com-
muter service in Hamilton. Many in-
dustrialists, business people, lawyers,
government people and others have indi-
cated that they would use the commuter
service if it is fast and frequent and avail-
able in downtown Hamilton. Our city hall
people make about 50 trips a month to
1178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Toronto on city business. They drive now,
but would use this railway commuter
service here. Local ticket agencies esti-
mate that approximately 1,000 persons are
moving weekly from Hamilton to Toronto
and back to attend sports events, theatre
and other entertainment.
I think we all know human nature well
enough to realize that these potential rail-
way passengers are not going to drive to
Burlington and then use the railway from
there to Toronto, and then go through the
same transfer procedure on the way back.
The service has to be where the people
are.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the brief pointed out
that the CNR ran a special train to Toronto
for the Grey Cup game— not from Burlington
-because they wanted 500, 600 or 1,000
people to use it. All the people mentioned,
the brief continues:
—are those who would use commuter
service from downtown Hamilton to com-
mute to and from Toronto. It is quite
likely that a large number of Burlington
people, travelling to work in Hamilton,
would use the service if it comes right
into downtown Hamilton. About 1,200
men from here work at the Ford plant in
Oakville. They could be a big market for
potential users of the service, twice a day,
if it is available conveniently in downtown
Hamilton. These people are not going to
drive to Burlington, transfer to the trains
to Oakville and do the same thing again
coming home. They will continue to drive
their cars, because it is more convenient.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, a $50 million re-
development programme is planned for
Hamilton's downtown area and the com-
muter terminal should be an integral part of
this rejuvenated core of the city of Hamilton.
It is my understanding that a reduction in
highway traffic between Hamilton and
Toronto is very desirable to reduce the safety
hazards caused by the present heavy flow.
This cannot be accomplished unless Hamilton
becomes the western terminal point of the
proposed railway commuter service.
Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed over the lack
of enforcement of the safety regulations in
the construction industry. To illustrate the
reasons for my alarm, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to read to this House some excerpts
from the coroner's inquests reports of Metro
Toronto.
In August of last year, Richard Buckle
was killed: jury's verdict— preventable
death. In September of last year, Ronald
Fowler was killed: jury's verdict— prevent-
able death. In July of last year, Vittorio
Cashera was killed: jury's verdict— prevent-
able death.
These reports are not pleasant, and I could
go on and on. In fact, I could relate cases
of preventable deaths of 17 construction
workers in Metro alone in 1965. I could
also list the 15 preventable deaths of con-
struction workers in 1964. To round out the
picture, I could list the 406 workers killed
in all of Ontario in all types of employment
in 1965.
However, I will not disturb the comfort
of the hon. members with any further ex-
amples. But I will ask— just how long are
these "preventable deaths" going to con-
tinue? How long are we to tolerate a situa-
tion where men are being killed unneces-
sarily? The 65 men killed in the construction
industry in 1965 in Ontario are ample evi-
dence that the government is doing little to
combat the negligence and indifference that
reigns in this area.
We have a new Industrial Safety Act in
Ontario. The government was pressured
after years of waste and delay to finally draft
amendments to the antiquated document of
1926. It has done so. It has produced on
paper regulations, which, to some extent,
cover the safety procedures in the industry.
But what is the use of an elaborate legal
statement which is not being enforced?
What possible effect can this document have
if day after day maiming and fatal accidents
occur on construction jobs?
I would like to discuss these problems for
a moment in relation to the hon. Minister of
Labour's (Mr. Rowntree's) statement in the
House on January 27 of this year.
Apparently one is supposed to believe that
Utopia has been reached. All is so well in the
construction area that nothing remains to be
done. Why then, do we still read of so many
deaths in which the coroner's verdict holds
the construction firms responsible? As a result
of the amendments passed last year, the
maximum penalty for being at fault is now
$5,000. And yet James McNair, chief of the
department's safety branch, stated recently
that the biggest fine levied against a con-
tractor in Ontario for ignoring a stop-work
order because of safety infractions was $2,600.
The biggest levy in Metro Toronto was
$1,000.
These paltry sums are no deterrent. The
contractor can actually save money and time
by paying the fines. The government has
armed itself with a set of regulations that it
MARCH 4, 1966
1179
is unwilling to enforce. It has chosen the
battleground, but it refuses to charge.
The only way to make this Act effective is
to enforce it. Why have more construction
firms not being fined the maximum amount
when they have been found guilty? The fact
is that magistrates often are not tough enough
when dealing with safety infractions. A
father of three fell to his death in August of
last year. The contractor was found guilty
and hence convicted by a Toronto court on
three charges under The Construction Safety
Act. Yet this contractor escaped the possi-
bility of a then maximum fine of $500 per-
sonally or $2,500 as a company, because the
magistrate suspended sentence on conviction.
Why is the government refusing to see that
its legislation is enforced?
The simple fact remains that maximum
fines are not being imposed so as to make
construction firms realize that accidents are
expensive, not only in terms of human life,
but in hard cash. Examination of reports will
reveal that in every case of accidental death
on a construction job the cause was some
simple breach of safety regulations. It is up to
the government to make it more expensive
for them to neglect safety than to enforce it.
I would like to quote from the hon. Min-
ister's remarks of the same day regarding
the matter of inspection. The hon. Minister
stated that "nearly 250 [inspectors] are now
at work across this province." The hon.
Minister neglects to clarify whether these
people are construction safety inspectors,
factory or boiler inspectors. Are these in-
spectors engaged full time or part time? Are
they adequately trained as inspectors? The
hon. Minister purports to have clarified the
situation across the province but has only
succeeded in confusing the facts and clouding
this touchy issue.
It is obvious to anyone that the present
system of municipal responsibility in con-
struction inspection is chaotic, inefficient and
antiquated. More often it is non-existent.
Many municipalities have one inspector whose
job requires both office and inspection re-
sponsibility. Long Branch, New Toronto,
Mimieo, Swansea and Leaside have only one
construction safety inspector each. In all
these areas vast amounts of construction are
taking place.
Hamilton has only two construction safety
inspectors, one of whom is required to spend
most of His time in the office.
In Hamilton, at the present time, we
have 20 major construction jobs, going on,
300 medium sized jobs and about 500 small
construction jobs under way. It is obviously
impossible for these two men, really only
one man, to give all these jobs the proper
and frequent type of job inspection needed if
we are to eliminate preventable accidents.
About all that can be done is to investigate
situations where complaints have been laid.
Complaints are not always laid because
workers have found a tendency on the part
of the contractor to tell them to go get an-
other job if they don't like things there. This
is particularly true, I am told, on smaller
jobs.
The enforcement of safety regulations is
simply being outpaced by the construction
boom. Since the frequency of inspection often
means the difference between life and death,
the government must bring some efficiency
to the system. In addition to efficiency,
standardization is needed so present hap-
hazard methods are eliminated. It is obvious
that only through the appointment of pro-
vincial inspectors can we hope to improve
the gross inadequacies of inspection and
enforcement.
When an investigation of the death of a
Toronto construction worker was conducted,
it was found that no safety inspector had
visited the construction site for over a month.
Inspectors, when questioned, cannot even
state how often an inspection should be
carried out. In Metropolitan Toronto, the
hon. Minister informs us, there are 14 full-
time construction safety inspectors. I repeat,
14 inspectors for an area covering 240 square
miles which has one of the highest con-
struction rates in North America. It is in-
conceivable that so few men can carry out
the requirements of the Act with any degree
of reliability.
All inspectors should be appointed by the
provincial government. They must be trained
by The Department of Labour so that the
same safety regulations can be enforced
across the province. There must be a sub-
stantial increase in the number of these in-
spectors so that one man is not overburdened
to the point where his work becomes futile.
Construction safety inspectors appear to be
doing the best possible job under the circum-
stances. But they are fighting a losing battle.
The chief of the labour department's con-
struction safety branch is apparently so
harassed by the present system that, when
asked how often construction sites should
be inspected, he refused to answer.
Later, when pressed, he stated "when
necessary." Surely these remarks are proof
enough that the system is simply not work-
ing. Inspections must be carried out on a
regular basis, not on a "when necessary"
1180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
basis. The whole process of safety inspection
must be overhauled, and made a direct re-
sponsibility of the provincial government.
Under the present system of municipal
inspection, we are often forced to rely upon
company-hired safety men. What the govern-
ment has helped to create, due to its own in-
adequacies, is a greater system of inade-
quacies. In reference to this matter, Dr. Elie
Cass, one of Toronto's coroners, stated: "It is
utterly impossible for any construction safety
engineer, who is employed by a company
that is the contractor, to do an adequate, un-
prejudiced, enforcement of The Construction
Safety Act."
There should be no reason for relying on
anyone other than a provincially trained in-
spector whose job is solely that of inspection.
I would also like to bring to the atten-
tion of this House another matter of in-
justice which often occurs in the construction
industry. There are countless examples of
workers who protest the safety of conditions
on the job and yet are forced to continue to
work on the site. They are threatened with
the loss of their job and see no alternative
but to follow the orders of the company.
These men have little recourse, especially
when a construction safety inspector has not
been on the site for days. It is the respon-
sibility of the government to actually provide
protection for construction workers, not just
a set of paper rules.
Unless the government increases the
number and frequency of inspection, workers
themselves will begin to enforce stop-work
orders. This type of action is already taking
place. Some of the largest construction pro-
jects in the area have been closed down by
protesting workmen. I am referring to the
action taken by Norman Pike, safety director
of the labourers' union, local 183. His atti-
tude and that of his union is logical and
reasonable. Why wait for someone to be
killed to prove that the job is unsafe?
The government must begin to realize that
the Act itself is no solution to increasing
problems of the construction worker. The
killing and maiming of workers cannot be
stopped by legal documents. Only by inten-
sified enforcement of the Act can we hope to
prevent the wholesale slaughter of people
who are building this province. The gov-
ernment must immediately take as its re-
sponsibility the task of developing a system
of provincial, rather than municipal, inspec-
tion.
It must appoint more inspectors, men who
are better trained in the full-time job of
inspection.
The government must enforce the fining
procedures it has established, so that the
price of a man's death is no longer cheaper
than the cost of preventing it.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York North
(Mr. Mackenzie) insists that I recognize, in
the west gallery, a group of ladies from the
Markham township Progressive-Conservative
ladies association. We welcome them to the
Legislature.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to take part in the Throne
debate at this late hour. I had something
prepared that would keep the House going
for four or five hours. Now I find myself
with only 35 minutes. So I am just warning
you in advance that if some of you want to>
leave, I might do a better job.
Mr. R. A. Eagleson (Lakeshore): It would
not be near as much fun.
Mr. Bukator: I am going to touch on a
subject this morning that should have been
discussed long before this. I want first to
confess that I have come short of the mark,
as far as a member is concerned, and maybe
when I was a member of the Niagara parks
commission.
We have had a problem in that area for
quite some time, and I believe it bears dis-
cussing very thoroughly. I would like to
make reference to The Niagara Parks Com-
mission Act, how it came about and when
it did come about. I have before me the
Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960, The
Niagara Parks Commission Act, and it says:
The commission means The Niagara
Parks Commission, a corporation con-
stituted under Queen Victoria Niagara
Parks Act 1887, and taking its present
name under The Niagara Parks Commis-
sion Act 1927.
The Act moves on to define what these men
have to do and how they are constituted.
Back in 1950, the parks commission had an
eight-man board that was appointed by the
present government. That is one of the com-
missions that holds with the government.
To the winner goes the spoils. When you
have a change of government, you change
the commission. And this might be the
answer to the problem there, I do not know.
If you change the government, you may
change that, and this might be the answer
to the problem there. I do not know.
If you change the government you may
change that commission, and if you do they
might be updated to present-day thinking.
MARCH 4, 1966
1181
However, in 1951 they decided they should
have additions to the eight-man board. They
decided they would have three added rep-
resentatives on the board, a member from
the county of Lincoln, a member from the
county of Welland and a member from the
city of Niagara Falls.
I was fortunate enough to be the warden
of the county that year and I was appointed
to the commission. I felt I would make
quite a contribution to that particular group
because they were all Conservatives, natur-
ally, and here they had a Liberal member
to tell them the other side of the story.
So for six consecutive years I sat on that
commission. I discussed their problems with
them and I have said in this House before,
and I say it to you again to keep the record
straight, I thought the chairman, Todd Daley,
who was the Minister of Labour at that time,
did an excellent job as the chairman of that
particular group. I have not changed my
mind. He chaired those meetings and he
chaired them well.
They had lots of money and they made a
lot of money with their concessions. They
paid for the whole park system from lake to
lake, which is about 35 miles— most of you
are acquainted with that, Mr. Speaker. They
have an excellent area for the people to
enjoy the parks. Much of it is free— swim-
ming is free, park areas are free, and I think
this is wonderful.
I do believe they came short of the mark
when it comes to recognizing their employees.
Let us say in my term of office at that time
I might have brought this before them, but
I do not want to criticize the commission. I
think we should put this in sequence, and I
think it starts off with a commission operating
a board under the present government.
The government, the hon. Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) himself appoints the commis-
sion—I guess it is the Lieutenant-Governor in
council who does. I am sorry, because it is
under The Crown Act that it operates. How-
ever, they are appointed, and they have often
discussed wages while I was at the board
meetings.
It is customary for the chairman to bring
before you a schedule of wages annually and
tell you, or lead you to believe, that this is
the policy of the government that sat before
the commission. The commission on occasion
may ask the odd question, but it is accepted
because those men who work under the chair-
man as commissioners are— his wish is their
command. Their command comes from the
chairman and the chairman naturally imple-
ments the facts and the business and the
wishes of the government. So if we are
going to blame anybody for the conditions in
that park— I want to make this very clear to
you— I believe it is the government that is
to blame.
I believe it is the government that is to
blame because they have the commission
working for them—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Even though the hon. member used to be
on the commission?
Mr. Bukator: That is right. I thought I
would preface my remarks by saying I was
on that commission for six years. When the
chairman brought in the schedule— I would
like to make this clear to the hon. Minister
of Labour, because apparently it did not get
through to him—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It is diffi-
cult sometimes.
Mr. Bukator: Through you, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say to that hon. gentleman
that when I sat on the commission I was an
outsider. I watched the operation. They
brought the schedule in by the chairman and
the manager and they led us to believe that
this is the policy of the government, because
these men are civil servants, and it was ac-
cepted.
And no matter how much I kicked up
my heels, I would not have reached first
base anyway, and the hon. Minister knows
that as well as I do. I wish he would nod
his head just once more. He has the wrong
kind of nod.
Mr. Eagleson: Did the hon. member kick
up his heels?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bukator: I have said on occasion, Mr.
Speaker, when we discuss the problems of
the parks commission in this House, which
is a big group, doing a big job, spending
many millions of dollars, we left the affairs
of the parks commission and the problems
right at that board meeting. Any group of
directors in any business, whether they argue
in caucus or in a board of directors' meeting
of a business, they leave their problems
within the confines of that building and I
think this is good business.
What was said by myself or any other
member of that commission, I am sure this
House would not want to know. The facts
are, these men did not get their pay increases
1182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the point where they could be recognized
as employees being paid the proper amount
of money for the work that they do.
Let me say more to you about the parks
commission employees. I have had the odd
man come to me and say, "I think we ought
to get more wages. I do believe we should
be paid better and should have better work-
ing conditions." And I felt they sure should.
I have said, "You put this on paper. Give
me a letter to that effect. I will read it into
the records of the Legislature." I have often
said that to them, but each man operates
under a certain amount of fear, wondering,
if he did convey this to me, whether or not
he would have a job next week. So you
can understand the conditions under which
they work.
While they belong to the civil service
branch 74, paying their dues to an organiza-
tion—as they have done, according to a
clipping I have here, for eight consecutive
years— they found that the civil service asso-
ciation could not bargain for them, because
this was brought very forcibly to them by
the chairman himself. And I think maybe we
should clear this point:
The chairman said that we do not have
to bargain with you because we operate
under a Crown Act.
And so if I can get through these many
notes that I have before me here, I might
be able to put on the record some of the
facts as they were presented to me.
This is the civil service association of On-
tario press release pertaining to the Niagara
parks commission employees who seek certifi-
cation under The Labour Relations Act. If
the hon. Minister of Labour would listen to
this, he might bend a little bit and give these
people the treatment they ought to get.
Hon. Mr. Rownree: I have read that press
release already.
Mr. Bukator: Have you, Mr. Minister?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): The problem
is that the hon. Minister was going to answer
a question.
Mr. Bukator: As a matter of fact, if it
was read here—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bukator: This is the release:
The Niagara parks commission, under the
chairmanship of the Hon. Charles Daley,
operates a series of parks in the Niagara
peninsula which are entirely separated
from the administrative purpose for other
Ontario public parks. The Department of
Lands and Forests parks employees are
civil servants.
Now you see, this is something I did not
know until I read this account. I might say
again:
The Department of Lands and Forests
parks employees are civil servants. The
Niagara parks employees are employed of
a Crown agency and thus are excluded
from the collective bargaining privileges of
Ontario civil and public servants. Since
they are employees of a Crown agency, it
appears that a union may not become
certified as their bargaining agent under
The Labour Relations Act. This means that
the Niagara parks commission employees,
who have belonged to the civil service
association of Ontario for the past eight
years, now find themselves in a no man's
land between civil and private employment.
At a recent meeting of the civil service
association, representatives were informed
by Chairman Daley that the commission
would not meet with staff representatives
of the association or any union to discuss
the salaries and working conditions for the
park employees, and further that the com-
mission would not allow employee griev-
ances to be placed before an impartial
arbitration board.
Now, there is democracy for you.
Mr. Bryden: And a former Minister of
Labour.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bukator: To continue:
At a meeting in the union hall on
Wednesday, February 9, 1966, parks em-
ployees voted unanimously to seek certi-
fication under The Labour Relations Act,
through the Civil Service Association of
Ontario Incorporated, and completed the
necessary application for the purpose. Tele-
grams of support were read by Mr. David
Archer, president of the Ontario federa-
tion of labour, representing a half-million
trade unionists in Ontario and Mr. Harry
Simon, Canadian labour congress of On-
tario, both of whom expressed their warm
support of Niagara parks commission em-
ployees in their struggle for collective bar-
gaining and removal of their present status
as second-class citizens.
MARCH 4, 1966
1183
You can see where they are getting a lot
of support from outside groups, believing
that they have not had an opportunity to
speak for themselves. Now, in all fairness,
Mr. Speaker, if I was assured by the hon.
Minister of Labour that this condition would
be cleared up and that they would somehow
find ways for these people to speak for
themselves and be able to bargain for their
rights, which every human being in this
country has a right to, then I would sit down
immediately.
There seems to be quite a gap. And I may
say that there was a time— just in trying to
defend myself— there was a time in that park
that if you were employed or had a steady
job there, you were exceptionally well
treated. You had a good job, because jobs
were scarce. But as time went on, other
wages were increased and these men's posi-
tions were static. So they finally came to
the conclusion they want a little better
treatment than they are getting.
They have explored every possible avenue.
They are decent people and are doing a good
job. I do not think management is dis-
satisfied with their work, but they just are
not getting the treatment that employees
'ought to get. And so I read on—
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order there, I might
say-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member can
only ask the member speaking a question.
Mr. Morningstar: I just thought we could
correct something that he wanted to know.
Mr. Bryden: Everything he said is correct
up to now.
Mr. Morningstar: The Niagara parks com-
mission have no objection to the men form-
ing their own association; the same as the
Hydro, the provincial police or any other
organization. They have no objection.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Roberts) brought in a bill
a few years ago that deprived employees of
Crown agencies of their basic rights, under
the guise of getting federal tax exemptions
for Crown agencies.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for
Niagara Falls has the floor.
Mr. Bukator: I wonder, Mr, Speaker, if I
do have. It is good to have an interjection
from the hon. gentleman from Wellahd. He
is now the new member to the parks com-
mission and he is one of those genuine
members, because he was appointed by his
government to fill a vacancy on the proper
commission.
I was picked annually, along with two
other colleagues, to fill a position for a period
of one year. But this man will be there as
long as the government— this particular gov-
ernment—is in the House. And by the fact
that he is there, and he is a labourer him-
self, he has always looked out for the
labouring class in his riding. It would have
been my opinion that by this time he would
have expressed his opinion to the people
of that area, and tell them that he was going
to look out for their interests, because he is
the only labour man on that particular com-
mission.
Mr. Morningstar: I did that at the com-
mission.
Mr. Bukator: He did that at a commission
meeting. Now Mr. Speaker, if he did that at
the commission meeting, apparently it did
not faze them too much because they are
still sticking by their oars. They are operat-
ing under a Crown Act and they say under
no circumstances do we have to deal with
you, the employees.
Now we are getting to the crux of the
matter, it is about time some action was
taken.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Bukator: Pardon?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bukator: You know there is one thing
about the member for Niagara Falls; he
never worried whether they were there or
not.
I have never worried about the press. I
look after the people in my riding, Mr. Min-
ister. That is why I was so fortunate to have
defeated one of the parks commission mem-
bers by well over 4,000 votes in the last
election. Thank you for the opportunity to
interject that. I would think the hon. Minis-
ter of Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman) by
this time would take that smirk off his face
and be satisfied that he took quite a horse-
whipping for a week here. He is recovering?
Mr. Speaker: Will the member continue
with his remarks?
Mr. Bukator: It is about time, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. Prime Minister stepped into
1184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the situation to remove parks employees
from the no man's land in which they find
themselves. All we are asking is that the
Niagara parks commission bring its personnel
administration at least into line with that
which the Ontario government provides.
There is absolutely no reason why employees
of all boards and commissions in the prov-
ince should not be represented on the On-
tario joint council for collective bargaining
purposes.
Now, if the hon. Prime Minister, Mr.
Speaker, does not hear any more than that,
^and acts on it, he will be doing a job for
us.
For further information it tells us to con-
tact other people. I would like to read
another release. It says: "Ex-Minister of
Labour denies bargaining rights," and this
is the only reason why I brought this to
your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to this
House. People should not be denied the
opportunity to speak on their own behalf
without being fearful of being defeated, or
even losing their jobs. So when? It says:
Mr. Charles Daley, ex-Minister of
Labour for Ontario and presently chairman
of the Niagara parks commission, has re-
fused to discuss salaries and working con-
ditions with the representatives of the
civil service association of Ontario. The
majority of the Niagara parks employees
have belonged to the association for the
past eight years. Mr. Daley made it clear
at a meeting at Niagara Falls on Friday,
January 21st, 1966, that he will not meet
union representatives, or allow representa-
tives to be present if and when he agrees
to speak with individuals or groups of
parks employees.
Mr. Daley stated we will not allow our
employees grievance arbitration or any
other form of arbitration. We will not
hand over our authority to anyone at
Queen's Park.
What a comment, if it is true:
We will not hand over our authority to
anyone at Queen's Park. We, the commis-
sion, will decide what is best for our
employees.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Prime Minister was
going to make a statement on that. When is
he going to do that?
Mr. Bukator: The meeting was called at
the request of the civil service association,
which is seeking bargaining rights at least
equivalent to those which the Ontario govern-
ment provides for other provincial employees.
Now I do not think this is an unfair
request. I started out, Mr. Speaker, to say
that I was delinquent possibly in my duties
when I sat on that commission for six years.
I thought then that our employees had good
jobs, because their wages were almost in
line. But over the period of years wages
have increased throughout the whole area
and their wages have not come up to
standard.
I spoke about this matter in the House a
year ago, and I suppose if you looked into the
records, I mention the parks commission
annually. And I say again to you that I
have the greatest of respect for the hon.
Todd Daley. He has done an excellent job
in this House. He has had the commission
with a fence around it. It operates under a
Crown Act and he says in no uncertain terms
that no one will tell him how to run that
show.
An hon. member: How much are they
paid?
Mr. Bryden: Just perquisites, but sub-
stantial perquisites.
Mr. Bukator: No, there is no payment
there. These men do a good job for very
little money. No money at all, as a matter
of fact. Sometimes, I suppose, I should get
an opportunity to speak to you for three or
four hours and give you the whole history of
that group of people. They have done an
excellent job there. I mentioned that these
people here in the province loaned them a
little money quite some time ago, to buy the
park. They maintain it and maintain it well.
A lot of people enjoy those facilities.
But these men finally found themselves in
a position where they could not maintain
themselves and their families well. They
needed more money and they had to turn to
someone. They finally came to me. I did not
interfere in this particular issue until they
came to me by resolution of their particular
group. They, the president of that particular
association, the employees, and the secretary-
treasurer, came to me and said, this is our
problem and if you can do anything for us,
we would like you to do this and give us a
hand. And so I have taken it onto myself to
relate the facts to hon. members.
I am not being critical of anyone. The
commission has operated under an Act, which
keeps from their employees the right to
bargain. So they have explored every possible
avenue, to get someone to listen to their woes
and sorrows.
I am hoping that this morning I can get
through to the people on the other side of the
MARCH 4, 1966
1185
House, and they may take a little time off
and speak with the chairman and that com-
mission, which as I said before is governed
by this government. They are appointed by
this government and they are there at the
pleasure of the government. They are there
until the government is changed.
I do not criticize anyone. If I did, I would
take it out on the hon. Prime Minister him-
self. He ought to know by now that there is
an injustice imposed on these employees.
These men are fearful of speaking to
anyone, for fear that they may lose their jobs.
But it has come to the point where they now
say to their member, we would like you to
tell them the story, and that is exactly
what I am trying to do.
So I say to you that the Niagara parks
employees are employees of the Crown and
thus are excluded from certification under
The Labour Relations Act.
Mr. Bryden: That was by a double cross
from the former Attorney General, now the
Minister of Lands and Forests.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Very good. I enjoyed that,
Mr. Speaker, although I did not get anything
out of it.
Certification requires non-government em-
ployers to negotiate with unions. The com-
mission maintains the police force of some 15
men which operates outside of the require-
ments of The Police Act. I think that originally
they were appointed as guards and care-
takers. I do not believe that that section
of the Act was changed. I still think that
they do operate as guards and caretakers with
the exception that they wear uniforms and
are called "Niagara parks police."
If I am wrong on this issue, I would like
someone to correct me. I might say, too, that
they are the greatest public relations men
that the park has ever hired. They are there
to direct and help the tourists in that area
and in my opinion, do an excellent job. They
are, again, treated the same as the employees.
I will read on:
It was primarily the question of the
status of the officers of this force which
prompted the meeting. Although the officers
are required to meet the discipline require-
ments, etcetera, of The Police Act, they
are not afforded the right of representation
and arbitration provided in the Act.
i Mr. Daley's statement effectively placed
all the Niagara parks commission em-
ployees in the position inferior to that of
any public or civil service in Ontario, and
the parks police in a position inferior to
that of any other policeman. Since they
are excluded from the protection of The
Labour Relations Act, the employees now
find themselves completely at the mercy of
Mr. Daley and his commission.
Now, let me tell you, they are not a bunch
of difficult people to deal with. All they
require is some instruction and they require
the instruction from this body— the provincial
government. I am sure that this situation
can be very nicely cleared up.
All employees of the provincial govern-
ment have the right to expect equal treat-
ment from their employer. The apparently
autonomous empires which are allowed to
exist in the Ontario service militate against
this. Four years ago a select committee of the
Legislature composed of members of all
political parties— this is good— four years ago,
a select committee of the Legislature com-
posed of member of all political parties
agreed unanimously that these empires should
be abolished.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: No, I would not want to take
it that far.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. member's leader
(Mr. Thompson) does.
Mr. Bukator: I can speak for myself from
time to time. I am sure we have that much
freedom in this country.
So far no action has been taken on the
select committee's report on the Ontario
government. The association will continue
to insist on the rights of all Crown em-
ployees, including the Niagara parks com-
mission, to effective representation.
Now all they are asking for— it says here— is
"effective representation."
Let me tell you some of the circumstances
under which some of these employees work.
They are called on to work overtime; they
are called on to work Sundays; they get a
limited time for their lunch— if they are busy,
they do not get the usual half-hour. For
overtime and the extra days that they work,
they get no pay. I hope that you heard that—
for overtime and the extra days that they
work, they get no pay. They have one
privilege; they have the right to take off
the time when the manager, the adminis-
trator or the man in command tells them that
they can have time off for the time that they
have worked overtime.
1186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They can have no vacation from the month
of May until Labour Day, because they are
busy at that time. They pile up a lot of
hours and if they cannot take these hours off
that they are entitled to within the year in
which they piled them up, then it is a lost
cause. They take it up in the following year.
Within the last six weeks two of their, in
my opinion not the best— they are all good
policemen— but two exceptionally good officers
from the Niagara parks commission have
quit their job because they just did not like
the conditions under which they worked and
could find something better to do with a
little more pay.
I am sure that both of them would have
stayed with the commission if they had had
an opportunity to be treated as policemen
should be, and ought to be, in this day and
age.
They, too, have to take off their time. If
they work overtime, taking care of traffic in
the summer months— and Lord knows the
traffic is dense there from early morning
until late at night— they are obliged to take
off the time that they added to the hours
that they work at the discretion of the man-
ager of the park. This does not seem to be
quite the thing to do in this day and age.
Mr. Speaker, it says that: "The Niagara
parks police department is the lowest paid
police department in Welland county."
This would be a wonderful thing for the
hon. member for Welland to look into— a
county representative for many years, a
warden of the county, a member of the
commission-
Mr. Morningstar: Mr. Speaker, in regard
to these working hours. The hon. member
for Niagara Falls was a member of the Nia-
gara parks commission for quite some time
when this went on at that time. I have in-
quired about it and was told that the men
wanted it that way.
They used to work that way, as the hon.
member knows, with the federal government
on the canal and on the seaway authority.
When they accumulated their overtime, they
took days off. It has been changed now, but
this went on for quite a while down there
and I was told that they wanted it that way
so that they would have days off.
With regard to the police, I would be glad
to inquire as to what they do get. There
are always people who want work with the
Niagara parks commission; they know that
they are not pushed around too much and it
is nice work there during the summer; they
meet a lot of people and there are always
many applications for positions there.'
Mr. Bukator: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are
always a lot of people asking for jobs in
the park. They have to get a letter from a
close friend of a very close friend of a very
close friend, and the fact—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Did the hon. member have any
trouble?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, as a matter of fact I
did. I always use a Conservative friend of
mine and say: "You go and talk with him and
he will get you on." And it works— on occa-
sion it works!
One plays the game according to the rules
of the game of that particular day and so
I said: "You ask me, a Liberal member, to
recommend you, when there are two people
applying for the job?" All things being equal,
both men being identical in ability and
talent, they would naturally pick the Conserv-
ative over the Liberal.
Now to reverse the issue; if we were in
there we would have done the same thing
and no doubt they did!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Morningstar: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
that— when they come to me for work I never
ask them what religion they are or what
their politics are— I never ask them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order! I have
to inform the members once again that the
member for Niagara Falls is making the
speech and we hope to hear from him and
not other members.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Bukator: Nothing would please me
better, Mr. Speaker, than to have what the
hon. member for Welland said, that these
people are happy to be that way.
I was assured of only one thing; that they
would call the president and the secretary of
that civil servants 74 branch.
They believed they had some rights.
Would he assure me, even after the next
meeting— and I know when it is, the second
Friday of every month— that he had ( these
men in to discuss these very problems? I
do not think that they would want unfbns; I
do not think they they would want anything
more than fair play from the commission.
MARCH 4, 1966
1187
They have not had this privilege and I
might ask the hon. member for Welland
when he feels like answering me— have they
ever had any of the employees before that
commission? I know that they were not
there in my time.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): He is going to answer it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Bukator: Have they ever had any of
the employees before that commission to
discuss the problem, to find out if these
people do want it that way? I would think
that a man working overtime would want
his overtime pay— yes, time and a half, at
least— and there is no such thing. They take
hour for hour; if they work a Sunday, they
will take off a day in the fall or in the
winter, no matter what the day happens to
be.
This is the treatment that they are getting
Inow. I would like to ask a question of the
hon. Prime Minister himself, if he would care
\o answer it: Does he think that is fair? I
am quite sure that he does not.
As I said before I was asked by the
president of this particular group finally.
After all these years they came to me and
said: "Would you bring this to the attention
of the House?" I have much more than I
can say about it and I feel that I would like
to adjourn the debate and continue on with
my comments on the Throne debate at the
pleasure of this House.
Mr. Bukator moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, I would like to pro-
ceed with the estimates of The Department
of Highways and we will see how far we
go. But after Highways, the next depart-
ment to be dealt with will be The Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information; after that
The Department of Lands and Forests and
after that, The Department of Labour.
On Monday we will see what the pro-
cedure will be on Tuesday, depending upon
how much we get done on Monday.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Before the hon. Prime Minister moves the
adjournment, Mr. Speaker, could he tell us
the times will be working next week? Will
we have a Monday night sitting?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We will, Mr. Speaker,
unless there is some other notice. We will
sit Monday, Tuesday and Thursday nights
from now until that far-distant date when we
prorogue this session.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the hon. Prime Minister another
question relative to what the hon. member
for Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator) was talking
about?
Some substantial time ago the hon. Prime
Minister promised that he would inquire into
this matter and advise the House. I wonder
if he could give us any indication as to when
he will be able to make a statement?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: This is completely out
of order but I am quite prepared to answer
my hon. friend.
At the time there was a question asked
and I gave a fairly detailed statement as to
the position of these employees with the
Niagara parks commission. What I, in fact,
said was that I could not say whether this
quotation from Mr. Daley was so, because I
had not been able to speak to Mr. Daley in
the period of time available if I were to an-
swer the question that was put on the order
paper. He was someplace where I certainly
could not reach him.
I will be quite happy to get his confirma-
tion or denial of whether, in fact, he made
this statement which was really the under-
taking that I gave the House.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 40
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, March 7, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 7, 1966
Crown Agency Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bryden, first reading 1191
Fatal Accidents Act, bill to amend, Mr. Sopha, first reading 1193
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1200
Recess, 6 o'clock 1226
1191
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to welcome
as visitors to the Legislature today, students
from the following schools: In the east
gallery, Burkholder drive public school,
Hamilton; and in the west gallery, St. Francis
of Assisi's separate school, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE CROWN AGENCY ACT
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Crown Agency Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Speaker,
by way of explanation of the bill, The
Crown Agency Act was passed in 1959. At
the time, it was represented as being de-
signed to secure exemptions for Crown agen-
cies operated by the Ontario government
from federal excise taxes. However, it has
been used primarily to deny the right to
organize and bargain collectively to em-
ployees of such agencies, the most recent
example being in connection with the
Niagara parks commission.
This bill, if adopted, would change the
Act to make it clear that it cannot be used
for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that the Clerk has received from the com-
missioners of estate bills, reports of the
following cases:
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay
The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelly
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
March 2, 1966
Roderick Lewis Esq., QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto 2, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: Bill No. Pr7, An Act respecting the Til-
bury school board.
Monday, March 7, 1966
The undersigned as commissioners of
estate bills as provided by The Legislative
Assembly Act, RSO 1960, chapter 208,
section 57, having had the above noted bill
referred to us as commissioners, now beg to
report thereon.
Your commissioners appointed February
28 at 2 p.m. to consider the said petition and
bill and gave notice thereof to the applicant.
On the hearing Mr. G. A. Gallagher, QC,
appeared for the petitioner, the Tilbury
public school board and submitted the fol-
lowing documents:
Copy of the will of William J. Miller;
Copy of bylaw 2397 of the county of
Kent;
Copy of the resolution of the town of
Tilbury passed January 24, 1966;
Copy of affidavit of Malcolm A. Derby-
shire.
Mr. M. Derbyshire, secretary-treasurer of the
Tilbury public school board, Mr. H. Herman,
a member of the said school board, Mr. K. B.
Rodger, clerk-treasurer of the town of Til-
bury, and Mr. J. Young, mayor of the town
of Tilbury, were also present at the hearing.
The following are the amendments to the
bill we suggest:
Sections 2, 3 and 4 as they appear in the
draft bill be deleted and that in their place
be substituted the following:
2. The trustees of the William J. Miller
Trust shall be those members of the public
school board of the area of which the
town of Tilbury forms a part, who are
from time to time elected as members of
such board by the public school ratepayers
of the town of Tilbury.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of by-
law 2397 of the county of Kent which
came into force on January 1, 1966, estab-
lishing an enlarged school area which in-
cludes the town of Tilbury, the assets of
the William J. Miller Trust are hereby
vested in the said trustees of the William J.
Miller Trust as herein provided for, and
the board of trustees of the public school
area created by such bylaw 2397 is
authorized and directed to transfer, con-
vey and pay over the said assets to the
said trustees of the William J. Miller Trust.
4. All moneys both capital and income
coming into the hands of the said trustees
1192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from the assets of the William J. Miller
Trust situate in the United States of
America set out in the schedule hereto
shall become and be in the hands of the
said trustees, capital of the said trust.
5. The trustees may postpone the
realization of any of the assets in the said
schedule set out which are not investments
authorized by the laws of Ontario for the
investment of trust funds; save as afore-
said all funds of the William J. Miller
Trust shall be invested and reinvested in
investments authorized by the laws of
Ontario for the investment of trust funds.
The first three lines of section 5 shall be de-
leted and the following substituted:
The net income in the hands of the
trustees shall be paid and applied as fol-
lows:
A new section shall be inserted between
sections 6 and 7:
The trustees are authorized to appoint
a secretary-treasurer and to engage the
services of agents, accountants, investment
counsel, solicitors and such other pro-
fessional assistants as may be reasonably
required in the administration of the trust,
and may pay proper remuneration for such
services out of the income of the trust
fund.
Your commissioners have dealt with the bill
on its merits and the form relating thereto.
We would point out that the petitioner, the
Tilbury public school board, by virtue of the
creation of an enlarged public school area,
pursuant to The Public Schools Act and by-
law 2397 of the county of Kent, ceased to
exist on January 1, 1966, and that all its
assets became vested in the board of the
new enlarged public school area. We have
not felt called upon to express any opinion
as to the effect on the proposed bill of the
facts recited in this paragraph.
We are of the opinion that the intent of
the bill is a reasonable one and that the
terms of it are proper for carrying into effect
its purposes and that it is reasonable that the
said bill should pass into law.
The bill duly signed by the commissioners
and a copy of the petition for the same to-
gether with the documents referred to herein,
are accordingly returned herewith.
Yours truly,
(signed)
F. G. MacKay, JA.
A. Kelly, JA.
Commissioners of estate bills.
THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay
The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelly
Osgoode Hall, Toronto 1
March 1, 1966
Roderick Lewis Esq., QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto 2, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Re: Bill No. Pr28, An Act respecting the
estate of William A. Dickieson.
The undersigned as commissioners of
estate bills as provided by The Legislative
Assembly Act, RSO 1960, chapter 208,
section 57, having had the above-noted bill
referred to us as commissioners, now beg to
report thereon.
Your commissioners appointed March 1 at
10 a.m. to consider the said petition and bill
and gave notice thereof to the applicant. On
the hearing, Mr. Dingwall, QC, appeared for
the petitioners and submitted the following
documents:
Petition of Fanny Eliza Dickieson and
Viola Belle Gray;
Certified copy of letters probate of the
last will and testament of William A.
Dickieson;
Affidavit of Ralph Bowles Newell;
Affidavit of Viola Belle Gray;
Duplicate original copy of agreement
dated June 3, 1965, between Fanny Eliza
Dickieson, Albert E. Gray, Viola Belle
Gray, Edward Gray, Muriel King, Gordon
Gray, Walter Gray, Phyllis Girling, Anna-
dale Gray and Glen Gray.
Mr. S. M. McBride, QC, appeared on behalf
of the official guardian representing the in-
fants and unborn children who have or may
have an interest in the estate of the testator.
Mr. McBride opposed the passage of the bill.
From the documents submitted and the
representation made by the above-named
solicitors it appears William A. Dickieson,
late of the township of Eramosa, in the
county of Wellington, died on October 17,
1937, having first made his last will and
testament. The main asset of the estate was
a farm. In respect of this farm he left a life
interest to his widow and after her death a
life interest to his daughter and provided that
on the daughter's death the farm be sold
and the proceeds thereof together with the
residue of the estate be divided among the
children of the said daughter with a pro-
vision that if any of her children died in
her lifetime the children of such child were
to take the parent's share.
MARCH 7, 1966
1193
The widow, Fanny Eliza Dickieson, to-
gether with the daughter Viola Belle Gray
and the daughter's husband have continued
since the date of the death of the said testa-
tor to reside on and operate the said farm.
The effect of the said Bill No. Pr28 would
be to defeat the provisions of the will made
by the testator with respect to his estate and
to vest the title to the farm in the daughter
Viola Belle Gray and her husband Albert E.
Gray as joint tenants. It would divest the
interest of the testator's widow in the estate
including her right of encroachment on
capital and it would extinguish the interest
of the grandchildren of the testator and
their issue in the estate.
It is alleged that the farm is in disrepair.
There are available other procedures where-
by there can be accomplished the object of
raising money for the repair of the farm
without resorting to the complete destruction
of the intention of the testator as to the dis-
position of his estate as set out in his will.
We recommend in the strongest terms that
this bill do not pass into law.
The bill duly signed by the commissioners
and a copy of the petition for the same to-
gether with the documents referred to herein,
are accordingly returned herewith.
Yours truly,
(signed)
F. G. MacKay, JA.
A. Kelly, JA.
Commissioners of estate bills.
It was therefore ordered that Bill No. Pr7
together with the report of the commissioners
of estate bills thereon, be referred to the
standing committee on private bills.
THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Fatal Accidents Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
in an action brought under The Fatal
Accidents Act, the amount that may be
awarded for necessary expenses incurred for
the burial of the deceased is at present $300.
This bill, in the light of costs of funeral
expenses, would raise the amount to an
amount not exceeding $800.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the
day, I have a question of the hon. Minister
of Health (Mr. Dymond), notice of which has
been given.
In light of the study by Dr. Harding Le
Riche, would the hon. Minister inform this
House what steps have been taken to correct
the serious problem existing in our hospitals?
Would the hon. Minister assure this House
that the Ontario hospital services commission
will check all hospitals in Ontario for similar
inadequacies as stated in the study?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the oppor-
tunity to read this study by Dr. Le Riche.
It is a book of 341 pages. It only came into
my hands a few days ago. It is an extensive
and detailed study which will require a good
deal of careful reading and consideration.
However, in the light of the report in the
newspaper this morning, I have already asked
the OHSC to undertake a check of all
hospitals in Ontario as quickly and as
thoroughly as possible.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day, I would like to direct a question
to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rown-
tree). It is actually in three parts.
1. Has the Ontario athletics commissioner
authorized the staging in Toronto of a boxing
match, purported to be for the heavyweight
championship of the world, between Cassius
Clay and Ernie Terrell?
2. If so, has the commissioner inquired
into: (a) the bona fides of all those connected
with the promotion of this match, including
Main Bouts Inc. of New York; (b) alleged
underworld connections of Terrell; (c) the
reasons why authorization has been refused
in several other jurisdictions?
3. What was the nature of the inquiry
and what were the findings? In particular,
why were the reasons for refusal of authoriza-
tion in other jurisdictions not considered
to be applicable here?
Mr. Speaker: As the member for Etobicoke
(Mr. Braithwaite) has a similar type of ques-
tion, I wonder if he would read it and the
Minister would perhaps answer both ques-
tions together?
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question
for the hon. Minister.
First, would the hon. Minister inform this
House of the nature of the representation, if
any, that has been made to the government
respecting the proposal that the heavyweight
championship fight between Mr. Clay and
Mr. Terrell be held in Toronto?
1194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Second, is the hon. Minister now in a
position to inform the House whether con-
sideration is being given to refuse the offices
of this city to such a pugilistic encounter in
view of all the circumstances surrounding
professional boxing and the character of the
personalities involved?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I think I could answer both of
these questions by giving some information
of the House.
The present state of the matter is this: An
application has been received by the Ontario
athletic commissioner, Mr. McKenzie, to pro-
mote a fight between Messrs. Clay and Terrell
on March 29 at Maple Leaf Gardens. The
application has been made by an Ontario
promoter, Mr. Frank Tunney. No decision
has been made on this matter as yet.
I have asked Mr. McKenzie, with whom I
met this morning— we went over certain
aspects of this encounter— to get some addi-
tional information for me, and pending receipt
of that information, no decision will be made.
Now, since no decision has been made,
some of the questions are obviously in-
appropriate.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Maybe
premature but not inappropriate.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: At this time, yes.
I take it, however, that both of the sponsors
of the questions are agreed in that they do
not approve the encounter. Am I right in my
conclusions?
Mr. Rryden: I do not think—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I will make up my
mind when I get all of the information before
me.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would just like
to repeat the second part of my question. I
realize the hon. Minister had a lot of ques-
tions before him and it was hard to keep
track of them all. I do not think it is neces-
sarily implicit in my question that I do not
approve of the encounter, but I am interested
in an explanation of it. I am particularly in-
terested in the matter of the inquiries that are
being conducted. I take it inquiries are still
in process. Are inquiries into the matters
referred to in my question being undertaken,
as well as other matters?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question in connection with the same
matter. There are two of them: First of all,
would the hon. Minister assure the House
that these questions will be answered if a
decision is arrived at by his department?
Second, if the hon. Minister does arrive at
a decision which is in the affirmative, will he
be in a position to assure this House that
there will be no political repercussions as
a result of the fight?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Quite frankly, I am
unable to give that assurance.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Attorney
General (Mr. Wishart). Is he aware of the
study now being conducted by the New York
state department of insurance and the auto-
mobile insurance industry designed to deter-
mine the accident rates of different makes
and models of cars? If so, is the hon. Minister
contemplating a similar study in Ontario?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I became aware that such a
study was contemplated simply from the
note that I read in the press. Officials of my
department were then in touch with The
Department of Insurance in the state of New
York and we learned that such a study is in
contemplation. But apparently the scope, the
nature and the extent of the study has not yet
been determined.
It is suggested, for instance, that the study
is mainly concerned with the premiums to be
charged for insurance on the small car or the
large car, not so much in the field of accident
and injury but with the cost of repair of the
large car as against the small car, and so on.
The second part of the question, sir, in-
quires whether the Minister is contemplating
a similar study in Ontario. I would say that
at this time that I think it is too early to
make a decision on that. We certainly will
follow the study that is apparently getting
under way in New York.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
(Mr. Grossman). What action is the hon. Min-
ister taking following the inquest verdict last
Friday in Kitchener respecting the death of
Anatol Chomenko, a former inmate of the
Guelph reformatory?
Mr. Speaker: Would the leader of the Op-
position please read his question as it is of a
similar nature?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member for Yorkview; as I have not
yet received a copy of the report of the
MARCH 7, 1966
1195
coroner's inquest I am not in a position to
comment on the inquest. However, when it
is received it will be studied in detail and
given the very serious consideration which is
due to findings of a coroner's inquest.
After that I shall, of course, advise this
House on the results of our study and any
action taken as a result of the said report.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that satisfies the
hon. leader of the Opposition in answer to his
question?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if the
hon. Minister will make copies of the tran-
script of the evidence available not to all
members, but available so that members can
study it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not
too sure whether I have the right to do this;
it might come under the jurisdiction of the
hon. Attorney General, but insofar as it is
within my jurisdiction, I would be pleased to
do so.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Randall), notice of
which has geen given. It is a three-part ques-
tion:
1. Would the hon. Minister inform this
House whether there was any misuse of the
powers of expropriation in the treatment of
Napier Place homeowners and, if so, what
steps are being taken to correct this situation?
2. What steps is the Ontario housing corp-
oration taking to relocate the homeowners
affected by the expropriation?
3. What consideration is being given to the
suggestion of City Development Commis-
sioner Walter Manthorpe of the 20-year pro-
gramme?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer-
ing the hon. member's question, the reply to
question 1 is:
The expropriation of properties in connec-
tion with a redevelopment scheme is the re-
sponsibility of the municipality, in this case
the city of Toronto. At this stage the federal
and provincial levels of government, as repre-
sented by central mortgage and housing
corporation and The Department of Municipal
Affairs, are partners in the scheme to the ex-
tent of sharing in the costs of acquisition— 50
per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial.
The expropriation of properties in Napier
place is being handled by the real estate
department of the city of Toronto in con-
formity with The Expropriation Act.
A subcommittee of the urban renewal part-
nership, with representatives from the city,
Metro, central mortgage and housing corp-
oration and the province, review and approve
all appraisals carried out by the real estate
department before offers are made. In addi-
tion, the city uses independent appraisers to
check the appraisals carried out by staff of
the city's real estate department.
In answer to question 2: The Ontario
housing corporation will fulfil the same role
in Napier place as in previous redevelopment
areas such as Alexandra park.
The city has a relocation office in the rede-
velopment area for the purpose of assisting
residents to find alternate accommodation.
Homeowners who are interested in purchasing
elsewhere are provided with listings of prop-
erty for sale, and those who wish to rent are
given leads to private rental accommodation
or are provided with application forms to
apply for public housing. These applications
are then processed through the Metropolitan
Toronto central housing registry to whichever
agency, either Ontario housing corporation or
the housing authority of Toronto, is able to
furnish accommodation.
Some applications have been received by
the Ontario housing corporation in respect of
the Napier place scheme, but no families have
yet been provided with new accommodation
due to the fact that their properties have not
yet been acquired by the city. However, re-
ceiving these applications in advance does
enable the Ontario housing corporation to
schedule its properties for this purpose.
And answering question 3, Mr. Speaker,
as I understand it, the suggestion by City
Development Commissioner Walter Man-
thorpe, was that the urban renewal schemes
should not be carried out on an ad hoc basis,
but rather should be planned on a long-term
basis, taking into account all of the factors
involved. I am advised that city council has
already asked Mr. Manthorpe to report on the
ramifications of a long-term urban renewal
programme in relation to the city's proposed
official plan.
The planning and implementation of urban
renewal schemes is, of course, the responsi-
bility of the municipal level of government,
operating in conjunction with The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs and central mort-
gage and housing corporation. The role of
Ontario housing corporation is that of provid-
ing accommodation for those families who are
displaced as a result of the urban renewal
scheme. However, I certainly support Mr.
Manthorpe's suggestion that the process of
redeveloping the downtown core of our cities
1196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
should follow a pattern laid down well in
advance, and which takes into account not
only the physical regeneration of blighted
areas, but also the sociological and psycho-
logical factors inherent in the unavoidable
relocation of the residents of these areas.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. Minister accept a supplementary ques-
tion?
In connection with part I, I wonder if the
hon. Minister would be good enough to tell
the House whether his department has made
any independent investigation or inquiry into
the procedures used in the Napier place
scheme?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot answer that at
the moment, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe
so. I believe we felt it was in the hands of
the proper authorities, but I will make further
inquiries and let the hon. member know.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day I have a ques-
tion to ask of the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Connell), notice of which has
been given.
The question is as follows: On what
grounds were 14 men of the 20-man Queen's
Park paint shop staff dismissed last Friday?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the grounds for dis-
missal is shortage of work.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Health a copy of which was sent to
him.
Could the hon. Minister inform this House
as to the steps being taken to correct the
impression being given by the advertising
campaign for the payment of the whole of a
doctor's bill rather than 90 per cent of it?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, to be sure
that the public is fully and accurately in-
formed about OMSIP, a pamphlet— a copy of
which was placed on the desk of each hon.
member of this House— containing full details
has been available at all chartered banks in
Ontario since the beginning of March, and
this pamphlet is now being distributed to
every household in the province. This will
give everyone an opportunity to study the
plan in detail and to see exactly what it pro-
vides and what it pays.
It will be appreciated that one-minute an-
nouncements on radio and television cannot
carry all the details of the plan. Indeed, it
is our belief and our advice that to do so
would be impracticable and result in confu-
sion among listeners. Therefore, all OMSIP
advertising refers to the pamphlet and its
availability.
However, as we have striven for clarity in
OMSIP advertising, the radio and television
commercials— as I understand from those I
have listened to— do say, "will help pay doc-
tors' bills," and we are still confident that
90 per cent payment, as provided in our bill,
will be accepted by most physicians as pay-
ment in full.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
Minister accept a supplementary question? Is
he aware of the statement made by the
Ontario medical association which criticized
the Ontario medical services insurance plan
for implying that it will pay the whole of
the doctor's bill instead of the 90 per cent?
And this is a statement that has been made
officially and has been published in the local
papers.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I am aware, Mr.
Speaker, insofar as one can be made aware
by reading newspaper reports.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Stewart), notice of which
has been given.
Could the hon. Minister give the House a
report on today's meeting between himself,
his department officials and the farm market-
ing representatives and other farm groups?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Does the hon. member want to ask the
other question as well?
Mr. Gaunt: I have another question. Has
the hon. Minister considered the possibility
of holding an open hearing before consider-
ing trusteeship or dissolution as it relates to
any of the marketing boards?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the questions of the hon. member, the last
one was given to me first and that was why
I thought perhaps he wanted it done that
way.
My reply would be that consideration has
been given to this. As far as I am concerned,
each case that affects each particular market-
ing board is really different in many of its
aspects. As far as I would be concerned, I
do not think there would be any useful
purpose served in forming such a hearing or
holding of such public hearings.
In the second place, with regard to a re-
port on this morning's meeting, I feel that the
MARCH 7, 1966
1197
meeting was called as a closed meeting.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a question
was given me last week in which it was asked
whether or not the members of the Legis-
lature were entitled to attend the meeting.
At that time I suggested that inasmuch as the
meeting was a closed meeting between The
Department of Agriculture officials, the farm
products marketing board and the commodity
boards of all the marketing plans in the
province of Ontario, it should be kept as a
closed meeting and the press not admitted.
I felt that this should apply to other segments
of society as well.
This was adhered to, with one exception
this morning, as it pertains to the hon. mem-
bers of the Legislature. I want to say how
much I appreciate the respect which the
statement that I had made last week was
given by all hon. members of the House. I
am sure there were many who would like to
have been there, as would members of the
press. All of them respected my statement
with the exception of the hon. leader of the
Socialist party, the hon. member for York
South who was there at the meeting this
morning. I welcomed him there but I said
that I felt an issue as important as this and
affecting marketing boards generally should
be beyond the realm of political partisanship
and I maintain that today.
Mr. MacDonald: When the hon. Minister
is in trouble, he does not want a partisan
discussion.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We will have all the
discussion that the hon. member wants to
have before this is over, if he wants to start,
do not think I am not able to talk to him
about it right down the line.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if I were
to make a report of the meeting this morning
—as the hon. member requests— as much as I
know he and others are interested in it, I
think we might as well have said that it
would be an open meeting and we would
have had the press and everyone there to
start with. I felt that we should respect the
opinions of members of commodity boards
who had said to me, "There are things we
would like to say to you that we don't want
said before the press." This is why I feel the
meeting should have been kept that way and
why I feel it is that way now.
With your permission, I would prefer not
to make any other report than this on the
meeting.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, the hon. Minister as usual has not
given a complete statement of what happened
this morning. For the moment I just draw
the attention of the House to two things.
He refrained from inviting the farmers' union
and other organizations; they were there and
admitted. He refrained from inviting the
board that has been dismissed without any
opportunity for a hearing; they were there,
and permitted to stay. I acknowledge I was
there and I will have more to say about it
later.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: May I just say a word
about this as well, if I can. The hon. member
has suggested here that we refrained from
inviting the former board members. A pres-
entation was made to me over the weekend
on behalf of the former bean board members,
asking whether they were invited to the com-
modity board meeting this morning. I simply
had to say on behalf of the farm products
marketing board of Ontario that I felt the
board, inasmuch as it was dissolved, was no
longer a board and simply did not exist.
That was the reason why an invitation was
not extended, but as far as I was concerned,
if they were there and presented themselves,
they would certainly be given the opportunity
to sit in on the meeting. We had nothing to
hide whatever. As far as we were con-
cerned, it was a perfectly free and open dis-
cussion.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Was the
hon. member for York South at the meeting?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: He was in the meeting
this morning and I understand challenged
the secretary of the farm products marketing
board to have him thrown out.
Mr. Speaker: Order'
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: I consider the member's
question has been asked and an answer given.
There have been a couple of points of order
and I would think perhaps the matter should
be closed.
Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
I respect your getting up, but not until after
you got to your feet was the comment made
by the hon. Minister of Agriculture that I
challenged the secretary of the—
Mr. Speaker: I would say the member will
have an opportunity at a later date to answer
the Minister.
Mr. MacDonald: I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that I have the opportunity, in view
1198
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of that completely malicious misinformation,
to correct it right now.
Mr. Speaker: I would inform the member
for York South that I did not hear the Min-
ister's remarks.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the com-
ment of the hon. Minister of Agriculture was
that I had challenged the secretary of the
farm products marketing board and invited
him to have me thrown out. I suggest that
now is the time, if I have any objection to
that, to make it. Have I your permission, Mr.
Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: If you can do it by a few
words— I am not going to allow a speech.
Mr. MacDonald: I had no intention of
getting up again, Mr. Speaker, until we had
this kind of characteristic outburst, which has
no relation-
Mr. Speaker: Order! For the present I am
going to consider the question closed. It can
be raised tomorrow in another question or the
member can reply before the orders of the
day, if he wishes. The member can reply
tomorrow in a statement if he wishes on a
point of privilege to correct something that
the Minister has said. I did not hear what
the Minister said.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, many times
earlier you said that if somebody got up and
made a misstatement of fact in the House
that the time to correct it was on a point of
order at the time, and that is what I am
seeking to do.
Mr. Speaker: I will stick to what I have
already said now, since I did not hear the
statement that the Minister supposedly
made. I would like to read it first to see if
lie did make such a statement and then I
will allow the member to correct it.
Mr. MacDonald: I trust that it was caught
by Hansard then, because everybody else
heard it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I be per-
mitted a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for
Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman).
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question to my original question.
Mr. Speaker: If the Minister cares to
answer it.
Mr. Gaunt: My supplementary question is
this, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon.
Minister of Agriculture-
Mr. Speaker: The proper way is that the
member should ask the Minister if he will
answer a supplementary question.
Mr. Gaunt: Will the hon. Minister answer
a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will have
to know what the question is, or how can I
answer it?
Mr. Gaunt: My question is this, Mr.
Speaker.
If some decisions were made this morning,
will they eventually be made public; not only
the decisions but the goings on at the meeting
and the various expressions of opinion that
were given at that time?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I suggested
earlier that I felt the affairs of the meeting
should remain closed. I fancy that if there
are things that come out from the meeting
from time to time they will be revealed in
the fullness of time. But as far as I am con-
cerned, I have no other report to make at
this time to the House.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Health, a copy of which was submit-
ted to his office a little too late to receive an
answer on Friday.
In view of the press reports that three boys
aged 10, 11 and 13 were ordered held in To-
ronto juvenile and family court detention
home for observation and treatment after
being caught sniffing model aeroplane glue,
does the hon. Minister feel that there are
dangerous health hazards from the sniffing of
the aeroplane glue, and if so what measures
is the hon. Minister contemplating to re-
strict the sale of this glue to juveniles?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, glue sniff-
ing may result in a hazard to health depend-
ing upon the nature of the solvent mixture
inhaled. There have fortunately been no
reports of serious health effects in persons
from this source in Ontario as yet.
Control by legislation is very difficult,
nevertheless. Legislation has been introduced
in New York city, California and elsewhere as
the result of public pressure, but it is almost
impossible to enforce. If hobby material,
such as aeroplane glue, were removed from
sale, there would still be plenty of access to
other similar solvents, for example, nail polish
MARCH 7, 1966
1199
remover, lighter fluid, barbecue fluid, gaso-
line, and so on.
The only possibility seems to lie in the edu-
cation of the general public, and the depart-
ment is looking very closely at this possibility,
with the division of maternal and child health
in our own department, the addiction research
foundation, and the social planning council of
Metropolitan Toronto. In addition to this, we
are in communication with The Department
of Education authorities and with medical
officers of health to the end that we may be
able to develop a meaningful programme of
education.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister. I
have a second question.
In view of press reports that asbestos dust
is a health hazard linked to cancer, what
steps is the hon. Minister taking to assure the
House that there is no health hazard to the
school children of Ontario in the use of
asbestos in their art work?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, from the
information that has been made immediately
available to the department, the opportunity
for children in our province to come in con-
tact with asbestos in their school work ap-
pears to be very limited, and would not
constitute a hazard to health.
Its use in some schools as a filler in making
plaster mouldings several times a year, does
not present a significant dust exposure since
the material is used in a wet state. We are
informed that in this province it is not used
in place of sand in children's sand boxes.
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, does
the hon. Minister think it is proper that he
should, in this House, indicate to young chil-
dren what are the alternatives to aeroplane
glue?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question myself, but also one on behalf of the
hon. member for Wentworth East (Mr. Gis-
born), who was not able to get to the House
for this portion of the sitting, Mr. Speaker. A
question to the hon. Minister of Labour,
notice of which was given, on behalf of the
hon. member for Wentworth East.
Does the hon. Minister plan to provide any
special facilities to the 600 workers laid off
when the Studebaker plant closed down, to
assist with their re-employment, retraining
and relocating?
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the member for
Timiskaming would have his question-
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member
for Timiskaming (Mr. Taylor), I have a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Economics and
Development (Mr. Randall).
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. This is about the
Studebaker of Canada Limited, and goes to
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment. The other is to the hon. Minister
of Labour. I am sorry.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, in re-
spect to the Studebaker matter, I, along with
others, heard of the official announcement
late on Friday afternoon last, and as a
matter of record it is a matter which
I think most people will regret that
it ever had to take place. However, since
that time we have been in touch with various
authorities and it would be the policy of
our department to attempt assistance in two
areas. First, with respect to co-operation with
the national employment service in the
replacement of those people whose jobs
have been terminated; and second, to provide
retraining facilities wherever it will be help-
ful.
I would like to assure the House of our
concern with respect to the matter.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my ques-
tion is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer
(Mr. Allan). Will the hon. Provincial Treasurer
comment on the dispute between the harness
racers and the jockey club at Greenwood
racetrack, particularly if he can help to
solve it?
Hon. J. N. Allan (Provincial Treasurer): Mr.
Speaker, I may inform the hon. member
that I understand discussion is being carried
on between the Ontario harness horse associ-
ation and the Ontario jockey club, with
respect to purse moneys, but I have no in-
formation regarding the details of such dis-
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of the hon. Minister of Labour,
proper notice of which has been given.
Would the hon. Minister inform this House
whether he has made any contact with Elmer
Brown, president of international typographi-
cal union, on his statement to his willingness
to come to Toronto to negotiate a settlement
of the newspaper strike?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, my com-
ment about this reference to a newspaper
report is as follows: As the hon. member
for Etobicoke must be aware, in April of last
1200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year when negotiations were underway be-
tween the Toronto publishers and the ITU,
I asked Mr. Brown to meet with me at the
earliest opportunity, to discuss the inter-
national union's involvement in this dispute.
The meeting was set for May 7 of 1965. I
was subsequently informed that Mr. Brown
was unable to attend and I have had no
direct communication from him since. How-
ever, my invitation to discuss this particular
dispute with Mr. Brown has remained open
since that time. In fact, some months ago,
Mr. Robert McCormack, the president of the
Toronto local of the ITU, was asked through
my office to reaffirm my invitation to Mr.
Elmer Brown to come and meet with me on
the matter. I have received no word whatever
from Mr. McCormack with respect to his
success or otherwise in conveying this in-
vitation.
Now, apart from that, I have been in close
and frequent touch with the international
union's position through various offices, which
include the Ontario federation of labour and
the Canadian labour congress.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Timis-
kaming's question.
Mr. Farquhar: It has been answered.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The twelfth order;
House in committee of supply. Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 802:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walker ville):
Mr. Chairman, under vote 802, I assume I
could ask the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. MacNaughton) if he has estimated
a tender price index for the coming
year, and whether it will be substantially
higher or not, than the preceding year. This
would be arrived at electronically.
Mr. Chairman: I think this is just the rental
of equipment. Is this what you wanted to
to know?
Mr. Newman: No. I wanted to know,
whether by means of this electronic equip-
ment that the hon. Minister does have, he
has been able to forecast the price index
for the coming construction year?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Chairman, I would say that
should properly come up under vote 807.
We do not, as the hon. member supposes,
do this electronically. We work very closely
with the Dominion bureau of statistics and
arrive at our costs indices in this manner.
Mr. Newman: I will ask it then, under 807.
Vote 802 agreed to.
On vote 803:
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there is an issue that I want to
raise on this vote having to do with the
head office operations.
Some months ago, the new research
director of the New Democratic caucus
wrote to the head office— to one of the offi-
cials in the department, in the first instance
to Mr. D. A. Crosbie, director of the legal
branch of the department, with regard to
certain information that we wished. It is
rather appropriate, I think, Mr. Chairman,
that we should have a discussion of this issue
after the earlier exchange I had with the
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart),
because it has to do with to what extent
public business is really public, or to what
extent it can be retained as the exclusive
prerogative and property of the government.
I want to put these two letters on the
record, and then I have some comments to
make because I suggest that this is a matter
of concern, specifically in this instance to
The Department of Highways. But it has a
broader application to the whole govern-
ment. When our research director wrote to
Mr. Crosbie, he did not get a reply. Inter-
estingly enough, the reply came back from
the hon. Minister himself. If I may just
interject here, I am curious to know what
would have happened if I, as a member of
the Legislature, had sought this information,
as, indeed, I have been seeking it down
through the years, and I must add, Mr.
Chairman, usually getting co-operation from
the various departments including The
Department of Highways, in the replies. But
in this instance, the hon. Minister apparently
felt that he was affronted because the infor-
mation was sought by the research director
of an Opposition caucus.
So the reply that he got from the hon.
Minister was as follows:
I would point out that there is a well-
defined procedure for obtaining the in-
formation which you requested, and I feel
for very good and sufficient reasons that it
should be strictly adhered to, because to
MARCH 7, 1966
1201
do otherwise would, in fact, be to usurp
the function of the Legislature. I have
reference, of course, to the use of the
order paper and the device of questions
before the orders of the day, in which
manner answers to questions of this nature
can be made available to the entire legis-
lative assembly.
For this reason, I am not disposed to
provide this information in the manner in
which you have requested it, and would
suggest that the procedural methods I
have referred to, be followed.
That letter is undated. It was in reply to a
letter of August 24, so I presume it was
early in September or the latter part of
August.
Mr. Chairman: I assume this is about the
maintenance of roads and construction, and
co-operation with the municipalities-
Mr. MacDonald: It was with regard to
information sought from the head office of
The Department of Highways. Vote 803— it
is a matter of administration, yes.
On December 10, or prior to December
10, some further information was sought and
this time the letter went to the Deputy
Minister. Once again, the letter was short-
circuited and the reply came back from the
hon. Minister. He must be a very busy man
—he answers all the correspondence for his
department.
The reply in this instance was as follows:
In this instance, I would refer you to
my order of a few months ago, at which
time I stated that there is a well-defined
procedure for obtaining this type of in-
formation, and I am of the same opinion
and feel that the procedure should be
strictly adhered to.
As in my previous letter, my reference
was to the use of the order paper or the
device of questions before the orders of
the day, in which manner answers to
questions of this nature can be made avail-
able to the entire legislative assembly.
Accordingly, I must deny your request
for the information you sought from the
Deputy Minister and, indeed, I have given
instructions that all matters of this nature
are to be referred to myself.
That was in December, Mr. Chairman.
The interesting thing is that the hon.
Minister of Highways brings up a great
principle here. To reply to this information,
the hon. Minister intimated, would be usurp-
ing the functions of the Legislature. I
would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is
a fallacious argument. If the Legislature is
sitting and members of the Legislature
are seeking information I would agree with
the hon. Minister that putting questions on
the order paper— particularly if we could get
replies in something less than six or eight
weeks— or putting questions before the orders
of the day, is the procedure for seeking
public information.
But surely, Mr. Chairman, the proposition
that when a member of the Legislature
is seeking public information— information
which the hon. Minister himself concedes is
public— and seeks it sometime between the
sessions, he is entitled to get an immediate
reply. Alternatively, if you have research
directors in Opposition caucuses who seek
that information, in effect it is coming from
a member of the Legislature and they are
entitled to get that information.
By not giving it, all that the hon. Minister
is doing is frustrating the work of the Opposi-
tion. Public moneys have finally been made
available in this House so that Opposition
groups can do a job in terms of gathering
public information and analyzing that in-
formation and then coming into this House
with it, so that they can do a more sub-
stantive and perhaps more incisive examina-
tion of what this government is doing.
But the hon. Minister is, in effect, saying
that he will not give us this information and
for reasons that I will come to in a moment.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
does not say that this is not public informa-
tion. He concedes that sometime he will have
to do it, but he is just a little huffy about
it: "I will do it in my good time. Ask it in
the Legislature."
If it happens to be the kind of question
for the order paper, it will appear there. If
hon. members care to look they will find that
one of the questions submitted to the hon.
Minister, provoked this correspondence. It
is question No. 1, which has been on the
order paper since this House opened on
January 25, and we are still waiting for the
reply.
This raises sharply, once again, the great
unbalance between that side of the House
and this side of the House in terms of access
to public information. I will concede to this
government that the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts), who takes a much more rational
approach to this kind of thing, for the first
time in this Legislature acknowledged that
even though theoretically we on this side of
the House have access to the civil service
as much as the government side of the
1202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House, in practice there are obvious limita-
tions upon what civil servants can do in terms
of providing information to an Opposition,
which may ultimately be used in attacking
the government.
Because of that unbalance, the hon. Prime
Minister and the government have seen fit
to make public moneys available so that we
can have a staff to do that kind of a job.
Having made public moneys available, this
hon. Minister, in effect, now is going to frus-
trate their efforts to do a job effectively by
saying that they seek information between
sessions and that they are not going to get it.
We have to wait until the procedures of the
House become operative when the House is
called to order; or when we put it on the
order paper, then we have to wait another
six or eight weeks, as we have waited in
this instance.
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): You don't
want to hear the answers at all; you just want
to ask the questions. You did not listen to
the answer to the question you asked the
Provincial Treasurer. While he was answering
you turned around talking to one of your
colleagues.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I got it! I got it,
I make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman.
Our little running interference back here—
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this raises
the whole question of the concept of secrecy
in public administration. This is important
enough because the hon. Prime Minister has
said many times that they have nothing to
hide. Says he, "I object to the Liberals get-
ting up and saying that we are trying to hide
things." And he becomes quite indignant
about it. "We will make the information
available."
I wish the hon. Prime Minister was here.
I hope that he will read this debate after-
wards, because the fact of the matter is
that here at least is one hon. Minister who
will not make the information available, ex-
cept in his own good time, and the delay can
have no result but to deny the public the
information they want and to frustrate the
effective operation of the Opposition.
This is important enough as a principle,
in application to the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture who wants to hold secret meetings
when he has touchy issues to discuss, or to
the hon. Minister of Highways at the mo-
ment.
I want to put on record some comments of
a person in the academic world who is now
studying the whole proposition of the secrecy
of public administration. It happens to be
Professor Donald C. Rowat of Carleton Uni-
versity, and his article can be found in the
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political
Science for November, 1965. What he said
was this, Mr. Chairman:
There is so much evidence of the un-
desirable effects of administrative secrecy
that I believe the time has come to ques-
tion the entire tradition. After all, it is
based on the earlier system of Royal rule
in Britain that is unsuited to a modern
democracy, in which the people must be
fully informed about the activities of their
government.
Has not this tradition been preserved
by politicians and officials mainly for their
own convenience? It is important to rea-
lize that any large measure of government
secrecy is incompatible with democracy.
Secrecy leads to distrust and fear on the
part of the public. The people cannot con-
trol their government without knowledge.
Yet the means available to the Opposition
parties and to the public for obtaining in-
formation about administrative activities
are woefully inadequate. Opposition MP's,
—or MPP's in the instance of a provincial
Legislature— usually have to dig vital in-
formation out of the reluctant government.
And we have a perfect example of it right
now.
Often they do not know what to ask for
because they do not know what is really
going on behind the clouds surrounding
Mount Olympus. Our system is based on
the premise that we must trust the govern-
ment and hope for the best. The problem
is that handouts tend to become a substi-
tute for access.
If the information service is emphasized
—favourable public relations at the expense
of factual information— we get secrecy by
indirection. We are told only what the
government wants us to know and a paper
curtain of secrecy is drawn around the
rest.
And then Professor Rowat in his paper goes
on to point out that in Sweden, their tradi-
tion is absolutely the reverse of this. The
important point is that it is principle that it
is reversed.
Whereas in most countries all docu-
ments are secret unless a specific authority
is given for their release, in Sweden they
are all public unless legal provision has
been made for them to be withheld.
MARCH 7, 1966
,1203
And then it goes on to spell out, in the con-
stitution, those things in relation to military
matters and other matters that might be re-
garded, quite rightly, as meriting some
secrecy that can, under the constitution, be
secret.
And he concludes as follows:
As for the likelihood of revelations in
government documents being embarrassing
to senior officials or politicians, the answer
is that he who accepts public responsibility
can expect to be criticized. It is well
recognized that public life has no room
for personal sensitivity. Besides, officials
are likely to give more considered judg-
ments if they know that their record will
be open to the public view.
An important benefit of open access is
the participation of the public in the for-
mation of policy. The public has a chance
to criticize and discuss proposals, before
decisions are made. One of the disabilities
of our present system is that the govern-
ment has no easy way of testing public
reaction to a measure before it is pre-
sented in almost final form to Parliament,
hence the government must resort to Royal
commissions to stir up interest and to form
public opinion on proposed measures.
There is no doubt the Cabinet respon-
sibility would work somewhat differently
under the principle of publicity. But,
this may be all to the good; it may make
the Cabinet more responsible.
Under a system of administrative pub-
licity, on the other hand, the government
is constantly exposed to criticism and must
move much more carefully. Since it will
receive advice and suggestions from a
much wider public, it will act much more
wisely. And Ministers must act with forth-
right propriety or their sins will be quickly
discovered.
Under our present system the govern-
ment's monopoly of information means
that the Opposition are unable to find the
soft spots. Since knowledge is power,
governments hide reports prepared by
senior officials or other experts and reveal
them only if it is to their advantage.
Under the publicity rule this is not
possible.
Now, I grant you that I am moving off into
a solution of this in broader terms— in terms
of challenging the whole traditional concept
of secrecy and the question of whether or
not we should consider in this House, as
they are considering through a private bill
in Ottawa, the proposition that all things will
be public automatically, by principle, except
those that are listed by some acknowledged
acceptance of everybody involved, as . to
merit a degree of secrecy, at least for a time.
However, Mr. Chairman, just to show you
how ludicrous this has become: After we had
asked these questions of the hon. Minister
and the hon. Minister had refused a reply,
a member of the press asked the hon.
Minister a question. And I repeat, if we had
not raised the matter he likely would have
gotten a reply. But things are getting worse
instead of better. The hon. Minister is be-
coming more exclusive in terms of holding
his information.
Just let me bring this to the attention of
the House. On January 22, 1965, a story
carried in the Globe and Mail under the by-
line of David Scott. I will read the first few
paragraphs:
How many passenger vehicles does the
Ontario government operate? It's a simple
question. And the answer can be found in
the insurance records of The Department
of Highways, but the government won't
answer. The reason given by Highways
Minister Charles MacNaughton to the
Globe and Mail yesterday was straight-
forward. The New Democratic Party
asked the question first. "We have to con-
sider where these questions are leading,"
Mr. MacNaughton explained.
You see, Mr. Chairman, it is not that we are
not entitled to this information— the hon.
Minister does not argue that— but he is so
afraid of where this information may be
leading. Conceivably, it may reveal a weak-
ness in government policy so he is going
to deliberately withhold the information as
long as he can. So he held it for all the
months between the session and now he has
held it for another six to eight weeks, since
the session began, even though it was put on
the order paper, in accordance with the rules
that he said we would have to live by.
Let me continue, Mr. Chairman, just to
show to what lengths the hon. Minister of
Highways has gone.
The Minister said yesterday he told
the NDP that such questions could be
asked in the normal manner once the Legis-
lature is in session. He was reminded that
a reporter, who had no access to these
channels, was also being refused the
answer. "Had it not been for the other
situation, namely, the NDP letter and re-
quest, you might have been given the in-
formation. In fact, I think you would,"
said Mr. MacNaughton.
1204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, here is the hon. Minister say-
ing that because we in the Opposition asked
for this information, when a member of the
fourth estate asked for it, then he must be
denied it, too. I repeat, we are going from
bad to worse.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will have some-
thing to say about this in a minute.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister cer-
tainly should have something to say. "There
has to be some recognition of the prerogatives
of the government," he said. This is the hon.
Minister of Highways talking again.
We can't make the government open to
the Opposition. We might as well just open
the files to these fellows.
The hon. Minister concedes this is public in-
formation, but he is going to sit on it, because
if we get it, we may use it to attack the
weaknesses of the government.
This, Mr. Chairman, is undermining and
frustrating the whole democratic process. And
yet, this hon. Minister thinks he is doing the
right thing, and he is going to have something
to say about it. I quote the Toronto Globe
and Mail again:
Mr. MacNaughton said he had taken the
stand that researchers' questions must be
asked by the party in the Legislature in the
normal manner. "However," he conceded—
and here was the one brilliant flash of light,
Mr. Chairman—
"However," he conceded, "I could be
altogether wrong in this thing. I think
there is room for two ways of looking at it."
And what I have been trying to do this after-
noon is to present the opposite way, because
I suggest this to you, Mr. Chairman, that this
hon. Minister and this government— indeed, if
they are going to live up to the proposal of
the hon. Prime Minister— cannot sit on infor-
mation that even the hon. Minister himself
concedes is public information.
He is resorting to the technicalities of the
House to frustrate the Opposition in getting
that information for all of the six, seven or
eight months that the House is not in session.
He makes it all the worse when we put it on
the order paper when he does not answer it
for six or eight weeks.
I was interested in reading a revision of
Professor Donald Rowat's study that was in
the Canadian Journal of Political Science last
November, a reprint that has just come out
in the Canadian Journal of Economics. He
has updated his study, and he concludes with
a sentence which I think is highly appropri-
ate, Mr. Chairman, and I will conclude with
it, too:
As James Madison once said, "A popular
government without popular information or
the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue
to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both."
And I suggest that the conduct of this hon.
Minister, in withholding this information, is
fulfilling that suggestion of Madison. I would
hope that the Minister, even the hon. Prime
Minister, would review this whole situation.
I can remember the day, Mr. Chairman, some
years ago, when if we put a question to The
Department of Education any time during
the year, the question was never answered by
the civil service in the department, because
they had all been instructed— as indeed this
hon. Minister has now instructed his officials
—and the answer was channeled forward to
the Minister's office and lo and behold, the
Minister's office would say, when the annual
report is printed in February, you will be
able to get the information. The hon. Min-
ister is adopting, in his own particular way,
somewhat the same kind of approach. I
suggest it is indefensible and if he can
defend it, I, for one, would like to hear it
right now.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member himself suggested, in his
comments, that there are, properly, certain
areas of information that may well be
regarded as classified.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): This is not
one of them.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Thank you very
much. I was going to pursue the point a
little more broadly than that smug inter-
jection of yours, if you do not mind.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, this is not one of
them.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, all right.
The point is this, I make it, and I emphasize
it, and support it by the fact that, on each
and every occasion that you, as the leader of
the party that you represent in this House,
have taken the trouble to ask me for in-
formation, as the Minister, I can recall no
single circumstance when I have not pro-
vided you with that information myself, or if
I was unable to do it, certainly someone
was assigned to make it available to you.
Mr. MacDonald: I acknowledge that. Now
I ask-
Ilon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right. This is
step one. I take the stand quite properly that
MARCH 7, 1966
1205
there are people on the staff of any depart-
ment who cannot possibly be fully aware
of either departmental or government policy.
Now, I am not saying that there was
anything associated with government policy
in the questions that were proposed here
but there might have been, and I simply sug-
gest that, if you want information, as the
leader of the party, that possibly, there are
only two people in the department that
should be called upon to determine what is
policy and what is not, firstly the Minister,
and secondly— in the majority of circum-
stances—the Deputy Minister.
Mr. MacDonald: The second letter went
to the Deputy Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, all right.
But I am talking about the first letter, and
I want to read this letter into the record.
Mr. Hesse, presumably upon direction from
his leader, addressed the letter to the director
of legal services of the department. Just
why he was chosen I do not know. It does
not really matter. The first paragraph left
us in some doubt as to the purpose of the
information.
I need the total number of passenger
vehicles operated by the Ontario govern-
ment for research purposes.
Our first problem was whether he needed
the information for research purposes, or
whether it was the number of cars we were
using for research purposes.
Mr. MacDonald: So what?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We assumed it
was the latter.
Mr. MacDonald: So what?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, that is
beside the point, too. I would have to say
that.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, everything is beside the
point.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Just let me pursue
this a little further. The only information the
Minister of Highways or anyone in his de-
partment under any set of circumstances
can provide, is the number of cars operated
by his department.
So, first of all, we have the matter of
someone having to decide whether it is a
policy question or not; secondly, we have
the matter of what the policy of 19 other
departments is in this respect. We do not
know whether they have individual depart-
mental policies or not. So I suggest to you the
person that turned that letter back to his
Minister for consideration was quite correct.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not objecting to
that. I am looking for an answer from the
hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: My purpose in
taking the stand that I did in indicating
to Mr. Hesse— and the hon. member is right
there is no date on the copy of this letter,
it is probably on the original, but it must
have been shortly after August 25— was
simply in this instance to outline the pro-
cedure that I felt was a valid one.
Now, I heard nothing from the leader of
the party. There was no comment on this,
neither in argument of, nor in support of
the stand I had taken. There was nothing from
him at all until December 2, and another
letter was addressed at that time to the
Deputy Minister. Now, having taken the stand
I took in the first instance, then in my
opinion it became quite appropriate to do it
this way again.
Mr. MacDonald: Why?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That was my
opinion.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Minister just
said that if it came to him or his top policy
administrator, it would be okay. This time
it went to the administrator and the hon. Min-
ister turned it down again.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Exactly, because
we had taken a sensible stand we thought
the first time, in view of the approach that
you made.
Mr. Bryden: A pig-headed stand.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, we will
pursue this a little bit more too, and talk
about pig-headedness and transparencies
before we are through here. In any case, the
same stand was taken. At this point, it was
a matter of weeks, as the hon. member points
out, until the Legislature was going to
convene anyway, so at this time it was not too
serious, really.
Mr. MacDonald: We have waited for eight
weeks now.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You have said
yourself that a few weeks in advance of the
sitting of the House, it does not really
matter.
Mr. MacDonald: When did I say that?
1206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You said that
when you opened your remarks.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I did not.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, you did.
Hansard will record that you did. Notwith-
standing that, we took the same stand, to be
consistent, rightly or wrongly, the same stand
was taken, at least consistently.
Mr. MacDonald: You are consistently
wrong.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, all right,
that is a matter of opinion, too. Then the
hon. leader of the New Democratic Party
did phone me. Over a weekend I recon-
sidered the matter. I called him back and
said I had not changed my mind. Now here
is where the transparency enters into this
whole kettle of fish. Again, rightly or
wrongly, he was not able to obtain this in-
formation, and I say if he wants to know
about a matter, it is quite appropriate to
either call or address the Minister in
writing. If that had happened, I am here to
assure him the letter would have been
directed into appropriate channels, and he
likely would have got the information. Now
when he asks, or anybody asks, where there
is some doubt as to policy matters, it is
quite appropriate to have it done the other
way. What is wrong with writing me? What
is wrong with writing the Minister? Have
I ever refused you any information, or
have I ever refused to make it available to
you through some source or other in the
department? Have I? Now you admitted a
little earlier that I had not.
Mr. MacDonald: I will answer it. I have
already conceded this.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, all right
then. I do not propose to have people at any
level of the staff of The Department of High-
ways concerned about dealing with matters
that may involve policy. I simply do not
think that is fair. But now let me tell the
House the approach that the hon. member
took when after a phone call I stuck to the
stand I had taken. His next device was to
try and get this through the back door. He
told me on the phone that he could politic-
ally embarrass me about the situation. I told
him I have never had any doubt about his
ability to try and embarrass anybody and
everybody politically. This is a great attitude
to express.
He uses the back door, a device that is
quite well known to him. He is quite skilful
in that respect, may I say. He uses a member
of the press to approach me, hoping I will
disclose some information that I did not give
to him. And if I had then I ask you what
he would have said in this assembly?
Mr. Bryden: It was public all along.
Mr. MacDonald: Then it was public all
along.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Then I ask you
what he would have said in this assembly.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
have already indicated that rightly or
wrongly I took a stand. I think it is a de-
fensible stand. I am not going to ask any-
body on my staff to make decisions on
matters that relate to policy, and frankly, I
do not think they should have to make these
determinations. I simply suggest to anyone
in this House, there is no information other
than of a policy or classified character in
The Department of Highways, that is not
available to them, if they will employ the
proper channels to get it.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. Minister says if we will employ the
proper channels. I wish he would not be so
petulant.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not petu-
lant, I am—
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Minister really
believed then what he now says, namely, that
the question must come to him so that he can
screen it for policy purposes, all he had to
do was to say it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am saying it
now.
Mr. MacDonald: But what is the record?
The record is that we wrote to somebody
who is in the legal department, which,
rightly or wrongly, we thought was the place
where you could get this information. It
went to the hon. Minister. Okay. The hon.
Minister has changed his mind. He realizes
his position is indefensible.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, he does not.
Mr. MacDonald: He realizes his position
is indefensible and he has changed his mind.
If his view then was as it is now, when the
letter came from his legal branch and he
would have said to me, "Please send your
MARCH 7, 1966
1207
letters to me, I want to screen them for
political purposes" then he would have
the right, if he so desires, to pass it on to
anybody in his department.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Precisely correct.
Mr. MacDonald: But that is not what you
did. I have the floor now, if you want to
come back.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: What you did was to say
you cannot get the answer at all, in any way,
except to wait until the House meets. Put
a question on the order paper! Now you have
changed your position. You acknowledge that
your position then was indefensible. What you
are saying now is the letter should be sent
to you. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, I will
send a letter to him.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Fine.
Mr. MacDonald: I will send a letter to the
hon. Minister. He and I hail from the same
rural parts of southern Quebec, and when
I talk to the hon. Minister I talk to him as
if we were both farm boys from back in that
area.
When he refused to give me the informa-
tion, I said: "Look, Charlie, if you want to
frustrate the Opposition in getting informa-
tion they are entitled to, you give me a
weapon that can be politically embarrassing
and I will make it embarrassing."
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Right.
Mr. MacDonald: And I repeat it here, and
I have no hesitation to say it. You know it
is embarrassing, so you have now changed
your policy.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not embar-
rassed.
Mr. MacDonald: You have changed your
policy because in the letter which is now on
the record, if any information is sought of
this department, your reply is: "You cannot
have it until the House meets." Now you say:
"Send a letter to me so I can screen it."
Okay, we will send the letter to you so you
can screen it, so you can protect this govern-
ment which is so vulnerable. I can under-
stand your sensitivity; it is very vulnerable.
But we will send the letters to you. I ap-
preciate the hon. Minister changing his mind
although I wish he had done it with a bit
more grace instead of under pressure in the
House here.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
wait a minute; I have one more comment to
make on this. I have already said— and the
hon. member for York South, the leader of
the NDP, cannot deny it— but I am going to
repeat, he has never ever asked me for infor-
mation by letter or otherwise that he has not
received, and if he had employed the same
device in the first place, he would have had
it. Now, that is not inconsistent.
Mr. Bryden: Why did you not say so?
Mr. MacDonald: You did not say so.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I did say so.
Mr. MacDonald: You did not say so.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right then, let
me ask you something if I may.
Mr. MacDonald: Go ahead!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Why did it take
from either late August-
Mr. Chairman: Is this on vote 803, Mr.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, it is actually.
I would think it has to do with what is re-
ferred to here as administration; I think that
is quite appropriate.
Then may I ask him why a position that
was taken either in late August or early
September was not contested in any way until
December or January? You never contested
my first letter to you.
Mr. MacDonald: Is that a question to me?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, why was
it not? By the way, why did you not come
back then and call me on the phone? Why
did you not speak to me? You did not do it-
Mr. MacDonald: You have asked me two
questions.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right, two
questions.
Mr. MacDonald: I will try to give you two
answers.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That will be very
interesting.
Mr. MacDonald: The first question was
asked on August 19. There were many things
going on last fall that many of us were in-
volved in and when I got back into normal
routine later in the fall, we reviewed the
fact that we had asked a question and got
1208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a categorical refusal to give the information.
Next time we wanted more information, our
approach was somewhat in tune with the
hon. Minister— we sent it to his deputy. But
what was the hon. Minister's answer? "Oh,
no, even when you sent it to the deputy,
that won't do, you've got to come to God."
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh! nonsense,
utter nonsense!
Mr. MacDonald: Well, you set yourself up
as God.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Nonsense, utter
nonsense.
Mr. MacDonald: However, Mr. Chairman,
I have made my point. The hon. Minister
took a wrong position. Now he says that if
any information is needed, I will have to
instruct my research director to have a letter
to the hon. Minister over my signature, I
will sign it, and we will get the information
and all will be fine. I wonder why we could
not have reached this conclusion without all
this fuss.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: And we would
not have had all this nonsense about back-
door procedures either, by the way.
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On this
precise question, I just have a short follow-up
question to the hon. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, two members
stood in their places at the same time, and I
happen to have recognized the member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer).
Mr. S. Lewis: May I raise a point of order?
Mr. Chairman: If the member for Downs-
view will yield the floor to you, fine.
Mr. S. Lewis: I have a short question. I
simply want to say the hon. member for
Downsview is always magnanimous.
I simply want to ask the hon. Minister,
since this same question has now been on the
order paper for almost seven weeks, why has
he not answered it?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I might say, Mr.
Chairman, the information requested as it
pertains to The Department of Highways has
been filed in the appropriate quarters. I
assume that when the rest of the departments
have filed theirs, the composite answer to a
composite question will be tabled. I am quite
confident that it will.
Mr. MacDonald: In the fullness of time.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, I did not really intend to address my-
self to the point that the hon. member for
York South is engaging the hon. Minister in,
but since it has arisen there are several quer-
ies that come to my mind.
As any member of this House from
time to time has questions to ask, surely the
hon. Minister is not suggesting that in each
case we have to seek out the Minister. In a
department as large as highways— or take any
department you want— there are department
heads, subdepartment heads, people who have
specific knowledge. Someone publishes at
great expense a complicated and helpful tele-
phone directory telling us on which local we
can find each individual. Surely the govern-
ment's business is expedited by being able to
direct queries to the proper person.
Is it the significance of the hon. Minister's
reply to the hon. member for York South— that
if there are any questions they have to be
directed to the Minister?
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The Depart-
ment of Public Welfare would break down if
that were so.
Mr. Singer: I would like an answer to that.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I suggested to the
House when the hon. member for York South
was discussing the matter that there-
Mr. Sopha: The whole system would break
down.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not think that
would happen for a while.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I suggested that
in those areas where there may be some
policy connotations there would appear to be
two people capable of answering them, the
Minister and the Deputy Minister. This is
what I said.
I did not say all questions had to come to
me but I did assure the House that all ques-
tions that came to me, other than of a classi-
fied or policy character, would be answered.
I might not answer them but I assured him
of that. I think I could give the same assur-
rance as far as the Deputy Minister is con-
cerned.
But there is a level in The Department of
Highways where no one can know matters of
policy. I am concerned about people being
put in the untenable position of maybe
answering a question that is associated with
MARCH 7, 1966
1209
policy and I do not think it is fair to put
them in that position.
Mr. Singer: I can agree with that, but as
to the particular question— this is the question
that is No. 1 on the order paper— I cannot see
how that possibly relates to policy.
Mr. MacDonald: How many vehicles are
there?
Mr. Singer: That is a factual question. I
had occasion this morning to call some offi-
cial in your department. I wanted some in-
formation; I got it very simply. I would hope
that he would have enough intelligence that
if I asked him if there was going to be a
new highway somewhere that he would say,
"I do not know; refer to the Minister." But
I would not ask him that sort of a question.
When I have gone to departmental officials
in your department or anywhere else, I only
ask them about factual or procedural matters.
What I was trying to do was get the hon.
Minister to draw a line and as I understood
what he said— and I hope I am wrong— all
questions have to be directed to him or the
deputy. I hope this is not what he really
meant.
Well, enough of that at the moment. I
wanted to ask the hon. Minister about a ques-
tion that my colleague the hon. member for
Sudbury and I dealt with at some length in
the public accounts committee last year, re-
lating to outside legal advice and assistance.
The hon. Minister, I would think next to the
Attorney-General's department, has the larg-
est legal staff of any government depart-
ment. You have Mr. Crosbie— yes, I think I
am in the right vote; head office vote, am I
not?
Mr. Chairman: We can deal with it here
as well as any place. Actually this deals with
construction and co-operation with muni-
cipalities, but if you have no objection, Mr.
Minister, shall we deal with it here?
Mr. Singer: This vote deals with head
office administration. Somewhere along the
line The Department of Highways retains
outside legal help.
An hon. member: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Singer: I think that is a result of a
question I asked last year. The information
was made available by the department that
The Department of Highways paid some
$47,000 in retaining outside legal assistance.
As I was saying, this department has, I think,
next to the Attorney-General's department,
the largest legal department of any depart-
ment of government. You have Mr. Crosbie
and, I think, some six lawyers working with
him.
It has occurred to me over a number of
years— and I state this again, not only as a
thought, Mr. Chairman, but as my definite
opinion— that the legal work done by govern-
ment should be substantially done within the
department, and particularly in this depart-
ment. There is another point I am going to
make at a later time with the hon. Attorney-
General (Mr. Wishart). Particularly in this
department where you have a legal staff of
five or six solicitors on strength, what is the
necessity for hiring outside legal help?
These items that made up the $47,000
were listed one by one. By and large they
seemed to be routine matters. I can under-
stand that if a matter of unusual legal sig-
nificance arises on which your departmental
advisers want outside opinions, there would
be some reason for going outside. While
$47,000 does not loom as a tremendously
large figure against the total expenditure of
$300 million, why was it still necessary to
go outside either your own legal advisers or
outside The Department of the Attorney
General to get legal advice last year to the
extent of $47,000, and this year I do not
know to what extent?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. mem-
ber, of course, has indicated his feeling that
$47,000 is not a large amount of money and
I can frankly assure the House that it is not
if you embrace the value of the total amount
of legal work that is done. Most of the work
of the solicitors of The Department of High-
ways is done in terms of property acquisition
—a very great deal of it, of course— and
among routine matters was drawing orders-
in-council. I hardly heed to go on because
the hon. member would be quite familiar
with it.
This $47,000, if not all, would be largely
spent for solicitors, or barristers if you wish,
engaged to represent the department before
the municipal board in terms of expropria-
tion arbitration. Fortunately there are not
too many of those. We do settle most of
these matters by negotiation as the figure
would indicate, so I would like to reassure
the hon. member that by and large the
volume of legal work in The Department of
Highways is done by our legal staff.
This would be the only area, other than
some of those cases that come before the
courts that he is also aware of. I think that
this would represent the only areas where
we depart from this policy and procedure.
1210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as a final brief
word on this, it occurs to me that even
though the figure of $47,000 is small, not
only in comparison with the total expendi-
tures, but in comparison to similar expendi-
tures in other departments, it still would
represent a salary higher than the going
salary in government service for three senior
lawyers. If you have expropriation matters,
you could perhaps take $20,000 of this
money and get yourself a top expropriation
lawyer, who would save you a lot of money
in the long run, and put him in your depart-
ment along with Mr. Crosbie.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, before you
leave vote 803, I would like to ask a perhaps
routine type of question, merely for the in-
formation of myself and others in interpret-
ing the estimates and public accounts of the
department in the future.
The department has made substantial
changes in its method of presenting its esti-
mates which I think are to the good, but
some of us— or at any rate I will speak for
myself: I am not entirely clear as to pre-
cisely what is covered by these various head-
ings. I wonder if the hon. Minister could
outline, very briefly, what is covered by vote
803 described as "Operations, Head Office
Administration"; and how that is differen-
tiated from vote 801, which is described as
"General Administration."
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
suppose this explanation may indicate some
doubt as to whether the little bit of debate
we have had here is properly in order, but
there did not seem to be a better place for
it-
Mr. Bryden: We can perhaps justify it
on the ground that we did not fully under-
stand what was included in the various
votes?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
Well, vote 803 provides for head office ad-
ministration of the department's construction,
highway maintenance and municipal assist-
ance programme. These sections of the
operations branch, for instance, would be
involved in this vote— there would be the
construction engineer, the contract control
engineer, the maintenance engineer, the
municipal engineers and the signs and build-
ings permit section. That is actually how
this vote was made up.
If it is not out of order, Mr. Chairman, I
am prepared to go back to vote 801— the
hon. member made references to this, too.
Mr. Bryden: Just as to an outline on exactly
what it includes, and not any more than that,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Vote 801 covers
the administration branch which includes
the Minister's office and the Deputy Min-
ister's office, the legal branch, the finan-
cial controller's branch, and this includes our
toll collection operations and the personnel
branch. Those are the branches that are in-
volved in vote 801.
Mr. Bryden: So that they are really the
central operating branch, and this is the
actual operation on the highways. This is
really head office.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is right.
Mr. Bryden: Now, under "operations" you
have, of course, a head office staff; but you
also have a very substantial field setup. What
vote would the field setup come under?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The next vote,
804.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, I
have a question and I think that this is the
place to put it, in light of what the hon. Min-
ister just said.
I want to raise the question of whether or
not the hon. Minister has given serious
thought to the whole matter of the design of
highways from the point of view of safety
and research into this field.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would point out to the hon. member— and I
confess that it is taking me some time to get
used to these new votes myself— but this is
not the appropriate vote.
Mr. Chairman: I think it would probably
come under vote 808.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask
the hon. Minister— and I am willing to abide
by what he says— the question that would be
asked is: "Why do accidents occur on the
highway system?" Delving into that sort of
thing would come under vote 808?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Young: Thank you. I will leave it
until we come to that point.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
did I understand the hon. Minister to say
that the issuing of permits for signs would
come under 803?
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few
words about this. Rightly or wrongly there is
MARCH 7, 1966
1211
considerable criticism of The Department of
Highways in various areas of the province,
particularly in my own, that the department
does not allow enough signs on the various
highways.
Now there is one thing I will say and that
is that in some parts of the province there are
different rules than in other parts. I would
be interested to hear the hon. Minister make
some comment on that, particularly insofar
as it concerns tourist localities.
I know perfectly well— and I am not being
critical of this at all— that in the Muskoka
area there are many more signs allowed on
the highways there than there are in Bruce
county. Because of this I am under constant
criticism as the member for Bruce as to why
these signs are not allowed in an area that
we regard as equally important as far as tour-
ists are concerned as the great area of
Muskoka.
Second, I noticed that there are some ex-
ceptions throughout the province as to when
the issuing of signs is allowed by The Depart-
ment of Highways. I would like to ask the
hon. Minister just what right the Canadian
national exhibition has to put signs about
every three miles on every highway in the
province of Ontario? You can imagine the
criticism a member such as myself comes
under when people who have lived in an
area for 25 or 30 or even 50 years are
not allowed to put up a sign and then all of
a sudden, three weeks before the Canadian
national exhibition starts— or a month before
—a sign is put on every corner fence.
Now we in rural Ontario think this is
wrong. We certainly have nothing against the
exhibition, we want it to be a great success;
but on the other hand, if they are allowed to
put up these signs why are people who carry
on legitimate, 365-days-a-year businesses not
allowed to put up signs of a similar nature?
To stress this point, may I ask the hon.
Minister what right has the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Roberts) to have
signs put up saying: "Follow two miles for a
provincial park." Mr. Chairman, provincial
parks are a wonderful thing in this province
and I, for one, want people to know where
they are located; but on the other hand we
have hundreds of people who are paying
taxes and who are in the business of free
enterprise who do not, and are not allowed,
to put up signs on your highways showing
where their particular park of tenting area is.
So my question, Mr. Chairman, is in three
parts: First, why is it that in some areas of
the province more signs are allowed than in
others, and I quoted the Muskoka area as
against Bruce county? Why is it that the
Canadian national exhibition is allowed to
plaster signs all over the province, by the
thousands I would suggest? Third, would he
give some remarks about the signs that show
where provincial parks are located?
Mr. Chairman: Are you suggesting this
properly comes under this vote, Mr. Minister;
on signs?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
First of all, I am going to accept the hon.
member's word that there is a difference be-
tween Muskoka and Bruce in terms of signs,
but really there is no reason why there should
be. There are designated tourist areas in the
province and we do have a relaxed signing
policy there to permit tourist operators to do
something about advertising their facilities.
As long as they come within the control limits
and control regulations of our signing policy,
there is not any reason why similar establish-
ments in Bruce should not have the same
right to signs that they have in Muskoka.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, could I just
interrupt the hon. Minister? All I can say is
that we must have different controls, because
with the control in Muskoka it is not uncom-
mon to see a sign, these finger signs pointing
to Gull lake or Crow pass or something,
where there might be 20 signs. This is not
allowed in Bruce county. Now I respectfully
ask the hon. Minister to look into it, because
these people like to have their areas of busi-
ness pointed out equally as much as they do
in other areas of the province.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I certainly cannot
quarrel with the hon. member there. I think
it might be fair to say that there is probably
a greater density of these sort of things in
Muskoka than there are in Bruce.
Mr. Whicher: Only by the signs.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I do not
know, I think probably there are, but cer-
tainly if any one of these circumstances con-
form with the regulations, then there is no
reason why these people cannot have the
same signs. I say that to the hon. member.
Now, with the Canadian national exhibi-
tion, there is no reason why they should not
have to obey the rules either.
Mr. Whicher: Would the hon. Minister
suggest that they do obey the rules?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is a worthwhile
suggestion, I will say that to the hon. mem-
ber. Mind you, probably we do not enforce
1212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fall fairs and that sort of thing quite as much
as we do other things, but I grant you these
people seemingly put up thousands overnight.
Mr. Whicher: That is right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Possibly it is a
little difficult to get into enforcement there,
but-
Mr. Whicher: All you would have to do is
tell them to stop.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I agree with the
hon. member, and it is something we will
pursue.
Now, with regard to the trail blazers,
I think the hon. member is referring to what
we call "trail blazers," they are a trail blazer
sign, they are all of standard design and they
do lead you throughout the province to our
provincial parks. This is something we have
worked out with The Department of Tourism
and Information and The Department of
Lands and Forests and we think there is real
merit in this. I certainly have no apologies
to offer for the fact that we have these trail
blazers leading to the St. Lawrence parks and
all these other excellent parks throughout
the province.
But I can assure the hon. member that to
try to develop a policy to do the same for
private establishments would be of a some-
what different character. There are literally
hundreds and hundreds of small tourist estab-
lishments and small park facilities adjoining
tourist establishments. To provide anything
of a sensible uniform character for signs there
I suggest to the hon. member that if it is
not impossible it would be almost impossible,
and certainly very difficult.
We think we have adopted a good policy
for directing the travelling public to our
parks, our provincial parks. We want them
to go there, and this is why we have done it
in that manner.
Mr. Whicher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have
no quarrel with the hon. Minister, but I hope
he does look into the Canadian national ex-
hibition signs for this reason. They come up
approximately in the civic holiday, when we
are right in the middle of the tourist business.
They try to take the tourists away from areas
such as Muskoka or Bruce, and naturally we
are a little concerned about it. While wishing
the exhibition all possible success, we ask
them to obey the same laws that we obey.
Surely that is fair enough.
Now secondly, as far as the private tourist
establishments are concerned, if the hon. Min-
ister would allow these finger signs in areas
such as Bruce and Grey, as he allows them in
Muskoka— and I will take this up with him
privately later— I am sure it would be most
acceptable.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, under this heading, is it the policy of
the hon. Minister in regards to advertising on
401 provincial parks such as Rondeau park?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We did have a
sign up along 401 advertising Rondeau pro-
vincial park, but the sign has been removed.
Mr. Spence: Has the policy of the hon.
Minister changed with the removal of this
sign?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, we are
really back to the point raised by the hon.
member for Bruce. We did develop this uni-
form method of signing the parks, and we
have developed what we referred to as a
trail blazer. Wherever you go and see that
trail blazer identification you know you are
on your way to a provincial park. It is not
one type of sign here and another type there.
This is the uniform policy we have adopted
to direct people to our provincial parks.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): I have to crave the hon. Minister's
indulgence. I am thinking, under the heading
of office administration, about the use of
films. I notice that it is under general admin-
istration, but I would assume under head
office perhaps you have a PR setup showing
the work of the department.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think the hon.
leader of the Opposition should ask the indul-
gence of the chair. It is not up to me to say
whether these things should be asked under
one vote or another. Really this was on vote
801.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, could
I ask—
Mr. Chairman: I do not think we should
revert back to 801 unless it is with the con-
currence of the House.
Mr. Thompson: I see. I thought we had
a principle that you could go back again at
the end— I thought at the end of the esti-
mates we could go back.
Mr. Chairman: That was at the end of
each individual vote. There was some flexi-
bility with the vote, but we left 801, 802 and
now we are dealing with 803.
MARCH 7, 1966
1213
Mr. Thompson: Can I not at any point,
then, ask this question on the use of films?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think a good
many hon. members were a little uncertain
as to the proper point at which to raise ques-
tions this year because of the new method of
presentation. Perhaps we could have this
resolved by a certain amount of indulgence.
Mr. Chairman: I think it is true, as the
member for Woodbine has pointed out,
that because we have changed from the
three votes— where there was considerable
elasticity last time— and we have embodied
it now into 11 votes. These have been
broken down; perhaps it is not known under
which vote questions should be asked. I
think at this particular time we do not want
to strifle a question, if the leader of the
Opposition would try to make it brief.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, may I make
a point here? I concur here, but on the
other hand if we are going to revert back
to votes all the time I suggest the House
will never get finished.
Mr. Chairman: This is true, I realize it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right.
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate this, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. Minister will answer
this question. I am concerned about the use
of these films, highways films. Are they for
the general public? Are they for tourists in
the States? To whom are they shown?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would suggest
to the hon. leader of the Opposition that these
films are produced to get as widespread a
distribution as we can give them. Films are
no good unless people see them. I think that
is a pretty obvious statement.
I can tell you this, that some of our films—
and this may not be the point the hon. leader
of the Opposition is pursuing— have been
sufficiently well regarded to have been pro-
cured by the national film board for distribu-
tion on a much broader scale than we could
have possibly accomplished ourselves. They
reviewed our films. Now, we are planning a
motion picture dealing with opportunities in
the department. We are planning that for this
year. We have other motion pictures. One
was called "Roads to Prosperity," one was
called "Carnival Country," for the purpose of
bringing people to our winter tourist attrac-
tions.
We distribute these films throughout On-
tario. They are available for adjoining prov-
inces and the northern states. The photo-
graphic section maintains a complete library
of photographs of the province.
We want as much distribution of these
films as we can get for the purpose of helping
to develop our tourist industry and enticing
people to come up to Ontario. You cannot
get too many people seeing them, I think.
Mr. Thompson: Would I be unfair, Mr.
Chairman, to say that they are used for prop-
aganda by the Conservative Party?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I think that would be
unfair.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister then?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I would have
to say no. You might quarrel with my opinion.
I guess that is what you would expect me
to say. But I would have to say no.
Mr. Whicher: We want you to be truth-
ful.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I do try
to tell the truth.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I
ask the hon. Minister why one of his films
was used on a political broadcast "Provincial
Affairs"?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, you may.
You may ask me that. I do not think I would
have participated in that thing myself to any
degree, I did not feel it was associated with
good publicity. Only portions of the film were
shown. When you get an opportunity and
the free use of the facilities to broadcast
a film that was developed for that purpose,
it seems to me the sensible thing is to grasp
the opportunity. That film was seen by many,
many people across the province. I do not
detect anything that was said in terms of the
narration or the comments of the Min-
ister, or the film itself that could possibly
have had any serious political overtones. I say
that honestly. You people have a little dif-
ferent attitude towards that sort of thing
than most people do, I might say.
Mr. Bryden: Politicians are always poli-
ticians.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You can see
wrong motives in most things that we do not
consider too important over here, may I
put it that way?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could I
pursue this? This was a free broadcast. Oh,
but it is a very important principle. This
was a political broadcast. There was an
1214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
actor, first of all, who was used to laud the
state of the highways. Now, as I understand
the film was not paid for and produced by the
Conservative Party, it was produced by the
taxpayers of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Right!
Mr. Thompson: Therefore I suggest it was
highly improper for that film to be cut
apart, for an actor to be used in it, and that
it was for the purpose, or else there is some-
thing wrong with your party, it was for the
purpose of obtaining the best show to try to
get voters to vote Conservative.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 803; the mem-
ber for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Well, is the hon. Minister
going to reply to the statement here?
Mr. Chairman: No. Out of courtesy here,
we have reopened this. I think the leader
of the Opposition has made his point and I
would ask you now to speak on 803.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have no more
to say on it anyway, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newman: Several of the questions that
I asked earlier in the day actually come under
vote 801 and I was told to ask them later.
After the hon. Minister had given the break-
down of the functions of the various votes, I
found that some of them come under the
legal branch, comptroller's branch, and all of
this would have been in an earlier vote. But I
will ask them at the vote you suggested.
Now in my original comments in replying
to the hon. Minister's statement, concerning
the work of his department, I brought up the
problem of signing on Highway 401. Now
I did not mention indiscriminate signing, Mr.
Chairman. I mentioned informative signing,
so that communities adjacent to 401 would
have an opportunity of selling maybe one or
two of their outstanding features in an
attempt to lure the traffic dollar into their
area. I still think it is good policy to do
this.
Now I will make a suggestion to the hon.
Minister at this time, that does not refer to
401 and this refers to the provincial parks.
When it comes to a provincial park that is
adjacent to a well built up area, such as the
county of Essex, I think the signing policy
should be a little more elaborate.
I think you would need more informative
signs, or I think there was a special term
the hon. Minister used concerning the signs
indicating to the tourists the way to the
provincial parks.
We in Essex county have a park of which
we are very proud, and it is used extensively.
However, it is difficult for one to find the
park, unless one follows strictly the King's
highways, and not everyone in the com-
munity is going to take the long method of
following the King's highways to get to this
park. Were the hon. Minister to have his
department put a few more signs leading to
the Holiday Beach provincial park, it would
be a real asset to the tourists and to the
people in Essex county.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 803.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under vote
803, we have met the hon. Minister's officials
of the signing branch. Of course some of
the municipalities have parks— beautiful
parks, Mr. Minister— and they are greatly
interested in having some of the tourists stop
and make use of the parks, leave some
money in the area, and advertise their
community. But the officials say that it is
impossible to make any signs on 401 for
municipal parks. I wonder if the hon. Min-
ister would give any consideration for this,
or are there any changes being considered
by your department, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, Mr. Chair-
man, I think really I am back to the answer
I provided to a question of the hon. member
for Bruce and I have explained that it is im-
possible for us to direct people to the
hundreds of private parks around the prov-
ince. I think I have to simply let it stand
on that, supported by the comments I made
to the question of the hon. member for
Bruce.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman, a
few minutes ago we had a discussion here
about the propriety of approaching the hon.
Minister directly on certain points of infor-
mation. As all the hon. members know, from
time to time, constituents come to us with
some difficulties involving The Department
of Highways. It may be a small matter, in-
volving a culvert or an entrance to a field.
I would like the hon. Minister to give us his
own view as to whether these things should
be settled on the scene between the hon.
member and the engineer, or whether in fact
we should approach the hon. Minister and
his deputy in this connection?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, no. Cer-
tainly those matters of a routine character
should be dealt with on the spot, the way
they always have been dealt with, I would
say to the hon. member.
MARCH 7, 1966
1215
Mr. Nixon: I get the impression, actually,
Mr. Chairman, that in some areas where this
may be convenient, the member himself
has to set himself up in almost a professional
capacity, in making these judgments. I
would hope that the hon. Minister would feel
that there would be nothing inappropriate in
dealing with these people on the scene,
through the department officials, rather than
going out and giving directions to the en-
gineers themselves.
You do not see anything wrong at all then,
with a member going out and telling the
engineer what should be done?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would suggest
that the member can go out and tell the
engineer what should be done, but I would
have to rely on his good judgment to some
extent as to whether he did it.
Mr. Sopha: This is a point which has in-
terested me a great deal over the years and
I wonder to what extent the local engineer
is beholden to the local Tory member?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say he
is not beholden to the local Tory member, or
any member, or any person. He is beholden
to his immediate superior, and his superiors
in the department. Now I think it is fair to
say he is there to co-operate with everybody,
to the greatest extent he can. He is not be-
holden, and I make that very, very plain to
the House. The district engineer is not be-
holden to anybody except his superiors.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I think if we may speak
a bit frankly in this forum, I think it is
fairly well known in the province that some
of the local Tory members fairly drive the
local engineers to distraction, in importuning
them with requests to suit their own political
advantage.
Now I am thinking of a case in point, of
which the hon. Minister is probably aware,
where it is said of a person who used to
occupy a place up where the hon. member
for Victoria (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) now sits,
and who has since gone on to higher re-
wards, that the pressure he exerted on the
district engineer, made it almost impossible
for that man to carry out his duties.
I think that is fairly common knowledge
and I just wondered whether the hon. Minis-
ter would not be able, with a word of kindly
advice to his local engineers, tell them they
are not there at the beck and call of the local
sitting member.
Recause the matter of highways is so com-
petently handled by the city administration
of the city which I represent, there is no
need for me to intervene, but on the rare
occasions that I have spoken— and they have
been rare— to the district engineer I have
elicited the utmost co-operation and courtesy
from him.
Rut I do not think that impression is too
well-founded, because one of the mechan-
isms of political advantage that the populous
number of members that we see in this
House uses is the channelling of communica-
tions from irate users of roads through to the
district engineer. Recause of their political
position and the access they have to the
ear of the hon. Minister and the contact they
have with him, it must, to a large degree,
make the job of the district engineer that
much more difficult to bear.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Let me say this
to the hon. member, that the first responsi-
bility of a district engineer, or any of his
district staff, is recognition of the fact that
he and his staff are there to serve the public
and this is said on each and every occasion
when district engineers come to Downsview
for their conferences, as they do frequently.
If the hon. member is suspicious that cer-
tain things of an untoward character are
taking place, maybe it would be wise if he
quietly documented those to me. I do not
think that is true; I think it is possible that
there are situations where some members of
any political persuasion are more aggressive
than others. I think this is quite a possible
thing to believe and in those cases, in the
course of conducting their responsibilities
aggressively, they may be in the office of the
district engineer more frequently than others.
If that is the case, then I am not going to
quarrel one bit with the way they represent
their ridings whatever political persuasion
they have. That is their job and I think that
the better they do the job, the more chance
they have of coming back here and resuming
their seats from time to time— again, of what-
ever political persuasion they happen to be.
Rut these are the terms of reference for
the staff of The Department of Highways.
They exist for the sole purpose of serving
the public of the province of Ontario.
I really should not do this, but I can tell
you that I remember— some of you would
not— a day and time, a little over 20 years
ago when that definitely was not the case.
There have been tremendous changes made
in this field of policy, I can assure the hon.
member.
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister does not
have to go back 20 years.
1216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. I am going
back just a little over 20 years, when you
either espoused a certain political line of con-
duct or you did not have a job at all.
Mr. Nixon: There have even been some
Ministers of Highways since that point
20 years ago who lost their jobs themselves
because of their administration of this depart-
ment. I think that the hon. Minister's com-
ments are uncalled for.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I did not intro-
duce the topic in the first place.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, I introduced the topic, and I wanted
some information from him. Surely the hon.
Minister has taken it beyond the point of
reasonableness when he raises this ridiculous
topic.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, Mr. Chair-
man, not one bit of it. If the suggestion that
emanated from over there is that there are
political considerations given to members
of Parliament of a certain political stripe by
certain district engineers, I find that categor-
ically wrong. I followed up by saying that
there was a day when it was so much differ-
ent to what it is today, that I think the
House might be aware of what we are trying
to accomplish to see that this is not the case.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that
the motives of the hon. Minister are of the
highest and I am sure that the motives of
previous Ministers of Highways have been
very high indeed, but if he is going to go
back into ancient history, he certainly should
not forget the fact that some of his predeces-
sors who were members of the Conservative
Party have had to be dismissed from office for
this sort of thing.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not for-
getting-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: This is not finished yet— not
finished yet. He says "no consideration"— is
that the way he put it?— is given to the local
member in respect of highway matters.
I am looking at an announcement in the
Sudbury Daily Star— a very fine newspaper
and one that ordinarily supports this govern-
ment, although I am glad to say that it sup-
ports me, too.
On October 12, 1965, it referred to a young
man whose name I do not mention in this
House because I have a high regard for him
and leave him alone in a way that I did not
leave his predecessor, the senator, alone when
he was here. But they were a different stripe.
You might be interested to know that he
wants to be called "the honourable, the
senator"— how high some people have got!
A couple of weeks ago—
Mr. Chairman: Vote 803, please.
Mr. Sopha: A couple of weeks ago when
a couple of hon. Cabinet Ministers were up
there, they described him in the programme
as Rheal Belisle and he tore up the pro-
gramme because he was not called "senator."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Sopha: However, it says this:
A member announced today the letting
of one road construction tender and the
calling of two contract tenders along the
route of the proposed Sudbury-Timmins
highway.
Why should that announcement be made by
the local member? What has he got to
do with it? This is a government decision—
a decision for which the Minister is respon-
sible, and in the making of that decision the
local member had very little part to play.
These decisions are made at a very high
level; this one was made as a result of im-
portunings by the people of Sudbury since
1924. That is when the genesis of the Sud-
bury-Timmins highway saw the light of day
—long before this young local member was
born.
You should all note that the hon. Minister
has put the halo on and the impression is that
his department is completely non-political. It
is operating on some aerie height above poli-
tics. One would think that he was the Minis-
ter of External Affairs, rather than the
Minister of Highways-
Mr. Chairman: Vote 803, please!
Mr. Sopha: But I would say to him, "Face
up to it; an integral part of the politics of
this government is the use of the local mem-
ber to make announcements of this nature,
and make them through his mouth as though
he had played some part in it—"
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: As my hon. leader (Mr.
Thompson) so aptly points out, the sparks
really fly if an announcement is made in the
riding of the hon. member for Simcoe East
and he is not a part of it—
MARCH 7, 1966
1217
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): I make the
announcement-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Sopha: Let us just adjust this halo and
get it on straight. As my hon. leader so aptly
pointed out, this department blandly used a
film prepared at public expense on a tele-
vision programme which very few people
watched, because it was not a very good film,
and then he wants to come here and display
for us some objective attitude that indicated
they are all apart from politics, they are
working for the good of the people of the
province. The truth is that they are using
public money to ensure the re-election of the
government. That is the—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Letherby: Why, certainly—
Mr. Sopha: As the leader of the Opposition
at Ottawa said on Friday, "Let us have that
in the record," that the hon. member for
Simcoe East said, "Why, certainly."
Mr. Letherby: I say I will make my an-
nouncements in my own way in East Simcoe.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please; order!
Mr. Sopha: He said in reference to my re-
marks, and we were not talking about Mun-
singer or Monseignor—
Mr. Letherby: We were talking about an-
nouncements-
Mr. Chairman: Vote 803, please.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister a question regarding permits for fruit
and vegetable stands. Does that come under
the operations branch?
I believe, under subsection 10, that should
the properties change hands, the permit to
operate the stand is not transferable, only at
the discretion of the district engineer. I just
wonder, in case of the existing stands being
placed too close to the highway in the cur-
rent thinking of The Department of High-
ways, what action is taken in this regard?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think it is fair
to say that those who are in possession of the
permit would be allowed to stay there until
their permit expires. We would like to get
them back within the control limits of the
particular highway itself.
The control area varies with the type of
highway. On King's highways they can be
closer; on a controlled access, of course, they
must be farther away from centre line— I think
that is the place where the measurement is
taken from. But once you have issued a per-
mit, I would presume that you do nothing
until it expires and then you would certainly
make every attempt to see that the regula-
tions were lived up to.
Mr. Paterson: Therefore, if there is a trans-
fer of property, the solicitors in such a case
should be aware of this Department of High-
way clause in order to inform the purchaser
that this permit would be void. Is that essen-
tially correct?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, well, I think
that is correct and I suggest to the hon. mem-
ber that if he has knowledge of certain speci-
fic instances it would be useful to make
reference to them. We can then look into
the specific situation and see just what is in-
volved and advise the hon. member in each
and every circumstance, if he would like to
do that.
Mr. Paterson: I have occasions of this in
my area. I do have an occasion of a stand
that is put on wheels and mobile, and appar-
ently this is legal according to the depart-
ment's regulations, that a property owner can
wheel a fruit and vegetable stand out close
to the shoulders of the road and at the end
of the day wheel it back and this is per-
missible.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: He certainly can-
not get out onto our right-of-way though, at
least he should not. He may be doing this,
but he should not be on any part of the right-
of-way, that is the road surface off the
shoulders and whatever is contained in the
right-of-way. Basically, I would be inclined
to the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that he must
abide by the same rules and regulations as
anybody who has a permanent installation.
Mr. Paterson: Therefore, if I advise the
district enginer of these infractions, this
would be looked after?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
Mr. Paterson: Is it in order to ask questions
regarding highways signs under this vote?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Highway signs? That is
right.
Mr. Paterson: Is The Department of High-
ways working on designation signs for federal
parks as well as the provincial parks? We
do have three national parks in our province.
1218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I just wonder if this is being looked after
for them.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Generally, we
would not permit this on a controlled-access
highway. The regulations are relaxed very
considerably once you get onto a King's high-
way. Again I suggest to the hon. member,
Mr. Chairman, if he would like to indicate
these specific locations, we would be happy to
acquaint him with the applicable regulations.
Mr. Paterson: Another matter, I have had
requests to me regarding these signs desig-
nating tourist camps, the Egyptian hiero-
glyphics. It has been suggested to me that
these are very confusing. First of all, a person
passing down the highway has to look at
these hieroglyphics and then beneath them
the resort operator has his name and below
that there are more hieroglyphics showing
what he has. In my opinion, I think this is a
hazard, and certainly is not the ultimate in
benefit to the tourist operator. One good sign
with clear wording, I think, would be of more
benefit.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I recall that not too long ago a com-
mittee of the tourist outfitters took this matter
up with us. These signs are symbolic, as the
hon. member says. If there is a fish there is
supposed to be fishing, is that what the hon.
member means?
Mr. Paterson: That is the type.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, this was
done by agreement, I think, at that time with
the tourist outfitters association and certain
other associated agencies. I agree with the
hon. member, you almost should stop your
car and go up and take a look at them, be-
cause if you are going to be rubbernecking
at them it could be a little dangerous.
Mr. Sopha: There may be some outside
the confines of the House who would criticize
me for not adducing enough evidence to
bolster the case I want to put before the
House. So that there shall be no ambiguity
or doubt about the nature of the evidence,
I should like to read this part into the
record to make the record complete, and
invite the hon. Minister's comment of the
remarks.
I read from the Eganville Leader, no doubt
an organ of opinion of much influence in
that part of Ontario where it is published.
It says this:
Quadeville-Foymount road to be as-
sumed as a secondary highway.
That is the heading.
Mr. Paul Yakabuski, MPP, Renfrew
South, read a letter from the Hon. C. S.
MacNaughton, Ontario Minister of High-
ways, in which he said that the department
had taken the necessary steps to assume
the Quadeville-Foymount road as a con-
tinuation of secondary Highway 515 from
Combermere by way of Palmer Rapids to
Quadeville, and connect it with Highway
512, Quadeville to Eganville by way of
Cormac. Effective date of assumption April
1st, 1965.
That is not very distant history. Then it goes
on, and will hon. members particularly note
the prose that is used?
The Department of Highways was im-
pressed by the magnificent majorities which
the electors of both Quadeville and Palmer
Rapids polls had consistently given the
government over a lengthy period, and in
this way the government was showing its
appreciation for past favours.
My query is this: One, does the hon. Minister
endorse those remarks? Two, are those
remarks part of the letter from the hon. Min-
ister to the hon. member? Are they contained
in that letter? He said he had received a
letter. It may be that that was part. Maybe
that phraseology was invented in the head
office of the department.
If it is invented in the head office— that
part about past favours— then I would ask a
subsidiary question: Are civil servants em-
ployed to write such things? And, are the
remarks true?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I neither started nor stopped beating
my wife, let us put it that way.
Mr. MacDonald: What about the rules—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think maybe I
shall search the files and substantiate to the
hon. members some time that these things
are not written by civil servants in letters.
Beyond that, I cannot speak for the com-
ments of any member in this House. I do
not propose to. Private members have a
perfect right to say what they like.
Mr. Sopha: The hon. Minister thinks they
have a perfect right to say what they like,
even if it is not true?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I cannot put a
muzzle on anybody.
Mr. Sopha: Well, does not the hon. Min-
ister exercise supervision in the same way
the hon. leader of the Opposition does over
MARCH 7, 1966
1219
us? Surely the executive council of the prov-
ince has a responsibility-
Mr. Chairman: Is this on 803?
Mr. Sopha: Yes. The head office of The
Department of Highways has the respon-
sibility to ensure that this type of statement
is not given currency among our people, un-
less, of course, there is more than a grain
of truth to it.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could we
ask, has the hon. Minister repudiated this
remark? Surely this is of interest to his
department. This is a very serious charge on
his department. It is an inference of patron-
age, the ugly shadow that can ruin a depart-
ment. I think it very fair that the hon.
member for Sudbury is asking the hon. Min-
ister, was it true? And if it was not true,
what steps did he take to have the hon.
member withdraw such a remark? I think it
is a very serious reflection on the department
and on the hon. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: I think the Minister
pointed out that the civil servants were not
employed for the purpose, and this is a re-
mark that perhaps appeared in the press and
we do not know whether it was said by the
member or not.
Mr. Bryden: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is
only one question that has not been
answered and I think it was quite straight-
forward and quite relevant. It was, I think,
the third question of the hon. member for
Sudbury. Simply, is the statement true that
this is the reason why the road was being
built, because of favourable Conservative
majorities in certain polling places? This is
a fair question, and I think it should be
answered.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This road was
built to provide a connection between two
King's highways. In the opinion, the good
solid, sensible opinion of the department and
the Minister of Highways, it was needed. I
could pursue this a little further and maybe
attribute something to the hon. leader of
the Opposition and the conduct of the people
who sit behind him. I do not propose to do
that.
Mr. Thompson: I would be very glad if
you did.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I do not pro-
pose to do that.
Mr. Thompson: Please do.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would rather pursue the estimates of the
department than simply see whether every
vestige of everything that is written in these
estimates must have a political connotation.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wood-
bine.
Mr. Bryden: I would point out to the hon.
Minister that the political connotation was
not given by the Opposition in this case, but
by one of his own members who, unfortu-
nately, is not here. We had a similar situa-
tion arise out of comments of his last year.
His explanation given last year certainly con-
firmed the political connotations. But I wish
to confirm that the hon. Minister's statement
means that that statement attributed in the
press to the hon. member for Renfrew South
is untrue. Am I right in assuming that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is rather a
miserable question to ask anybody to com-
ment on.
Mr. MacDonald: This is the underworld
of politics.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have told you
why the road was assumed— now, surely, that
is enough. I have told you why we did it-
Mr. Bryden: You mean, you do not want
to come right out and say it but, in fact, we
can draw our own conclusions.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Draw your own
conclusions.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber for Renfrew South is not in his seat.
May we, sir, in view of the seriousness of
this, and the apparent attempt by the hon.
member for Renfrew South— and I do not
want to criticize him in his absence— to mis-
lead the people of that part of Ontario;
could we raise this again in a later vote
when he returns to his seat? The House
might be given the advantage of some ex-
planation from him, personally, of why he
would say this sort of thing down in eastern
Ontario, when the only inference from the
hon. Minister of Highways is clear, and the
records should declare it, that any basis for
such a statement by the hon. member for
Renfrew South is, clearly, very tenuous and
very ephemeral, if it exists at all. Out of
1220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fairness to him, when he returns to the House
—and I was criticized once before for saying
things in reference to a member when he
was not in his place— in fairness to him when
he returns, with your permission, sir, we
might revert to this.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to suggest to
the member for Sudbury that we will deal
with vote 803 at this particular time. If the
member is not here and if he wishes to rise
on a point of personal privilege at that time,
he may do so. I think, as far as this House
is concerned, we are dealing with the vote at
this particular time, and if it is the wish of
the members of this House, we will pass this
vote now.
Mr. Sopha: Sir, I am not impugned by
anything said. I am not impugned, and there
is no personal privilege in me. It is the hon.
member for Renfrew South who is im-
pugned.
Mr. Chairman: It was the member for
Renfrew South to whom I made reference.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, I see.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member is reading a press report,
and I think everyone in this House knows
that the last member for Renfrew South was
a member of the Opposition. No one is go-
ing to go up there and deny that, and he
could not tell the people of Renfrew South
that they had always elected someone who
was on the government's side of the House.
So, take it in that light, and think about it
for a second.
An hon. member: What light is that,
again?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You know who the
last member for Renfrew South was.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to pursue this but I just want to
come back to one point. The hon. Minister
was a little lofty in his sermon to us a
moment ago about patronage being elimin-
ated from the government and its operations.
But we had the hon. member for Simcoe East
get up and say: Fur would fly if I did not get
the information and make the announcement!
Mr. Letherby: That is right.
Mr. MacDonald: There we are! I appre-
ciate the emphasis. In other words, the Min-
ister might as well subside in his seat and cut
out the double talk about patronage, because
the hon. member for Simcoe East has just
said, bluntly, that when anything is done by
The Department of Highways in his area, he
is going to be the mouthpiece and he will
know it. Nobody on this side of the House
gets that privilege.
Hon. H. L. Rovvntree (Minister of Labour):
Why should they?
Mr. MacDonald: What do you mean, why
should they?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Why should they?
Mr. MacDonald: The proposition that the
whole machinery of government should be
tied in with the operation of the Tory Party
is patronage.
An hon. member: No.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Do not get up and preach
about it.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I would suggest to
the member for York South that, on vote 803,
as far as patronage is concerned, I would be
inclined to think that an announcement is
not necessarily patronage.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, could we
ask perhaps the hon. member for Simcoe
East, if there was a Liberal member for Sim-
coe East, would he announce the highway?
Mr. Letherby: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
am going to ask if I may rise on a point of
order. First of all, we allowed a—
Mr. Chairman: I would like you to stay
with vote 803, if you will, please.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: —very brief com-
ment over here that was out of order. I sug-
gest to you that for the last half-hour, sir,
we have been out of order. We have relaxed
the rules here a little bit because we are not
too familiar with them— the eleven votes
versus the three. I have already explained to
the House what this vote encompasses and
we are a mile out of order, sir.
Mr. Thompson: With all respect, Mr.
Chairman, we are trying to clarify whether
the Conservative Party runs this administra-
tion or whether it is the executive*.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Wishful thinking on
your part.
MARCH 7, 1966
1221
Mr. Letherby: I just want to make this—
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not sit down,
you will just start some fights.
Mr. Letherby: I do not think any privilege
comes to me that does not go to any hon.
member of this House, regardless of what
party he happens to sit on. Now, if The De-
partment of Highways, or any other depart-
ment—Public Works or whatever it is— if they
have made a decision to do something in my
riding, and it comes to my attention, I do not
phone the newspapers and say: "Has it come
to your attention yet that we are going to
do so-and-so?"
Mr. Thompson: How does it come to your
attention?
Mr. Letherby: I merely say that this is
what the department of so-and-so intends to
do in my riding of Simcoe East, and I give it
my blessing. If they will flash my picture on
TV or put it in the paper, all the better for
Mr. MacDonald: Why does it have to have
your blessing?
Mr. Thompson: Why does it have to have
your blessing?
Vote 803 agreed to.
On vote 804:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Bruce.
Mr. Whicher: Mr. Chairman, there are
many subheadings in this vote that I am
actually unable to—
Mr. Chairman: I would suggest to you that
we keep them in sequence— subheading num-
ber one: Is there someone who would like to
speak on vote 804, under subsection one?
Mr. Whicher: Yes, I think mine will be
under that. I cannot find any heading in
there dealing with the cost of salt on our pro-
vincial highways, and yet, undoubtedly, it is
well known that it costs a great deal of
money. I wonder if the hon. Minister could
elaborate on the number of tons that were
used last year and the cost.
In the reconstruction of this particular vote
I am surprised that there has not been a
heading dealing with this. There are some
costs that are over $300,000; one for $250,-
000, and, I am sure, one such as the cost of
salt is much higher than that. I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, with all due respect to the depart-
ment that this is of a somewhat embarrassing
nature. Ever since I have been in this House
for the past 11 years, it has been talked about
and each and every year the Minister con-
cerned-
Mr. Chairman: Do you mind if I just find
out if that comes under section 2, winter
maintenance?
Mr. Whicher: No, it comes under—
Mr. Chairman: Section 2, winter mainte-
nance.
Mr. Whicher: —control costs.
Mr. Chairman: Under number 2, under
804, the first heading. I think you will find
that it comes under section 2, winter main-
tenance.
Mr. Whicher: All right, I will talk about it
then.
Mr. Chairman: Section 1, please!
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under section
1, general maintenance, I would assume that
the topic of salt would come. The depart-
ment has conducted experiments concerning
the effect of salt.
Mr. Chairman: I think we can deal with
it in number two.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, supposing I
have a topic that should have come under
804, item 1, will I be allowed to bring it up
later? It is so confusing.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, as long as the entire
vote is not passed.
Mr. Newman: All right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
Mr. Paterson: Under dust laying, I wonder
if it is the policy of the department to see
their patrol officers spread calcium along the
shoulders of the road at the entrance ways
to businesses, such as these fruit and vege-
table stands I was speaking about, and other
retail establishments, for fear dust is a factor
in accidents?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We just lay it on
our own road shoulders, Mr. Chairman. We
do not put dust on private property of any
kind.
Mr. Paterson: Would it be your policy then
to spread this on the shoulders of the road
1222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
owned by the highways and thus reduce the
dust hazards?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): On item 1 of
804, Mr. Chairman, are there any of the
items listed in item 1 of 804, such as gravel
crushing or dust laying, or surface treatment,
where part of the work is done by govern-
ment crews in one area, and in another area
part of it is done by private contractors?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Gravel crushing
would in many circumstances be done by
outside contractors who would be employed
for that purpose. We contract with people
who own gravel deposits and have crushing
equipment for much of our gravel and gravel
crushing.
Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I have not made
myself clear, Mr. Chairman. Would some of
the gravel crushing be done under a govern-
ment operation and some under private con-
tracting, or would some of the dust-laying
be done by government crews, and some be
done by private contractors?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All our gravel
crushing is done by outside contractors. Most
of our dust-laying and surface treatment is
done by contract, although we do some of it
in the department.
Mr. Renwick: Are there any other items
where part is done by government crews
and part by private contractors, apart from
dust-laying?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Surface treat-
ment, hot mix patching, is done both ways-
some by contractors, some by department
forces and equipment.
Mr. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, one of
the matters which concerns us, is the whole
question of comparing cost of work which
is done by private contractors, compared
with work which is done by the government
crews. In this department it is very, very
difficult for us in the Opposition to get the
kind of comparative information which would
let us make some assessment as to whether
the operations of the department are carried
on in an economic way.
To that purpose, I would like to ask
whether you have comparative figures, on,
say, a per mile basis, or whatever the other
unit is, for work done by government crews,
and work done by private contractors, on
whatever comparable basis the hon. Minister
may suggest would be comparable, so that we
would have the figures in each case to decide
which is the most economic way to have the
work done.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man. First of all we can provide some com-
parative figures for the hon. member. I will
have to ask him to give me time to get them,
but I will. Secondly, I can say to the hon.
member that one of the important cost
factors in doing this with departmental forces
is associated with the ownership, and the cost
associated with ownership of great quantities
of equipment, that is not used, shall we say,
over a full 12-month period. I think the
figures I produce for you will substantiate
that we have found this to be the most
economical method of getting the work done.
Mr. Renwick: If I might just interrupt the
hon. Minister. What has he found to be
the most economical way of having the work
done?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The way we do
it, by contract. I will attempt to substantiate
that for you. I will get you some comparative
figures. I did mention, and you probably
heard me, that one of the cost factors associ-
ated with departmental forces involves tre-
mendous amounts of money tied up in
equipment not operable over a full 12-month
period. Associated with that, too, are payroll
costs of the people that cannot be employed
over a 12-month period. The cost of and
maintenance of equipment and so on, turns
out to be quite high.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not
quite understand what the hon. Minister is
saying. Is he saying that it is impossible to
compare the cost of work done by the gov-
ernment as compared with the cost of work
done by private contractors?
Mr. Chairman: No, he said he would give
you them later.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will give you
this comparison. But until you do get these
factual and actual comparisons, I am saying
that this will be one of the things that affects
the cost and the difference in the cost. I am
telling you now that this is a factor. We will
produce facts and comparable figures to show
this.
Mr. Renwick: Could I ask the hon. Min-
ister when he would think this could be done?
Does he mean during the course of the dis-
cussion on this vote, or is this a matter to be
left over until some later time?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I can assure the
hon. member that we will not take any longer
than is required. If we can make it available
during the course of the estimates, I think
MARCH 7, 1966
1223
you might even get back to it on 807, be-
cause a similar situation applies when you
come to that vote, with respect to construc-
tion. It would be basically similar. We will
see if we can produce it by then, but it
depends on how long it takes to get these
estimates through.
Mr. Renwick: I would hope that the hon.
Minister would give us as full and complete
information as possible, because he must
recognize our difficulty, in deciding when
large amounts of money are being expended,
as to whether it is being done in an economic
way.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to bring up the question of Highway 401,
between the Windsor area and Tilbury. Ap-
parently last year you had undergone some
experimentation in repaving a stretch of the
road.
Mr. Chairman: Is this reconstruction, or is
this under maintenance?
Mr. Newman: This is under general main-
tenance. Apparently you are aware that that
is probably the roughest section of 401 any-
where in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Newman: Why is it so rough, Mr.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, for one
reason, Mr. Chairman, and I think we have
discussed this in the House before, it was
the first piece of 401 that was put down. It
is the oldest section of the Macdonald-Cartier
freeway in the province. As you point out
so often, that makes it pretty ancient, because
we did start it quite some time ago. Roads
simply do not stand up forever, and presum-
ably we have learned a little more about road
building in the terms of years that are in-
volved than when that was first put down. I
do not think there was ever too much prob-
lem with the surface, but there may be some
deficiencies in the sub-grade.
However, we did put down this experi-
mental section last year, to see how this
would work and if this was a measure of
economy we could effect to smooth out that
section of road. I think when the test has
been there long enough— and it should not
take much longer— we should know that this
summer.
I hope that the hon. member would say
and agree with me that if we can improve
the deficiencies in that section of Highway
401, Macdonald-Cartier freeway, by this
means— which is more economical than com-
plete reconstruction— then this is the sensible
way to do it. That was the purpose of the
trial surfacing job that was undertaken.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
would be more than pleased to save the de-
partment any money we possibly can in the
local area, if you can correct the fault that is
presently in the roadway. But I understand,
Mr. Minister, that the surface is not cracked
at all—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No.
Mr. Newman: Apparently it was an experi-
ment in construction in the early days, was it
not?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I would not
say that. In those days we probably did not
use the same reinforcing measures that we
have now learned to use, or a number of
other construction techniques. In this case,
I think that some of the techniques we
employ today in road construction were not
available to us then. This may very well be
one of the facts which caused that condition
to develop. But we are going to find out if
we can remedy it this way. If we cannot, I
can assure the hon. member that it will have
to be reconstructed. There is no question
about that.
Mr. Newman: I am quite aware of that,
Mr. Chairman, because we will press the
hon. Minister to reconstruct—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. member
will not have to; we will do it anyway.
Mr. Newman: The thing I had heard— and
I do not know how true it is— was that the
reason for the road being so rough is that
it was built in 20-foot lengths— the slabs
themselves were 20 feet— and not the 50-foot
lengths from which the freeway is normally
constructed. Is there any truth in that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No.
Mr. Newman: None whatsoever? Then
we can let the people back home know that
after the hon. Minister has decided from
experimentation the proper procedure to
follow, the situation will be remedied be-
tween the Windsor and Tilbury line on
Highway 401.
1224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Paterson: I should like to ask a ques-
tion regarding the subsidy for the operation
of the ferries. I recall several years ago
when the now Deputy Minister for the hon.
Attorney General was the solicitor for The
Department of Highways was in my home
community discussing the Pelee Island ferry.
I wonder what connection The Ontario De-
partment of Highways has with the operation
of this ferry, in view of the press reports that
this is strictly an Ottawa problem.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This is a feder-
ally operated ferry, as the hon. member
mentioned. The policy with respect to ferries
is simply this: If it takes a ferry to be an
extension of the King's highway, then we
take care of all the costs; if it is a ferry that
is operated by a municipality, they would get
their applicable rate of subsidy on the opera-
tional costs of the ferry, but in this case the
ferry is operated entirely by the federal
government so the costs are all borne by
them.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I
suggest to the hon. Minister that he assign
Highway 401 between the two spots that I
mentioned earlier with some signs designat-
ing, "Road bumpy for next 28 miles/' be-
cause when you first get off that road— and
especially an American coming into our area
—you stop, thinking that there is something
wrong with the car. I think signs would give
the individual enough knowledge that it was
the highway at fault, not the car.
There was one other topic I would like to
suggest to the hon. Minister, Mr. Chairman,
and that is some method of keeping the
highways clean by picking up refuse and
garbage. I noticed that British Columbia
uses a garbage "gobbler." Has the province
ever considered a mechanical means of pick-
ing up litter from the side of the road? The
hon. Minister does have a policy whereby
the individual who litters the road is fined
$50, but I doubt that anyone at all has been
prosecuted.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Not too many.
Our patrols that maintain the roads certainly
clean them up at intervals and I can tell the
hon. member that he is quite right that there
have been very few, if any, people prose-
cuted because they have to be caught in the
act. It is one thing to have a sign up there,
but unless they are caught throwing some
kind of refuse on the road, there is nothing
that can be done about it.
Our maintenance crews— or patrols, as we
call them— do clean up the roadsides on a
schedule basis. We do not have a garbage
gobbler yet.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister if the department can
assure us that studded tires have no effect
on the maintenance of the roads and no
deteriorating effect on them?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I would not
like to say that the department can assure
anyone that these studs in tires do not do
damage to highway surfaces. Rather, we
would be of the opinion that they do
material damage to the surface of a highway.
This matter is being studied very thoroughly
by our research branch at the moment.
This is really a matter for The Depart-
ment of Transport to associate itself with.
We have some doubts as to the legality of
these tires, but the reason I think that there
has been no determination on it is because
there is a test case on this very matter be-
fore the courts in Manitoba. I think that the
legality of them, or otherwise, will be deter-
mined, so probably we can wait until the
courts decide.
Mr. Newman: Has the hon. Minister any
information from other jurisdictions concern-
ing the use of studded tires and—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This properly
would come under The Department of
Transport.
Mr. Newman: No, highway maintenance—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We are dealing
with the maintenance of—
Mr. Newman: That is right; and I am talk-
ing about highway maintenance at this time.
If studded tires are affecting the roads, we
would like to know. That is all.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think that the
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett)
would be able to give a report on his re-
search in connection with it.
I would make just this observation: There
are some 20 states in the United States
where they are banned. One of them is your
neighbouring state of Michigan; they are
banned in that state. Other states are in-
vestigating the use of them and we are
waiting a decision by the courts of Manitoba
to know what should be done. But, apart
from that, their legality is a matter for The
Department of Transport.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I am inter-
ested in the safety factor, rather than the
MARCH 7, 1966
1225
legality factor. If it is safer to have studded
tires, then I think the legality of them can
be taken care of by the Attorney General's
office.
The next question concerns railway cross-
ings. Municipalities are confronted with
railroad crossings all the time. In my own
community we happen to have had a very
serious accident just recently. To what ex-
tent is the department—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This comes under
another vote.
Mr. Paterson: I would like to pose a ques-
tion regarding maintenance, specifically on
Highway 77, which I note that the hon. Min-
ister has allocated for repaving. Is there a
point in the breakup of a road of this nature
that warrants the department making a
decision to reconstruct such a route? I assume
that this is the case where this road is con-
cerned.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: These roads are
examined annually, or sometimes oftener, by
various districts to determine their deficiency
rating or their condition and when they reach
the point where they are more costly to
maintain than reconstruct, then of course
they are reconstructed.
Mr. Paterson: I just hope you can get a
good bid.
Mr. Spence: I should like to ask the hon.
Minister a question with regard to the Mac-
Donald-Cartier freeway. If a vehicle goes off
the road and goes through a fence, is it the
responsibility of the farmer to replace the
fence where it has been destroyed, or is it
the responsibility of The Department of
Highways?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think that in the
majority of cases, if not all of them, that
would be the responsibility of the driver and
his insurance company. I do not think that
we could be held responsible for the actions
of the driver in those circumstances.
Mr. Spence: Suppose the vehicle which
damaged the fence is not found? Is this
then the responsibility of the farmer?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If there is any-
thing in the area of negligence on the part of
The Department of Highways, or a condition
associated with the road itself that can be
proven to have caused the accident, then
I would say that the department would
undertake to make redress for the cost in-
volved. Otherwise I think it is the responsi-
bility of the driver and his insurer, and if he
is not caught then I do not know what to tell
the hon. member, except that it is tough luck.
Mr. Spence: You mean the farmer's hard
luck.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, it would
look that way.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, might I
suggest to the hon. Minister that something
might be done about the fence along High-
way 27 right in the median connecting High-
ways 27 and 401? It certainly is a mess; it is
apparently being run into all the time. Could
the hon. Minister not put fences along both
sides of the road rather than down the median
so that the youngsters would have two fences
to climb were they interested in crossing
from one side of Highway 27 to the other
side? Possibly the answer to the problem
might be a pedestrian walk-over in areas
where you have a lot of pedestrian traffic.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I suppose, Mr.
Chairman, there might be a number of things
considered there. This has been put up as a
temporary measure of keeping children from
crossing Highway 27. Highway 27 will shortly
be completely reconstructed. Plans for the
widening of 27 are imminent, you might say.
When I say imminent, that could be several
months. But we are going to widen it, we are
going to have to build new service roads, and
I think maybe we should minimize the ex-
penditures that are made on it for now.
Mr. Newman: Good enough.
Mr. Chairman: Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Thompson: I do not know whether this
comes under it, Mr. Chairman. I was in-
terested in knowing the policy of the depart-
ment concerning trees growing in the dividing
area between two highway lanes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In the median?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, on the Queen Eliza-
beth.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That practice,
Mr. Chairman, has been discontinued.
Mr. Thompson: Could I ask why it has
been discontinued?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In many cases
they were not surviving, and in other cases
they could be a major traffic hazard. For a
variety of reasons we discontinued them.
1226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Nothing is more arresting than a tree in the
wrong place, I would point out to the hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Thompson: I am just wondering on
this point, whether on the Queen Elizabeth,
where there are trees growing, does the hon.
Minister consider them a dangerous hazard?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Does the hon.
leader of the Opposition mean down the
median strip?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: There are very
few of them left. There are so very few
that possibly they will all disappear in a
short period of time. There are very few
sections of the Queen Elizabeth left where
there are any trees down the median strip.
Mr. Paterson: The hon. member for Bruce
was going to ask some questions regarding
salt, but I might question the hon. Minister
regarding salt inhibitors. I recall a few en-
joyable moments in the House last year on
the question regarding salt inhibitors. But I
would specifically ask, in the survey that was
conducted by the department in the various
municipalities in southwestern Ontario, what
percentage of the municipalities replied to
the questionnaire of the department and
what percentage indicated that they would
enjoy going along with having inhibitors?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
cannot tell you what the precise percentage
was, but a fair number indicated they would
go along and a fair percentage of municipali-
ties did not respond at all. That is informa-
tion I will have to get; I do not have it
immediately available.
Mr. Paterson: Are tests still being con-
ducted in the department in regard to in-
hibitors and so forth?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I say to the hon. member that we have
a very full and intensive research programme
under way. It is about a year old now, I
guess. It will probably take two years to
complete. We propose to run it through
from October of last fall to May, 1967. We
instituted it last fall.
We are carrying out the main test at
Downsview where we have five rigs fixed
with pieces of auto body steel. The rigs will
simulate actual road conditions. Rig 1 will
test natural conditions with no salt added;
rig 2 will test natural conditions with salt
added as required; rigs 3, 4 and 5 will test
natural conditions with salt added as re-
quired. Each of the last three rigs will use
a different type of corrosion inhibitor.
Further tests are being carried out— and
this is part of our research programme— in
five parts of the province, and in Alberta and
the Maritimes, with strips of auto body steel
mounted on cars. In all test areas, corrosion
due to atmospheric conditions will also be
determined.
We hope that the results of this research
programme will determine such matters as
the extent to which de-icing salt causes
corrosion, how effective are corrosion inhibi-
tors and which is the best inhibitor, and will
the amount of corrosion prevented by an
inhibitor justify its cost. These are the things
we are trying to determine and we are doing
it on this broad-range basis that I made
reference to.
It being 6 o'clock p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 41
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Monday, March 7, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, March 7, 1966
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1229
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1253
. I Li J..-. . ..' UltiATW*
1223
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
( continued )
Mr. Chairman: Vote 804, section 2. The
member for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, I will ask this a little later, instead
of under this item.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
on section 3, "Repaving present roads."
This might be a suitable place to inquire
about the Indian roads. Very specifically a
good many of the hon. members would re-
member the paving of the road through the
Six Nations reservation, which has been com-
pleted for a full year now, and a bit more.
There have been many complaints about the
final finish on this road and I wonder if the
hon. Minister has something that he could
say definitely about the possibility of this
road being repaved. I have heard from
members of the Indian council that the road
would be repaved, but I would like to hear
from the hon. Minister what plans there. are
for this job.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): I would say to the hon. member
that we treat roads on Indian reservations
basically the same as we would if they were
in a township or municipality. They are
entitled to subsidies at the same rate as the
basic rate to a municipality.
You are talking about the Six Nations re-
serve now, of course. As to the precise de-
tails on why the road is. not in an acceptable
condition or why repaving or further main-
tenance work is required, I would have to
look into it. But basically, the township or
the reserve, which in this instance is the
counterpart of a township, initiates the work;
we just subsidize it. ; ... v
Mr. Nixoft: I think With the exception of
this road then, you sibsidize~- - <---* — - ----•>
Monday, March 7, 1966
Hon, Mr. MacNaughton: Is this a reserve
road? Is it a King's highway, the one. you
have reference to?
Mr. Nixon: It is a reserve road, Mr.
Chairman, but I understand that the Original
financing of the road was established under
a special procedure. When the road was
built, I would say that the work done on it
in general was excellent, except for the final
finish. There has been some complaint about
it, that it began breaking up almost immedi-
ately, and it has become in fairly bad shape.
I would recommend to you, sir, that the basic
financing of that particular road should be
continued, with respect to the resurfacing.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, it will be.
The gesture that will be advanced to the
reserve would be the same as we would ad-
vance to a municipality. If they want to
put this in their expenditure bylaw, there is
no reason to believe that the bylaw would not
be approved, and the work on improvements
that you indicate are required would be sub-
sidized in the normal manner.
It may be that this was built as a devel-
opment road. I do not think it was in this
circumstance.
Mr
It
road
Nixon: I do not think it was, either,
was a special mode of financing for this
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Nevertheless, it
is now, for all intent and purposes, a town-
ship road, a municipal road as far as subsi-
dization is concerned by our department.
The Indian band simply passes the expendi-
ture bylaw, involving the amount of money
that is required to do the work.
If they wish to talk about something above
and beyond the normal rate of subsidy that
is applicable, because of what you describe
:&s somewhat different circumstances, certainly
they can take this up with the district munici-
pal engineer, or the chief municipal engineer
at Downsview. If there are Circumstances that
warrant soriiething above and beyond the
normal rate of subsidy, for a- Variety of rea-
sons, -this-can all 'be considered,- but they will
1230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have to do it by initiating a bylaw for ap-
proval purposes.
Mr. Nixon: One of the difficulties that this
government has in dealing with the Indians
on the reservations is that they insist on re-
garding them as municipalities, or similar to
municipalities. This works out quite well, in
some connections, as the hon. Minister well
knows, but not all.
Unfortunately, the Indians are hardly in a
position to pass what the hon. Minister has
called a bylaw. Their funds actually come
from the federal government for most of this
work, and the people that you have to deal
with are, of course, the Indian council
primarily, but in a secondary position, and a
position of great importance, are the people
who are going to provide the rest of the
funds, and that is the Indian office in Ottawa.
One further difficulty that would delay
the repaving of this road, Mr. Chairman, is
the manner in which the subsidies are made
available to the municipalities, if you will.
The expenditure is made and then the depart-
ment reimburses them. Is this not so?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, but the hon.
member may recall that two or three years
ago we introduced a means of making pay-
ment on approved subsidies. I think three
times a year we can make an interim pay-
ment, and their moneys are made available
much more frequently than they used to be.
But let me ask the hon. member, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, to recall a meeting I am sure
he attended with officers of the Indian band
—the chief and a number of others. There
was a representative there— his name escapes
me at the moment— from the Indian affairs
branch. If the hon. member recalls, I would
say to him, we at that time stated rather
categorically to the representative of the fed-
eral authority that we would welcome the
time when they would take the place of a
municipality as far as Indian bands were
concerned.
Our statute permits us only to subsidize up
to the level that is set up in the statute. We
recognize very well that these Indian bands
do not have the resources that townships do
nor the means of obtaining these resources.
Surely I must at this point reiterate what I
did at that meeting— I think it is something
the federal government should approach very
quickly, that they then should be the counter-
part of the municipality in terms of making
provision for the extra funds that are re-
quired. We are limited by statute as to how
much we can put up. We are limited by
statute as to the amount we can subsidize
municipalities, as the hon. member knows.
In the absence of something like that in
terms of these Indian bands, if we are going
to do what has to be done on these reserves
then the federal authorities have to recognize
that they are going to have to put up the
difference or a greater portion of it than they
now do, because I could not agree with the
hon. member more that bands have not access
to the resources and the funds to do it them-
selves. And yet statutorily we cannot do any-
thing more, and we think frankly it is a
responsibility of the federal government or at
least for the moment it is responsible for
these situations.
I am not trying to shift any responsibility
here, but certainly something has to be recog-
nized, or we are going to be confronted with
this problem. Now if the hon. member is
suggesting that we should move in and pick
up something that the federal authority does
not make available to these Indian bands, I
am sure that is a topic of another discussion.
This is one of the great problems at the
moment, I assure you.
Mr. Nixon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am very
glad to hear the hon. Minister expand on this
difficult subject. I would agree with him that
there is much that the federal government
could do to improve the situation. But the
flexibility must surely lie with the hon. Min-
ister's department as well. Specifically this is
the main difficulty, that after an agreement is
made whereby the Indians can expect some
subsidy from The Department of Highways,
the road is built and paid for, then the sub-
sidy returns to what you would call the
municipality but what is, in fact, in this case
the consolidated revenue fund of the govern-
ment of Canada, and it is lost to the Indian
branch entirely.
It may well be that the accommodation
should all be made at the federal level but
another alternative would be that the regu-
lations governing the payments by the hon.
Minister's department to the Indian band
could be made more flexible so that the funds
would be available for the actual operation,
the actual paving operation in this case, and
not after it has been completed. The Indian
affairs branch apparently has some difficulty
in this connection, and it is something to bear
in mind.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask again specifically about the resur-
facing of this new road that was financed in
a manner other than the manner that the hon.
Minister has described. I would submit, sir,
MARCH 7, 1966
1231
that there is a continuing responsibility for
this particular road, that it be put in condi-
tion that is satisfactory to the Indians living
on the Six Nations reserve. I would appeal
to the hon. Minister to look into it very care-
fully so that in the coming paving season, if
possible, this can be put in tip-top shape.
Then the regular rules can apply until such
time as the flexibility that both of us look for
comes into effect.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will just con-
clude this by saying to the hon. member that
we will look into the original circumstances
and the original conditions under which the
road was built. It may very well be that
there is some deficiency in the road and the
surface is not what it should be. Maybe the
same terms of reference should apply now
that applied in the initial circumstances. I
will have to pursue that, of course, and see
what it is all about.
Mr. Nixon: Do your best.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question to ask of the hon. Minister, about
the Burlington skyway. Is the Burlington
skyway going to be resurfaced this year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, we con-
template resurfacing the skyway.
Mr. Newman: How long is it since it was
originally surfaced?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not know for
sure. I think it is the original surface that is
on there.
Mr. Newman: The original surface is on it
now?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Likely, yes.
Mr. Newman: What lifespan has it had?
What is it, about four years old?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh, no, it is more
like ten years.
Mr. Newman: I do not know, I am asking
the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: More like ten
years.
Mr. Newman: Is that the life expectancy
of the road surface?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The life ex-
pectancy of any surface is related to the
amount of vehicular use and wear that it gets.
There is a very heavy amount of traffic over
the Burlington skyway, and particularly since
the tolls were reduced there is a tremendous
amount more. As I pointed out to the hon.
member under a previous vote, truck traffic
has increased tremendously. Heavy truck
traffic in volume certainly means that a road
surface will not stand up as long as it other-
wise would. So you cannot say there is any
particular period of life to a road; it is
associated with the amount of traffic, and the
kind of traffic that is using it.
Mr. Newman: Then, Mr. Minister, was the
engineering in the first instance satisfactory
or not, for it has only lasted ten years?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I would
say if it lasted ten years the engineering
must have been very good, when you consider
the volume of traffic that uses it.
Mr. Newman: May I continue with another
subject? What is the status of Highway 3; and
does the Minister plan on paving it the full
length in the foreseeable future?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not know
what you call the foreseeable future. I might
say, Mr. Chairman, Highway 3 runs all the
way from Windsor to Fort Erie—
An hon. member: All bad, too.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This is a very
long highway. We certainly have a plan for
the eventual reconstruction of Highway 3, and
we have started at the Fort Erie end. Some
work has been done and some more will
be done. I think it will probably be done in
terms of priorities. We will do those areas
that require it the most. But, to say that in
the short-term future, No. 3 will be recon-
structed in its entirety, is quite another story.
What is it— 250 miles, maybe more than that?
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, to follow up on these remarks,
I note, in the construction projects, where the
department has announced that on section 3
in the Port Alma area, they are going to re-
construct a couple of bridges and drains.
I wonder in that specific area—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Which area is that
again?
Mr. Paterson: Port Alma, Kent county east
of Wheatley. I discussed this with the mem-
ber for that area and we are very hopeful
that some work will be done in that area
as far as reconstructing the whole area.
Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton East):
Not this year.
1232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Paterson: Is there any indication that
this eight or nine miles will be resurfaced this
coming year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I can find that out
very readily for the hon. member, but I
do not have it at my finger tips. Certainly,
there is a complete rehabilitation programme
on Highway 3, but it will be done in stages,
as I have pointed out. It will be done in
those stages and areas that need it the most
Mr, Chairman: On vote 804.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): None of us
over here are engineers, therefore we cannot
speak with any expert knowledge about the
technical aspect of maintaining King's high-
ways, but then, again, neither is the political
head of this department, an engineer. What
I do not understand is, comparing this item
of $150,000, which may be spent pursuant
to section 90 of The Highway Improvement
Act, with the item which I believe is No. 5
under "Capital Disbursements," under the
same section of this same Act, of $17
million. I am rather startled by the smallness
of the amount.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not see any
amount of thatr-
Mr. Sopha: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Did you say
$150,000?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, $150,000.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: In item No. 1?
Mr. Chairman: We are on vote 804, section
5, the member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I am sorry; $500,000. It
strikes me that when you are spending as in
the last fiscal year— I look at the public
accounts for the last fiscal year for which we
have record and that is March 31, 1965,
apparently $14,368,000 and change was spent
in capital costs. It strikes me that the disparity
between the two is too great. A half million
dollars for the maintenance of roads which
presumably are already built and are being
kept up to a certain standard.
I do not know, because I belong to the
Macaulay school of mathematics, what per-
centage $500,000 is of $14 million, but that
small percentage rather drives me to the con-
clusion that these discretionary expenditures
which I do not like in the first place— I do
not believe Ministers of the Crown should be
left with the discretion to spend money
according to their whim to any large extent,
and that is what section 90 says:
The Minister may designate as a devel-
opment road, a road or proposed road
under the jurisdiction and control of a
municipality, other than a city-separated
town or village.
It might have said a township and saved %
bit of verbiage, because apparently that is
what is meant when you rule out all the rest.
All that is left are townships; perhaps a
police village or perhaps an improvement
district—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That was amended
last year, you will recall.
Mr. Sopha: It does not say "as amended"
in the estimates.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Are those the re-
vised statutes, 1960?
Mr. Sopha: It says "Highway Improvement
Act, section 90," and if you mean as
amended, it should be put in.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right, we will
put it in now.
Mr. Sopha: I do not speak to the hon.
Minister directly, Mr. Chairman; forgive me,
through you. If he means as amended, he
should put it in.
I digress because I do not believe the sta-
tutes should give Ministers discretion to
spend money according to their whim, be-
cause there is always a danger with respect to
parts of the province that are not consonant
with the trend of government at the particu-
lar moment.
Five hundred thousand dollars in respect of
a cumulative number of years of spending of
$14 million does not seem to be a very gen-
erous amount of money. I do not belong to
the Sargent school of economics— let me say
that— and I am not one who uses the floor of
this Legislature to condemn or to criticize the
vast amounts of money for Toronto subways
or the $14 million a mile— mark you— for the
Gardiner expressway. But still I am conscious
that a great many people come down south of
the French. They sort of cross the French to
look at civilization and they see the large net-
works of roads down here.
I might say in conjunction with the -next
item, "Roads in Unincorporated Townships"
—because the two rather go together— that
there is a good deal of feeling in northern! and
northwestern Ontario that the road-^building
process is like the mills of the gods— it grinds
exceeding slow. When one remembers that
MARCH 7, 1966
1233
four-fifths of the land area of this province
is north of the French, there is a good deal of
real estate waiting to be opened up by these
development roads.
It is all very well for the first citizen to
come up to Sudbury, as he did a few weeks
ago, and talk about what great people we are
and what a great future we have. And in the
process, of course, expose himself to getting
some advice from the senator. He was not
here before supper when I said something
about the senator, but I understand that the
senator gave him some advice on running the
government of Ontario. That is what I am
told; my spies tell me that. Let me tell the
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.
Spooner)— the senator made a speech that was
published in the paper and it was so good the
hon. Minister wanted 100 copies of it, to
bring back with him.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Well, they like to hear the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) say those
things. But every place, for example, the
mining committee went in its chores con-
sistent with its responsibilities, perhaps the
first item they spoke to us about was the
absence of roads.
In Wawa, that is what concerned them,
and Manitouwadge, Fort Frances, Kenora,
Sioux Lookout, Red Lake, Timmins. They
talked about roads and they are asking for
roads because they know the only way of
opening up that country up there is through
the building of roads. As John Wintermeyer
used to say here, one of the wise things he
often referred to was that people follow
roads. Roads ought not to follow the people.
Open up the country first.
Those in the north who are aware of the
affluence of the southern part of the province,
where albeit their wealth comes down to gen-
erate a considerable amount of that affluence,
would like to hear from the hon. Minister
about some acceleration in respect of this
road-building programme.
Now to return to—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, that is what
I have been waiting for.
. Mr. Sopha: —to where my remarks initi-
ated. This section, as I say, grants to the
Minister a discretion. I do not like that. I
woujdlike to hear from him whether he has.
a programme of where his $500,000 is going
to he spent.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is already
im' I have been waiting to tell the hon. mem-
berithat.: \U:' .' !■••• - ?*.< u
Mr. Sopha: Five hundred thousand dollars
is not enough for it. Following a practice
that is now in a high stage of development in
this government, he can go to the Treasury
board any time before the end of the fiscal
year and he can get the Treasury board,
which apparently has very loose regulations,
as the Globe and Mail so aptly points out,
which will grant them large amounts of
money within this vote for him to spend
where and as he will, as his conscience and
his whims may dictate. The hon. Minister
shakes his head, but the Globe and Mail
points out that last year the Treasury board
granted, under Treasury board orders, $35
million— more than the whole budget of this
province in 1919 or 1922, somewhere around
there, which we are looking at in the public
accounts. I try not to be parochial, but if one
lives in northern Ontario-
Some hon. members: Carried.
Mr. Sopha: It will not be carried until I am
finished and have my say on behalf of those
citizens north of the French. I hope to have
a voice here.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
has the floor.
Mr. Sopha: One wonders what the inten-
tions are in respect of doing something con-
crete and tangible. Perhaps people may turn
around and say to me: "Well, Mr. Member
from Sudbury, if you do not get more
parochial, you view the whole province as
your constituency rather than looking after
the interests of the area you come from,
maybe we had better not send you back
there any more." That might be a very wise
decision; I have always belonged to that
school that felt the sun will not fail to rise
tomorrow if that happened. There has come
a point in our affairs— and this is a very
touchy subject with us— where we are just
wondering what our future is after 23 years
in office of this government. I can say that
I firmly—
Mr. Chairman: We are on vote 804.
Mr. Sopha: I am talking about develop-
ment roads in northern Ontario; it is just
what I am talking about as being a symptom
of neglect of that part of the province.
Although Hike the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs and the hon. Minister of Mines
(Mr. Wardrope) as persons— affable, honour-
able people, as they are^-one can look with
a considerable degree of want and paucity
about what they have accomplished in sitting
1234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the Cabinet councils of this province for
this length of time for the area which they
represent— the north. One of them is a very
powerful member of the Cabinet, the hon.
member from Timmins. The other is not
such an influential member of the Cabinet.
But if you want to point to roads in the
wilderness of northern Ontario, you will not
find very many of recent vintage that you are
going to name the Spooner-Wardrope high-
ways. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs,
I can say to him through you, Mr. Chair-
man, has just about worn out, from the point
of view of elections, the road from Timmins
to Foleyet; he had better come up with an-
other pretty soon. That one has been good
for about three or four elections.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We are away
past Foleyet now.
Mr. Sopha: You know, in respect of this
symptom of neglect, in northern Ontario in
the past four or five months one again hears
—the notion had disappeared for perhaps
a decade— more and more people north of the
French talking about the possibility of the
establishment of another province, separating
from the rest of the province. We now hear
that again.
Mr. L. Letherby (Simcoe East): We can-
not help that.
Mr. Sopha: You cannot help it, but you
are doing your best to encourage it. Apart
from the expressions, the homilies, the shib-
boleths that we have had to listen to for a
quarter of a century now about what great
people we are, and the great future we have
and how God-fearing we appear to be, we
get from leader after leader of the govern-
ment-
Mr. Chairman: On vote 804:
Mr. Sopha: —we want something concrete
and tangible in the way of a network of
roads throughout that important part of this
country that produces so much wealth.
So I will not have to ask at a later time,
so I can carry it back to the bases, will the
hon. Minister tell them when the road to
Timmins will be finished; what is the pro-
jected date?
Go down to the Gardiner expressway, go
down and look at the subway. You do not
see any delay. The jack-hammers, the rivet-
ters, the cement trucks, the engineers, the
technicians are working around the clock to
get them finished and into use.
And properly so; large numbers of people
can be carried through those arteries. But
if you are building a road through the wilder-
ness north of Sudbury to link up the two
biggest metropolitan centres, and to give Sud-
bury some contact with its hinterland, instead
of confining it to an east-west access, as it
has been, then all you bring is smiles from
the hon. Minister of Highways in the House,
who will not tell you what year we might
expect that artery will be opened. So it
goes from year to year. For all that the
people of Sudbury are anxious about that
type of thing, all they can do is continue
to protest to the government about it. The
good supporter of the government, J. R.
Leach can write editorials in the Sudbury
Star; the member can lay it on the floor of
the House, but apparently none of it does
any good.
Wait for an answer, some type of response
from the hon. Minister of Highways! Wait
for him to get up and say: "Here, in recog-
nition of the importance of your community
in the economy of this province, we can
tell you that we will have that road finished
and opened by 1968." Oh, no! That would be
a realistic and sensible and honourable way
of doing it. The hon. Minister merely smiles
and votes another 15 miles of road in these
estimates.
My plea to the hon. Minister— and he
understands the position I am in, and what
impels me to say these things on the floor
of the House— my plea to him is to do the
right thing, the proper thing, by an important
community in northern Ontario. The Lord
knows we are small in numbers up there,
only one in ten of the people in this prov-
ince live in that part of Ontario, but the
wealth we create and the jobs we provide
for people in the rest of the province are
just immense and absolutely invaluable to
the economy of this province.
Decidedly, let us have enough of the
speeches and let us get on with the job of
work that can crystallize itself in real terms
of doing something for the opening up of
the hinterland of this province.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
do propose to answer the questions of the
hon. member as they relate to item 5 of vote
804. It did occur to me that there was a
rather wide range in comment over an item
that involves a half a million dollars this year,
and I would like to tell him just what that
involves.
Last year the amount was $150,000, this
year it has reached to half a million dollars
MARCH 7, 1966
1235
and I would like to tell the hon. member
why. But first, this amount of money is re-
quired to keep under maintenance those
sections of development roads that are under
construction. Development roads are a mat-
ter of two designations.
The first one, and I am sure the hon. mem-
ber may be very well aware of this, is what
is known as a pre-engineering designation.
It is followed then by a construction designa-
tion, after the engineering requirements, the
acquisition of land and all those associated
matters have been provided for. When that
engineering work is done and the land is
acquired a construction designation follows.
During that period of time completed sections
of the road require maintenance; because
after the completion of a road and for a
period of time during those weeks or months
when the department and the involved muni-
cipality make sure that the road has been
built according to the specifications of the
contract, we do assist the municipalities with
interim maintenance. But when that is all
done, a revocation order is the next item in
the process of things and the road then
reverts back to the municipality in which it
is built, be it township or county. It then
becomes the responsibility of the county.
Now this little bit of money, $150,000
is set up for that purpose. Necessary main-
tenance on roads built as development roads
where it appears that the expenditure in some
instances is beyond the financial capacity of
the local jurisdiction. Regravelling of such
roads is an item in here.
But then to get back to the reason why it
is up from $150,000 to $500,000 this year,
and this may well answer a question that was
proposed by the hon. member for Kent East
(Mr. Spence), it has been explained to the
House on a number of occasions, we dwelt
on it in our introductory remarks and we
dwelt on it to some extent last week. In the
southern part of the province we have just
completed, or the counties have completed in
association with The Department of High-
ways, a needs study. I have indicated to the
House why that needs study was under-
taken. As a result of the recommendations of
the needs studies in each county certain roads
were assumed into the county system— or they
were recommended for assumption, let me
put it that way— if they were found to be
desirable county roads. In other situations
there were roads in the county system that
upon review, in terms of the study, it was
indicated and agreed to by the local juris-
dictions should not be the responsibility of
the county. In these circumstances, either
now, or over the period of five years* these
roads will revert back to the townships, the
jurisdictions that should properly have owned
and maintained them.
However, it was felt, and I think properly
so, that to countenance, if you like, a county
reverting mileage of road to a township could
impose a burden on that township that they
had not been able to contemplate. Con-
sequently, this $350,000 that is over and
above the $150,000 last year is going to be
given to the various counties of the province
in order that they in turn may compensate
these townships for the cost of maintenance
over a five-year period, as a result of re-
version of these roads.
Now that makes up the $500,000 that is
referred to here. The other comments of the
hon. member for Sudbury, I would point
out to him, might more properly have been
brought up on the capital construction vote,
No. 807. Frankly I would prefer to discuss
them under that vote, because they are not
appropriate to this vote at all.
I might also point out to him that the
development road capital vote is not in this
vote here at all. This is a maintenance vote
entirely.
Now, I hope I have explained to his
satisfaction how this vote is broken down.
I have only one more comment to make on
that as it applies to the north.
A year ago, following a trip to the north
as a matter of fact, and I will be specific
about it, to the riding of Parry Sound, we
discovered two circumstances up there where
urban municipalities required some assistance
on their roads, but there was no statutory
provision for a development road designation
as there is in the southern part of the prov-
ince.
Let me explain that to the hon. member:
In the southern part of the province— where
townships or villages, or towns that are part
of the county, that is, they are contributing
to the funds of the county, the county system,
if you like— in these municipalities the county
has the authority to assume a road in a
township or a town or a village for the
purposes of construction or reconstruction,
and upon completion revert the road to the
municipality. They can do this under bylaw
and get the appropriate rate of subsidy, or
they can do this under a direct assistance
programme, a development road if you wish,
where 100 per cent of the cost with the
exception of property and fencing is provided
for, and again revert it to the municipality.
This was not possible in the north and
we simply felt that they were entitled to the
same privileges that were available to the
1236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
municipalities in that area of the province
where the counties and the county system
exists. Consequently there was an amendment
to that statute last year which now enables
us to do in municipalities, urban municipali-
ties, villages and towns in the northern parts
of the province, exactly what we can do and
had been able to do for some years in the
southern part of the province.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member
that this is giving some fair and sensible
recognition to those northern communities
that could not get this type of assistance
before. I can tell this hon. member from the
north, through you, Mr. Chairman, and any
hon. member from the north, that two muni-
cipalities, one the town of Parry Sound and
the other the village of Powassan, have
already—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, let me
finish, —have already moved to implement
this new legislation, and I hope there will be
more.
Mr. Sopha: Is that the north?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is the north as
far as the application of this statutory amend-
ment is concerned. It is applicable in Parry
Sound, it is applicable in the district of Sud-
bury, Kenora, North Cochrane— wherever it
was not applicable before.
Really, Mr. Chairman, this is all that I can
appropriately say on this vote. The other
matters that the hon. member commented
upon before the House we will probably
come to under vote 807, where they belong.
Mr. Sopha: I have an additional comment.
This is all very interesting, this journey
through the statutes. Now, apparently, we
are told that section 90 has been interpreted
to aid counties, county councils; at least the
hon. Minister spent a good deal of time talk-
ing about county roads in southern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Municipalities.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I notice that the section
refers to— "may designate a road under the
jurisdiction and control of a municipality."
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is right, I
said that.
Mr. Sopha: Municipality is not defined in
The Highway Improvement Act. I looked in
The Interpretation Act to see if it is defined
there, but it is not defined in that statute
either. I would question whether a munici-
pality includes a county council.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: A county is a
municipality.
Mr. Sopha: I would wonder if there has
been a perversion of the meaning of this sec-
tion. I notice in the statute, to me, develop-
ment means development, that is just what
it means; development in the sense of open-
ing up areas of territory in its original state,
a state of nature. That description does not
appertain to southern Ontario, which is
largely opened up. That is one thing.
Mr. Chairman: Excuse me.
Mr. Sopha: I am speaking. I say to you
that I am speaking on this item and none
other.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. I was wondering if
the member for Sudbury is discussing the
development road which comes under vote
807, as a new road for construction, rather
than for maintenance under this section.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I am speaking about this
item.
Mr. Chairman: You see, under this particu-
lar section we are dealing with maintenance
and under 807 we are dealing with the con-
struction of new roads.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I am
dealing with the spending of $500,000 under
section 90. I am asking some questions which
I hope are important. I have made my point
that I question whether there is authority to
spend money under county roads, under that
section, and I am not attempting to give any
opinion which would be appropriate to the
law officers of the Crown. The hon. Minister
talked about county roads. Now, I have gone
on to the second point, the development; the
heading of that part, part 1 1 of The Highway
Improvement Act, being development roads,
I would think it was the intention of the
Legislature that passed that section to mean
original, to mean territory in northern Ontario
still in a state of nature, and bring about its
development. Now the hon. Minister tells us
that large amounts of money are spent in
southern Ontario, and I suggest to him that
that might be a perversion of the intent of
the statute.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No.
Mr. Sopha: The third point that I make
is that, by way ' of contiguity, part 11 of
the statute-, dealing with development roads,
is right next door to part 12, roads in territory
without municipal organization, so the Legis-
lature that passed that original statute was at
MARCH 7, 1966
1237
least thinking of these two in proximity to
each other.
As in many other aspects of affairs one
notes that northern Ontario comes at the tail
end of the statute, part 11, 12, as I pointed
out, the only other part 13 is general. The
general part of the statute. I submit to you,
Mr. Chairman, it was probably the original
intent that this amount of $500,000 asked to
be voted this year was intended to be spent
with those municipalities in northern Ontario,
organized municipalities, where the roads in
the words of the statute: "should be con-
structed, improved or maintained to a higher
standard that is reasonable having regard to
the economic situation of the municipality."
And that fits to a T.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is it. Yes.
Mr. Sopha: That fits to a T. The poorest
municipalities in the province are the ones in
northern Ontario, because of the smallness of
the population. The paucity of a goodly
group of ratepayers— they are the ones who
need help— which fortifies my argument that
that Legislature once again indicates that it
had in mind municipalities in northern On-
tario. Now we arrive at the point where the
hon. Minister comes along, says that he dips
his hand into the fund, holus-bolus, and he
spends it for county councils.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I did not say that
at all.
Mr. Sopha: That brings me to another in-
teresting point. It has long struck me— I do
not know if it has struck the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs or the hon. Minister of
Mines— but it has long struck me, that one of
the reasons for the relatively good roads in
southern Ontario is the fact that you have
to have the pressure group in the form of
a county council that can make the area's
needs— that political area, that political unit-
known to the government. In northern On-
tario, we are not blessed with any comparable
organization.
Apparently we have not arrived at the
state of political majority or development
where any form of territorial organization
has superseded the largely unorganized char-
acter of governance in northern Ontario. We
have not got it. But it is revealing— I will
remember this at an appropriate time— it is
revealing that the hon. Minister now comes
along to having development roads, which
all my kinsmen, colleagues, brethren, in
northern Ontario would agree with me once
they saw that, they would agree with me,
"that's for us, development."
As soon as you use the adjective "develop-
ment" that means new Ontario and that is
what it is meant to appertain to. But, I will
remember this, that we are now informed by
the hon. Minister of Highways that appar-
ently most of the money is spent in southern
Ontario.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I did not
say that.
Mr. Sopha: All right, that is that point.
We will wait with great gusto. I, for one,
speaking for my own part— Laurier's phrase-
speaking for my own part, I will wait with
great gusto till we come to the appropriate
votes where we discuss the larger issue
and I would like— and I throw out the chal-
lenge—that once we get into the subject of
building roads in the district of Thunder Bay,
and the district of Kenora and Fort Frances
and Cochrane, Sudbury, Nipissing and Al-
goma— that is northern Ontario. That is not—
what do you call that posh place up here?
An hon. member: Muskoka?
Mr. Sopha: Not Muskoka— not Parry Sound
—north of the French river— northern Ontario
and I offer the challenge, to complete my
sentence to the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, to get up and tell us what he has
done lately— as the voter said to Duplessis'
men, "What have you done for me lately?"
I offer him the challenge to tell us what he
has done lately for northern Ontario in this
road building programme.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: The last word is for my col-
leagues.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, it
is obvious that I did not make myself quite
clear. I should like to attempt to do that now.
Certainly, development road funds are avail-
able for expenditure in any part of the
northern part of the province. They always
have been and they always will be. I simply
tried to point out two examples where we
have made it possible in the north— albeit
I referred to Parry Sound, but it does not
really matter because it is the same that is
available from Kenora right through to North
Cochrane.
There have been many millions of dollars
spent on development roads through the
north and I will be surprised if some of the
hon. members do not attest to that. I might
also comment that for the purposes of The
Highway Improvement Act, I think The Mun-
icipal Act and any Act that is associated in
1238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the province and the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs can correct me on this, a county
is a municipality, for all practical purposes,
all legal purposes.
Again, I simply want to set the record
straight; a portion of the development road
vote under 807— when we come to it— will
be available for the municipalities in the
north on the same warrant or appraisal basis
as any municipality in the south. I simply
tried to explain how this $500,000 vote was
arrived at.
Mr. Sopha: Before we leave that point—
I just did not want the record to be incorrect.
I say a county is not a municipality for the
purposes of this Act.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You say that; I
say differently. So there you are.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps the provincial auditor
had better look into the hon. Minister's
department. There is no definition of a
county being a municipality in this statute.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is probably
defined in The Municipal Act.
Mr. Sopha: No, it does not apply there.
I give that opinion without the necessity of
being paid $3.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, we will
probably refer that to the law officers of the
Crown. But we are getting by very nicely on
the assumption that a county is a municipality
—very nicely, I assure you.
Mr. Sopha: Maybe you are spending money
illegally.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I simply want to
say now, though we should do it under vote
807, but having raised it and having sug-
gested it on this vote, there is no reason
that if the same criteria, the same warrants
and everything else, are met in any northern
township, development roads cannot be built
in the north just the same as they can in the
south. They have been, are now and will
continue to be.
Mr. Sopha: You are spending most of the
money in southern Ontario.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to raise two questions
with the hon. Minister of Highways under
vote 804, item 6, "Municipal subsidies." I
am sure the hon. Minister will recognize the
problem I want to raise with him, and that
is the apparent running battle with himself
and his department and his worship, the
mayor of Hamilton, over what is termed
equal grants and equal treatment in regard to
special road building costs.
I have been accused— and other members
from Hamilton have been accused— of not sup-
porting the mayor and his colleagues in city
council in putting some pressure on the gov-
ernment to see that Hamilton is treated on
an equal basis with Toronto. And we
know that his worship, the mayor uses such
terms as "outright discrimination"— he says
that Hamilton is treated as a "has-not" and
"thrown only crumbs" and that "the prov-
ince ends on the boundaries of Metro,"
and so on.
Mr. Chairman, I admit that some time ago,
as the hon. Minister may recall, I met with
a delegation from Hamilton council and with
the hon. Minister and his staff, and I thought
at the time that the hon. Minister had
explained quite logically why the city of
Hamilton could not get 50 per cent subsidy
on their east-west Burlington street project,
and that they were only entitled to one-
third. But his worship, the mayor does not
give up quite so easily.
I would ask the hon. Minister to tell us
once and for all what the problem is. Is
Hamilton entitled to equal grants, the same as
the city of Toronto? Is there some reason
why they should not have the 50 per cent
subsidy on their east-west Burlington street
project? If not, I would hope that the hon.
Minister would take some time and clear up
this subject, because I am getting a little
tired of having some of the colleagues of
his worship, the mayor cast aspersions at
myself and other hon. members from the
Hamilton area for not going to bat as strongly
as one might think we should in this regard.
Would the hon. Minister tell us the reason
why the city of Hamilton is not entitled to
50 per cent subsidy on its road project? If
there is a chance that they might get it,
and if not, we should know about it at the
present time.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think I can shed
some light on that, Mr. Chairman. This has
been mentioned before; city streets in any
city— by statute— are eligible for a subsidy of
33% per cent. Connecting links in any city,
or separated town, are entitled to a subsidy
of 75 per cent.
In the city of Toronto— and I would like
to elaborate on this at some length— the city
of Toronto has no connecting links. The city
of Toronto is entitled to 33% per cent on its
streets, the same as any other metropolitan
MARCH 7, 1966
1239
community. But by virtue of The Metropoli-
tan Toronto Act, Metro roads are eligible for
a 50 per cent subsidy. It is impossible at this
moment to compare Hamilton with Metro-
politan Toronto, because in all frankness, the
statute under which rates of subsidy are set
up in Hamilton is The Highway Improve-
ment Act. In Toronto, the subsidy for Metro
roads is under The Metropolitan Toronto
Municipal Act— or whatever the title is.
With respect to Mayor Copps— he presum-
ably is interested in getting what he can
for the city of Hamilton. I think his principal
concern, from which all this conversation has
emanated, stems from the fact that he be-
lieves he is faced with the rebuilding of
Burlington street. Burlington street, as such,
is a city street and statutorily it is eligible
for a subsidy of 33% per cent. It is not a
connecting link; it is not an extension of the
King's highway through the city of Hamilton;
it cannot, under any set of circumstances, be
categorized as a connecting link.
On the other hand, reference has been
made by the hon. member to the downtown
expressway. The downtown expressway is
part of a stage recommended in the Hamilton
transportation study report, prepared by C. C.
Parker and Associates.
The Hamilton transportation study recom-
mended a 20-year programme for the city of
Hamilton, broken into three stages. I think
the first is seven years, the second is seven
years, and probably the third stage is six. And
it is all set out in categorical fashion in the
report.
Upon completion of the report, the mayor
of Hamilton, in company with some of his
elected and appointed officials, came to see
me and officials of my department. They
brought the report with them. We had had
an opportunity to study it. In basic principle,
we accepted the recommendations in the plan
and on that occasion we indicated this to the
mayor. We accepted the basic recommenda-
tions of the plan.
As a matter of fact, I was privileged and
pleased to go to Hamilton to officially open
the first section of Highway 403, sometimes
referred to as the Chedoke expressway. On
that occasion it was another privilege to
make a few remarks. And on that occasion,
which was precisely November 27, 1963, I
was able to tell the mayor and those who
were in attendance at the function where the
remarks were made, that Hamilton stood well
to be one of the first cities who could take
advantage of an amendment to The Highway
Improvement Act, with respect to urban
expressways.
The hon. members will probably recall that
we introduced this amending legislation into
the House in the spring of 1963. This made
it possible for us to enter into agreements
with urban municipalities with respect to
urban expressways. And the downtown ex-
pressway referred to in Hamilton meets all
the criteria to make it eligible for a subsidy
of 75 per cent across the board; 75 per cent
against the cost of the required property,
75 per cent of the cost of capital construction
and 75 per cent of the subsequent mainte-
nance. A very generous subsidy arrangement.
That was on November 27, when we made
this announcement in Hamilton. A few days
later, we repeated the offer in my office. I
can say to you that, until two months ago, we
were engaged in a rather sharp difference of
opinion vis-a-vis Burlington street, which by
statute is not eligible for more than 33%
per cent. We had many opportunities to say
this, shall I put it that way? Until as re-
cently as two months ago, the first move in
the direction of getting for the people of
Hamilton, 75 per cent, across the board, for
their downtown expressway — nothing has
been done about it. We set up the technical
co-ordinating committee two months ago to
get on with the job. It will take them at
least a year to get into the technical and en-
gineering aspects and the functional work,
all associated with this downtown expressway,
before a foot of it can be built.
So I simply point out to the hon. member
that I can only view this as two to three years
of the first seven-year stage lost to the people
of Hamilton entirely.
I do not know whether this is the informa-
tion the hon. member required. I believe it
to be; I think this is it. If there is anything
more, we would be happy to answer it.
I have already pointed out that the council
delayed in appointing the technical co-ordin-
ating committee until two months ago. This
is a step which is associated with this type of
development in every urban community
where an urban expressway is to be built, and
there is a very good reason for the appoint-
ment of a technical co-ordinating committee.
It can examine into the matters of property
acquisition; certainly it can pay great impor-
tance to doing as little damage to property
as it can. It does its best to find a precise
alignment through the city, or through any
city. This work takes a great deal of time, if
it is going to be done properly. I point out
to you that we had the privilege a week ago
Friday of turning the sod for the first contract
in the city of Kitchener as part of its urban
expressway programme. They moved very
1240
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
quickly, but that technical co-ordinating com-
mittee has been working for some time before
we could get on with this job, before all the
myriad of details can be resolved. So it may
very well be that the city of Hamilton has
lost a great deal of time. Of course, we
recognized this when they came down, the
necessity of the downtown expressway as part
of the first seven-year stage, recommended
by the report of C. C. Parker and Associates.
So there, Mr. Chairman, is really where we
stand with respect to this situation in Hamil-
ton. We have been ready to go on it for
quite some time.
Mr. Gisborn: I thank the hon. Minister,
Mr. Chairman, for the explanation. This may
clear up some of the feeling in Hamilton. I
feel sometimes that his worship, the mayor
had a habit of setting up a straw man so he
himself could take a whack at it once in a
while. I feel that now we have got a few of
the facts straight, we may be able to deal a
little more straightforwardly with what is
going on. I was interested in the east-west
expressway that the hon. Minister has just
mentioned. There may be some reason for
apparent delay by the city, and I would
question the hon. Minister as to how his de-
partment looks at these plans. What kind of
a method, if any, is used in overseeing that
the plan is one that is justifiable, logical and
economical in basing their go-ahead to receive
the grant? There must be some yardstick to
come to the conclusion that the project is
worthy of agreement from the province, but
I notice that there was held, on February 4,
the international conference on urban traffic.
Alderman Kostyk from Hamilton city council
attended, on behalf of the city, I presume.
While he was there he discussed the Hamil-
ton plan with Wilbur Smith, considered to be
a world-famous traffic consultant. From the
press story and what I have heard since, he
apparently felt there was a big mistake made
in the planning of the Hamilton freeway, the
uptown freeway, the east-west freeway, inas-
much as it was planned only to carry private
vehicles, and that there had been no consid-
eration given to the need for development of
public transportation for the present and for
the future. The press story infers that the
city may hire Mr. Smith and his company to
take another look at the programme to see
if it needs some revising to provide for public
transportation in the future.
Can the hon. Minister give me some idea
of what this situation would involve?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
can certainly assure the hon. member that
the Hamilton transportation study report was
reviewed by our planning and design people;
I have already mentioned the high regard
in which I hold them. They found that the
report and the recommendations were quite
acceptable from the standpoint of improving
the traffic problems of the city of Hamilton.
I certainly cannot offer too many comments
on why the gentleman to whom the hon.
member made reference would have different
opinions. Certainly the expressway, when it
is finished, will carry any type of traffic-
automobiles, trucks and buses. There can be
no question about that. It will be a four-
lane facility, provided with complete access
control. It will be built to a standard that
will accommodate any type of traffic, so
what would prompt a comment such as the
hon. member made reference to? I must
confess I do not know. But I do know, as
I say, that it has certainly been looked into
thoroughly in terms of evaluation by our
people. We find it not an unsatisfactory re-
port and the recommendations are quite
good and quite valid. I would add that all
the related matters to which I have already
made reference are now under examination
by the technical co-ordinating committee.
One of the serious matters associated with
the delay in getting on with it is, of course,
the matter of protection of the property in-
volved for the route the expressway will take.
I hardly need to explain to the hon. members
of the House the very serious factors that can
develop if you do not move quickly to pro-
tect this property. If development is allowed
to take place on or near it, or would affect
the construction of the road, it becomes very
costly to remove those obstacles. I think
this is very obvious, and the serious things
that are associated with delay in these pro-
jects once they are proposed and announced.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, I would assume that
the department will be keeping their eye on
any change or revision, but I will let the
matter drop. I just want to put this on the
record because my attention was drawn to
it; it is a major project in Hamilton and is
going to cost a lot of money, of course. And
I just quote briefly from the news article in
respect to this, February 4, 1966:
City traffic chairman Alderman Joe Kos-
tyk said the 20-year plan was designed for
one aspect of travel only, private vehicle
transportation. The scheme may have to
be rewritten to accommodate public transit
services, he said.
Then it goes on to say that Wilbur Smith
and Company have agreed to look the situa-
MARCH 7, 1966
1241
tion over, because of new technological ideas
in urban transportation. So I thank the hon.
Minister and I hope that the project goes
ahead and is done properly.
Mrs. A. Pritchard (Hamilton Centre): Mr.
Chairman, with the hon. Minister's consent,
I have listened very carefully to the discus-
sion here tonight and, as a member of the
board of control, I can say that when the
transportation report came in it was accepted
and qualified by the technical committee. I
was very pleased to hear the hon. Minister
mention tonight the 75 per cent for the down-
town expressway; and all I can say to the
hon. member for Wentworth East, is that
if they delay it any longer in Hamilton, not
only will they have wasted the money that
they have now wasted, but they are going to
have to rewrite the whole city ordinance,
because there has been delay after delay,
comment after comment, about this govern-
ment not giving them the same subsidy as
Toronto. I think the hon. Minister has very
well and, to me, very happily cleared up a
very untenable situation.
Mr. Gisborn: I would just say, Mr. Chair-
man, if the hon. member for Hamilton Cen-
tre has just now heard of the 75 per cent
subsidy for the east-west freeway, it is no
wonder no one else has heard about it.
Mrs. Pritchard: Mr. Chairman, I did not
say that, I knew about it at the beginning.
I was saying that I was very pleased to have
it on the record here, that it was 75 per cent
and not the 50 and the 33 that we have
been hearing about from the mayor of Ham-
ilton.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, in connection with the Don Valley
parkway, Dr. Shulman and others have said
that the planning of concrete light standards,
straight guardrails, steep banks, and so on,
along the parkway had ignored the safety
precaution "don'ts" of at least ten years. Now,
it has been shown that the removal of road-
side obstacles would greatly reduce the
number of accidents.
I wonder if the hon. Minister would be
good enough to give us some idea of what
his department is planning or has done in
connection with these problems on the Don
Valley parkway.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
again through you to the hon. member, we
are aware of Dr. Shulman's criticisms. We
have been in communication with Dr. Shul-
man. I do not think it is a matter of whether
we agree entirely or not with his observations.
First of all, the Don Valley parkway is a
Metro road, it is not a King's highway. It
was built by Metro— subsidized, of course, by
the department— but it was built by Metro,
it is maintained by Metro, and, to a very con-
siderable degree, it was designed by Metro-
politan Toronto engineers. However, I can
assure the hon. member that we are as
much interested in matters related to safety
on any road or thoroughfare, as is Dr. Shul-
man, and to that extent we have now agreed
to enter into a study of this matter of safety
in conjunction with Metro. This we have
already done, this we did several weeks ago,
following up Dr. Shulman's criticisms or
observations, if you like.
So against that background then and rec-
ognizing that there may be areas where we
are not right, where we may be wrong—
although we are not completely sure we are
—nevertheless we have jointly undertaken this
study with Metro. We will share the cost
with them and we hope that we can find out-
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Will this in-
clude the Gardiner expressway, too?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The whole city,
the whole of Metro.
Mr. Bryden: As regards expressways only
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Just expressways.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if the hon. Minister could tell us, since the
accidents occurred late in the summer of last
year, if his department has anything concrete
in mind or any concrete suggestions that he
might tell the House about in this connection,
besides the study that is going on?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I ask the hon. member to be a little
more specific about the particular accident,
the location of it, the description of it, I do
not know just what he is referring to, if I may
say so.
Mr. Braithwaite: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
talking about, in particular, the light stand-
ards and the guardrails on the Don Valley
parkway. There seems to be— even among the
experts— some discussion as to whether or not
there is a safety problem. I wonder if the
hon. Minister has had his people make any
studies that he could tell us something about
tonight.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say to
the hon. member that on similar facilities, if
1242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I may use that word, that we build ourselves,
we placed the light standards behind the
guardrail. I do not know whether or not that
is the answer to the question of the hon.
member. Again, as I pointed out, the Don
Valley parkway, the Gardiner expressway and
these expressways in general were built by
Metro. They were not built by our depart-
ment, but, because of the probability of it
being a safety factor, we do, as I pointed
out, put the light standards behind the guard-
rails, not in front of them.
These are the things, I think it is fair to
say, that we hope to examine thoroughly in
conjunction with Metro. It is situations like
this, and many others, that we hope to study
thoroughly to see if there is any validity in
the claims or the observations that have been
made about the extent to which certain
features of expressways may be considered
accident-prone, if you wish. I am not prepared
to comment specifically beyond that but we
do hope to find out.
Mr. Braithwaite: Just to conclude this, Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the hon. Minister, in
view of the fact that his department's money
is involved in part— well, just take the Don
Valley parkway for example, was there any
discussion between his department and Metro,
prior to the building of the parkway, for in-
stance, in the planning stage? Now he has
told us that his department does not build
them in this way, they put the light standards
outside the guardrails. I am wondering if
there was any discussion held with Metro,
and if this was pointed out to them before
the thing was built? I presume there is some
sort of consultation in the planning stage
between the department and Metro's people
and I wonder if the hon. Minister could tell
us about that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Actually the Don
Valley parkway and the Gardiner express-
way were designed many, many years in
advance of construction. I am confident that
there is an exchange of views, of course, with
respect to these plans, between Metro and
our department. The extent, I think, to which
we could impose certain conditions, with
respect to the construction of this, would be
very difficult, very difficult. Above and beyond
the matter of certain frills that you might
put on these things, we might say we will
only subsidize you so far. But to go back to
the time when this particular facility was
originally conceived and designed, and then,
somewhat latterly, constructed, I am not in
a position to comment on it now, except
to repeat again that this really is why we will
join with Metro in what we hope will be a
rather exhaustive study, and I hope a study
that will reveal something to both building
authorities that will be beneficial in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, I must submit to the hon.
member I cannot comment too intelligently
on the question that he raised.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask the hon. Minister a question
under this heading? The counties have carried
out a county road needs study. As I under-
stand it, a number of the county roads are
going to be handed back to the municipali-
ties. Could the hon. Minister inform me in
regard to the county of Kent and the county
of Elgin, if there is going to be a greater
charge or cost on the little municipalities
on account of handing back county roads as
township roads? I understand that the prov-
ince pays 50 per cent for county roads and
50 per cent of the township roads. Neverthe-
less, the standards for county roads are a
great deal higher than they are for township
roads, and a good many of these county
roads which are going to be handed back
are paved. That is my understanding. Could
the hon. Minister inform me if this is going
to be a burden in cost or more costs to the
little municipalities?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
suppose I would have to say, in a broad
general sense, that at some stage more cost
will accrue to the township. Certainly the
maintenance of a greater mileage of roads
than they had previously is bound to involve
some costs. But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber probably heard me say when I was
discussing this matter with the hon. member
for Sudbury that we have anticipated that
there will be some maintenance costs. We
have or will place funds at the disposal of the
counties in order that they can give to these
townships in their respective counties an
amount in cash equivalent to the cost of
maintenance based on last year's mainte-
nance costs over a period of five years. This
is recognizing, I think, that there will be some
costs. The amount of money that we will
provide to the counties who, in turn will
give it to these townships, should offset
these maintenance costs, at least for a period
of five years.
The reason we suggest a period of five
years is, of course, in terms of the needs
study. We have always suggested that these
studies should be updated every five or ten
years; certainly they should be reviewed
every five years. Some counties, I think, will
do it every year and reach certain conclusions
at the end of five years. Some will do it at
MARCH 7, 1966
1243
the end of five years, and they will update
the study report. As the traffic pattern in any
township changes, the status of the roads
changes. I can assure the hon. member and
the House that these roads that have been
reverted to townships should not have been
in the county system in the first place, and
this is recognized. I can say to the House
that for a variety of reasons, none very valid,
mileages of roads were built in townships
and counties that should never have been put
there. Perhaps what I am trying to say is
that x number of years ago, political roads
were built that really did not serve the pur-
pose that a road should.
Mr. Bryden: Some of the hon. Minister's
predecessors back in the 1920s.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not want to
get into that, but this whole process— and I
am glad the hon. member raised it, I attach
great importance to it— is to bring the county
road system of the province of Ontario up to
what you can call a desirable system. In
other words, the mileages of roads in any
county should be no more than roads that
can appropriately be called county roads.
What we have done in this particular situa-
tion is help the counties to define what con-
stitutes a desirable system of county roads.
Sometimes it was a saw-off; they took back
some roads that should be in the county
system, and at the same time they gave some
back. Certainly townships do not like taking
back roads that are going to cost them some
money.
But I have already indicated to the hon.
member and the House that we recognize this
and we have ensured that they will not incur
any costs for a period of five years. At that
time we should and will review the whole
thing again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spence: I am glad to hear the hon.
Minister say that they would review them in
five years, but I will say to the hon. Minister,
Mr. Chairman, that the location of inter-
changes on Highway 401 has decided whether
a road should be handed back to the town-
ship, or whether it should not, in some cases.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. member
says that the location of an interchange on
Highway 401 should have some bearing-
Mr. Spence: On whether a road is handed
back to a municipality or not. An interchange
decides whether a road now is used more
than it was before Highway 401 was built.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would not like
to say that would automatically follow. I
think it is probably fair to assume that in a
number of instances interchanges would be
at county roads. I think it might more often
be the case that interchanges would be built
at township roads. I think that is true, but
it would not necessarily follow.
Mr. Spence: But, Mr. Chairman, we can-
not have interchanges at every county road.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, of course not.
Mr. Spence: So naturally one of the county
roads where they put the interchange was
naturally going to be the heavily travelled
road.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Is the hon. mem-
ber suggesting that that particular road has
been taken out of the county road system?
Mr. Spence: No. I understood that it was
going to be handed back to the municipality
on account of that.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would have to
look into that specific instance, Mr. Chair-
man. I would be glad to do that for the hon.
member.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question of the hon. Minister? Now that an-
nexation has become a reality in the city of
Windsor, there are six provincial highways
coming into the city that will be in the city
proper. They were in the suburbs before.
What is the policy of the department in rela-
tion to the maintenance of these new high-
ways that are now going to be in the city?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: They will have
the same privileges they have now with re-
spect to King's highway extensions or con-
necting links. Within the new city boundary,
they can discuss with us at any time the
matter of a connecting link agreement on a
King's highway within city boundaries.
Mr. Newman: Up until annexation it was
the responsibility of the department, was it
not?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is right.
Mr. Newman: Now, with annexation, will
the city immediately assume the maintenance
charges on the roads?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, there will be
a period of adjustment, but eventually—
Mr. Newman: How long a period? A five-
year period, as you mentioned on this county
road system?
1244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no. I made
reference the other day to the assumption of
local roads, township roads, as well.
Mr. Newman: Right.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, there is a
five-year adjustment period, but eventually
they will have to become connecting links.
Mr. Newman: Right. Now, there were
certain projects in the offing prior to annexa-
tion. Will those projects be carried out at
the expense of the department rather than
the municipality, now that annexation is a
reality?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Could you be
specific about one of them?
Mr. Newman: Yes. Traffic lights and inter-
change on Dougall avenue or Highway 3 and
Tecumseh road and Highway 3.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, any con-
tract or project that is underway now will be
completed, just as it would before annexa-
tion.
Mr. Newman: In other words, it will not
be a charge on the municipality at all, it will
be carried out by the department?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is right.
Any King's highway or capital construction
project that is presently the responsibility
of the department will be completed if it is
underway.
Mr. Newman: I was going to ask a ques-
tion concerning the intersection of Highway
3 and Tecumseh road, but I think it would
be better to ask that under the capital con-
struction.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 804 carried?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, with respect
to item 6 under vote 804, I would like to
pursue briefly on a broader basis an item that
the hon. Minister referred to, with specific
reference to the city of Hamilton, namely,
the provision under which the department
will assume 75 per cent of the cost of urban
expressways. I wonder if the hon. Minister
could tell us in what urban municipalities
projects have now been approved that
qualify for that grant?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Projects have
been approved and are underway at the
Lakehead. Agreement has been entered into
with the city of Port Arthur. We hope
shortly to conclude an agreement with the
city of Fort William.
The Kitchener-Waterloo expressway is-
underway, so we have an agreement there.
We will shortly have an agreement with
Windsor with respect to what will be called
the E. C. Rowe expressway, and the tech-
nical co-ordinating committee to pursue this
that was set up probably two or three months
ago. I forget just when it was, but it was not
too long ago. They are operating; they are
active.
So as time progresses and the technical
co-ordinating committee go through those
responsibilities that are assigned to them,
and reach the point where all the matters
that are involved, the many technical matters
involved are resolved, then we will enter into
an agreement with the city of Windsor to
build E. C. Rowe as an urban expressway.
I think probably at the moment that con-
stitutes all the ones either in agreement with
us or contemplating an agreement with us.
But I am quite confident when I say there
will be more. We expect more very shortly.
Mr. Bryden: Does this policy apply to
Metropolitan Toronto, or is Metro excluded
by virtue of The Municipality of Metropoli-
ton Toronto Act?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say that
the latter is correct.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may pur-
sue the E. C. Rowe ring road— how far has
the planning for the road developed?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is subsidized,
so I think it is probably appropriate to dis-
cuss it here, because of subsidization. I can
get a report for the hon. member from the
technical co-ordinating committee on this
and see just where they stand.
Mr. Newman: Have any plans actually
been drawn for the construction of the road?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Functional plans,
general alignment, this is resolved and that
is what the committee is for— to get into the
precise matters of alignment.
Mr. Newman: The plans are simply
general. The statement here— that the plans
are already complete, making it seem to
look excellent— is not correct then, is it?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, the func-
tional plan does appear to look excellent. It
appears to look very good, and I think it is
fair to say the city of Windsor feels the same
way about it. They are more or less in com-
plete agreement with that. Yes, the technical
co-ordinating committee has had four meet-
MARCH 7, 1966
1245
Ings. The extent to which they have pursued
the matter, I cannot tell you. But I can find
out.
This committee is set up, by the way, and
is headed usually— I think in all circumstances
so far— by our district engineer. The balance
of the committee is made up to include the
city engineer from Windsor, the city plan-
ning commissioner and so on, and this is the
technical group, along with the consulting
engineers that sit down and determine the
precise nature of what has to be done.
But generally the functional plan has been
approved.
Mr. Newman: Now that the functional plan
has been approved, how long would it take
before any actual construction could get
under way?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would be very
much surprised if anything could be done in
less than a year, and probably more than that.
First of all, the property must be acquired.
Once we get a little further on with the work
of the technical committee, we will know the
precise nature of property requirements, and
at that point the city can start out to acquire
the property. In fact, they can start out just
as soon as they know what the precise re-
quirements are. That can take place any day.
But certainly we cannot build the express-
way itself until the property has been
acquired. And this process can sometimes
take longer than others. We do not like to
ride roughshod over property owners, but it
can occasion some delays.
I would point out to the hon. member that
the preparation of contract drawings takes
time. After all the pertinent factors are
known, then the preparation of precise
contract drawings and the preparation of
contract documents takes time. The hon. mem-
ber will recall when he was up at Downsview
and we showed him and the committee just
something of the nature of what is involved.
But certainly we will move along as fast as
it is possible to do so. I would not contem-
plate any construction in less than 12 months,
and I would be surprised if it did not take a
little longer.
Mr. Newman: Has the department set a
target date at all for construction or com-
pletion? Have you a target date in mind, Mr.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Really, it is im-
possible to set a target date, Mr. Chairman,
I would say through you to the hon. member.
We are committed to do this job with Wind^
sor. We are committed to the rates of
subsidy that are prescribed, and we are com-
mitted to move along just as soon as it is
possible to do it.
Mr. Newman: Then it is entirely up to
Windsor really, to set the target date. Is that
it, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Partly. It is a
joint operation. But again watch the informa-
tion I have referred to, the information re-
quired by the committee that is working on
it, these technical people. As soon as they
have the information that is required— in
terms of property acquisition, property re-
quirements—as soon as that is available, the
city can start to buy property and we will
reimburse them as they buy it. They can
invoice us every month, for our portion of it,
and get their money back. This can be done.
Then again, when we reach the point
where the design engineers and the consult-
ants, in company with our own people, can
prepare design drawings, and look after all
the matters associated with engineering— then
we can prepare the contract documents, the
actual contract itself, to advertise and award
to a contractor, a road builder, and we are in
business. But I cannot tell you how long it
will take, Mr. Chairman. I simply cannot
do it.
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 804 agreed to?
Mr. Sopha: Just one moment. I wanted to
raise with the hon. Minister, under this sec-
tion, another very sore point with the citizens
of my municipality and their elected political
representatives. That is the quality of the
streets in the city of Sudbury, which are well
below average and compare very unfavour-
ably with cities of similar size in southern
Ontario.
Some of the streets in some parts of our
city are just disgraceful. They are hardly fit
for vehicular or even human pedestrian traf-
fic, let alone animals that might be wandering
around them. And as the years go by, there
seems to be no solace or amelioration or
respite for the yearnings of the citizens.
Leaving that aside, we have a crossing in
the southern part of the city, which has
claimed the lives of— one hesitates to contemr
plate the numbers of people that have lost
their lives at that crossing. The crossing, I
can inform the House, is at the end of a high-
way belonging to the Queen. Highway 69
ends at that crossing, and even in recent
months there have been additional deaths as
1246
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
trains run into moving vehicles at an inter-
section controlled by a very complex system
of lights.
One can wonder to oneself whether the
government cares about its own highways
and how those highways are interchanged or
intertwined with municipal streets. Without
expressing any criticism, or doing disservice
to the Deputy Minister of Highways, that
very fine public servant and very affable
and pleasant individual, when taxed about this
in the absence of the hon. Minister, his
political head, one day, passed it off by say-
ing it was well known that the citizens of
Sudbury were the worst drivers in North
America, if not the world— I forget which
part of the universe, whether he took it all in
or just reserved it to North America— leaving
the impression, almost, that because trains run
into vehicles at this crossing, Regent, Lome,
Riverside and Ontario— four streets run in
together at the crossing— leaving the impres-
sion, almost, as the Sudbury Star said, that:
There was almost an abandon of care
for oneself— their driving habits were of
such a low quality.
The time has come, I think, when the hon.
Minister of Highways, a representative of the
government in this connection, might seriously
consider whether that crossing might not be
improved, at the government's expense.
And, of course, this is all merely sympto-
matic of the larger problem. Sudbury and
Sudburians cannot have better roads and
streets because of the niggardly amounts they
receive under this vote and the absence of
industrial assessment. The amount we get in
lieu of industrial assessment from the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs is so niggardly
that it hardly marks him as a representative
of northern Ontario.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Is $2 million niggardly, my dear boy?
Mr. Sopha: What would it be if the mines
and installations of the International Nickel
Company were taxable by the municipalities—
Hon. Mr. Spooner: But they are not located
in the city of Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: How much would it be if they
were located in the city? If another annexa-
tion, to include the town of Copper Cliff, were
advanced to the municipal board— how much
would it be and, while we are on that score
—you see the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs will do, backhandedly, that which he
has not the courage to do directly. He will
not take the bull by the horns and solve the
problem once and for all.
Now there is another place where he and I
can discuss these things. Sudbury, in short,
has not got the money— it just has not got the
money to provide better streets than it has
and, really, it is questionable whether we
have not come to a point in our political
maturity where citizens in all parts of the
province should be treated fairly, equally^
justly and equitably and, above all, reason-
ably.
Once again I say, although I am not a
charter member of the club with my friend in
the back row here, that these are the things
that bother the people of our community.
When you go to the north end of the city, in
that section known as the "power mill," and
you see the type of roads and streets that
the people in that part have— people in the
lower economic scale— and I have been in
politics long enough to know that the lower
you are in the economic scale, the less in-
fluence you have in the opinion-forming and
decision-making process— the higher you are
in that scale, the more influence you have.
There is a direct correlation. In the more
affluent parts of the city, there are better
roads and streets, but in some of the out-
lying parts there are streets that are only
worthy of a reflection of a generation ago in
the Ferguson highway— the Ferguson high-
way which was a very historic route of trans-
portation in the early 1930's, and no credit
to the first citizen of this province after whom
it was named.
Now the other thing is, of course, that the
absence of— the inability to maintain streets
and byways in the city is a direct reflection
of the fact that the city was required to
incorporate within its boundaries the town-
ships of McKim without the town of Copper
Cliff, and was forced to take on the form
of municipal organization of a city.
Had the area been allowed to remain a
township, then the grants under The High-
way Improvement Act would have been
larger, instead of being scaled down to those
appropriate to a city. This is a very complex
problem. The only easy solution is that the
purse strings be somewhat loosened by this
government but, of course, before that can
be done, we have to get past that point—
the sound barrier or the speed of light
barrier— proposed by the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs— that is to say, the report
of the Smith commission.
Everything stopped— we are in a state of
suspended Spoonerism! Until we get the
report of the Smith commission— whenever
that will be— so that these things can be
looked at again, from the point of view of
municipal grants; but I use my voice and the
MARCH 7, 1966
1247
time of this House and the indulgence of
hon. members, but not the sympathy of those
from the executive council, albeit, in express-
ing this, which is a very anxious problem to
the citizens of that community, which is very
important.
I will never be inhibited from under-
lining the importance of that metropolis of
the north in the economy of this province
and the wealth that it produces, the jobs, and
the affluence, and the benefits that it stimu-
lates elsewhere in the province.
In regard to the plight of municipalities
like Sudbury, and other important municipali-
ties in northern Ontario, I should like to hear
what representations have been made lately
by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
about that, to The Department of Highways
—as representative of northern Ontario and
albeit, supposedly, a champion of our in-
terests in the governing councils of this prov-
ince.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: You are trying to be
sarcastic now.
Mr. Sopha: If I am, I learned it from you.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would like to
make a comment here for the edification of
the hon. member for Sudbury. It is not too
long ago since the mayor— as he sometimes
says, "once removed"— was down here with
his city engineer and others, and brought
down to us a long-awaited transportation
study report, that we engaged ourselves, with
the city, to undertake some time ago, and
I would suggest to you we contributed to the
cost of the report to the extent of 75 per
cent.
Now that report was completed not too
long ago and the then mayor and engineer—
Hennessy, I believe— and others were down
and left this report with us and we undertook
a process of evaluation on that report and
we have set out for the mayor and the gov-
erning fathers of Sudbury, the extent to which
we can subsidize their road and street require-
ments, above and beyond the normal street
rate of subsidy, which is 33 Vz per cent.
I say to the hon. member that we went to
some pains to do this and I would point out
to him first, and at this time, we really do
not decide here where a city improves its
streets. The hon. member made reference
to the affluent, on the one hand, and the less
affluent, on the other, and that there are
more street improvements in the affluent sec-
tion of the splendid city of Sudbury and
less in the others. Now that is a decision
we have nothing to do with! This is a city
decision that is made entirely by the local
government. But I can tell the hon. member
that in the process of examining the study
report we have, where we could apply con-
necting link subsidies, applied them; we
have, where we could, applied expressway
subsidies, the like of which I discussed with
the hon. member for Wentworth East, to the
extent of offering to the city, the most advan-
tageous combination of subsidies that we can,
within the framework of the statutes, of
the criteria associated with our policy, offer
the city.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I presume that is
being studied at this point to see how much
the transportation study recommendations can
be implemented, in the various stages that
are set out, and in keeping with the extent
to which we can assist them. It may fall
short of what Sudbury requires but I can
assure him, as I have said, that we have
leaned over in the direction of generosity,
within the framework of the statutes and
those other matters that I mentioned, to the
greatest extent possible. And I am prepared
to say that it is going to mean a very great
deal to Sudbury if they can provide the
funds to do the side associated with their
responsibility.
I think, as a matter of fact, if I had those
figures before me the hon. member would
agree that we have done just what I set out
here for the House, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: Has the hon. Minister ever
thought of changing the statutes? He used
the phrase "within the framework of the
statutes" about four times during the course
of his remarks. The problem I relate has
nothing to do with the statutes. The problem
that I seek to describe in the limited way
that I do is the reflection of the very simple,
plain, basic fact that we have not got the
money; we just do not have it. We have
no industrial assessment, and our patience is
getting to an end. The last mayor but one
that you speak of, who came down here, was
defeated. One of the reasons he was defeated
was probably the lack of success in getting
more money from Ministers such as the hon.
Minister of Highways for municipal road
maintenance, the money under this vote. He
was a Tory, in addition. Now we have a
Liberal mayor. We do not know whether he
will be more successful or not.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Neither do we.
We have not heard from him yet.
1248
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: They have almost got to the
point where they come on their hands and
knees now. They come down with the most
prestigious Tories from the community-
people not even in the municipal government
—in order to plead their case.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have yet to
see anyone from Sudbury on their hands and
knees.
Mr. Sopha: It has almost come to that
point; they have tried everything else to at-
tempt to bring home to this government that
the community has not got the advantage of
taxing the International Nickel Company.
That in itself may be wrong, but maybe the
time has come when someone has to examine
that problem very closely in order to deter-
mine what our future as a community is going
to be. This business has reached a crisis
almost when the water resources commission
came in there a week or so ago, just like
the court of the Imperial Czar, and issued
a ukase—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think we are
a little off the estimates here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: —to the city to build a sewage-
treatment plant.
Mr. Chairman: I would remind the speaker
we are on the municipal subsidies clause.
Mr. Sopha: It is all symptomatic of the
same problem— the absence of money to main-
tain our roads and streets up to a decent
standard comparable to that reached in other
parts of the province. I have looked through,
in this statute, those several sections enumer-
ated under this vote. By the time I got
to around 76 I had read through the first
to the eighth sections, which dealt with coun-
ties.
Great attention has been paid to counties,
which would signify the state of political de-
velopment in the southern part of the prov-
ince. We have not got county organizations
in northern Ontario, as I adverted to earlier
in my remarks, that can put pressure on the
hon. Minister and his officials. All we have
is the political heads of our municipality who
come down here time after time. They con-
tribute greatly to the dividends paid by the
CPR, coming down and pleading. Eleven
years ago I was in the office of the dairy man
from Dunnville, when he occupied the posi-
tion that this hon. Minister now occupies,
when the place was the same to him. That
was the time when the whole question of
amalgamation and annexation was in its early
genesis. He was asked at that time; "What
is the future for us? What may we expect if
we annex these outlying parts?"
If the hon. Minister does not know it, I
will tell him that when we got the outlying
hinterland, half the township of Neelon, and
the whole of the township of McKim, we got
additional burdens and no revenues — just
additional burdens after a long look at it by
the Ontario municipal board. We did not
want the additional burdens. The whole
object of the amalgamation and annexation
application was to get Copper Cliff.
The hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party hit the nail on the head when he made
the reply a few minutes ago to the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs, who so unwisely
intervened in the debate. We hope his re-
marks went into Hansard, because we are
getting impatient of the whole process of con-
tinually asking this government for more
financial assistance and getting the cold
shoulder, the delaying little shibboleth, and
then the visit of four Cabinet Ministers, the
hon. Prime Minister and three of his cohorts
—the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
among them— into the community to tell us
what great people we are; what a great
future we have; what a fine community it is
—but no money. No financial aid.
The hon. Minister overlooked my remarks
about the end of his highway at Regent and
Lome and the great amount of human suffer-
ing that has been caused by the myriad num-
ber of people who have been killed at that
intersection. Three, four or five a year are
killed by cars going across those railway
tracks. I do not exaggerate; there are that
many. Just a few months ago, the last one, a
young fellow leaving a young widow and a
couple of children for the community to look
after, lost his life, long after the Deputy Min-
ister's statement about the quality of the
driving in the community. The government
does not care. This hon. Minister does not
care about the type of situation, the trap, that
the end of one of his highways creates. That
is his highway. One of the main arteries in
the province, Highway No. 69, comes to an
end in Sudbury. That railroad crossing at
Regent and Lome is the end of his highway
as it comes into the city. There it comes in
in such an admixture of streets that would
defy an engineer in an opiate orgy. A mix-
ture of streets— Regent coming there and
Riverside coming in here, and Ontario street
here and Lome coming in this way. Four
different streets cross that ending at the rail-
way crossing, the main line of the CPR to
Sault Ste. Marie. With the complex system
MARCH 7, 1966
1249
of lights, and human error being such, the
lights are working, the wigwags are going
but cars manage to get in front of their trains.
I must relate, for the purposes of clarity, to a
situation farther to the east of it, at the Riv-
erside crossing put up with for a number of
years, until finally they built an underpass
there. Mark you, the CPR, the great model,
put in several hundred thousand dollars of its
money, along with some money from the
government of Ontario, and the balance de-
bentUred by the citizens of Sudbury, to cor-
rect that death trap. All these things cost
money. We have not go the money. If you
lean over to the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, he is going to tell you that we are at
the limit of our borrowing power. We are
debentured -right up to here. For the record,
I pointed to my esophagus. We have not got
the money to debenture and the people of
our community well know it. Taxes are right
up to here. For the record, I pointed to about
three feet Over my head. Taxpayers cannot
bear, any more municipal burden. :
If Tdo nothing else this session which may
be, you will be happy to hear, my penulti-
mate here— I will use it to put on the record
and to1 display, so far as my limited
capacities enable me, the plight of the citizens
of our community, to etch them and defy
hori. members of the executive council, and
particularly the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, to get up and dispute what I say
about the financial position of our community.
Tomorrow, if any want to attend and hear,
I am going to say something about the
financial condition, so far as it relates to
water, and the grave problems that it has
created. So that is an invitation to any who
may want to attend to be here at 5 o'clock
tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 804 carried?
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on vote 804,
can the hon. Minister inform me whether
regulations have been changed concerning
work on roads and bridges within a munici-
pality in the past three or four months? There
has been a change in regulations, has there?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Regulations with?
Mr. Newman: In relation to governing
work on. roads and bridges within municipali-
ties.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No.
Mr. Newman: No change at all?
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr. Chair-
man, I have a few questions to ask the
hon. Minister about the Queensway. Is this
the proper vote? The Ottawa Queens way-
maintenance.
First of all I would like to find out what
share of the cost of maintenance of the
Queensway is being paid by the city of
Ottawa.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: They are sub-
sidized 50 per cent.
Mr. Racine: Pardon me?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: They pay 50 per
cent of the cost of maintenance of the
Queensway. That is their share. •"-'
Mr. Racine: Now, Mr. Chairman, is not
the Ottawa Queensway considered as a
King^s highway, or should it not be? After
all, it is a highway running across from the
east end, right through to the west end of the
city. Is there any difference in the cost of
upkeep of the Queensway and the upkeep
of 401 that runs through Toronto?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, there is a
material difference there. This particular road
was built originally on a basis of cost sharing
worked out between the city, the federal
Department of Public Works, which was asso-
ciated with the national capital commission,
and ourselves. So in that respect, it is not
completely the counterpart of a King's high-
way.
As a matter of fact, there are no King'}}
highways running through urban municipali-
ties. They become connecting links at that
point, or they become something of another
category, but there are no King's highways,
as such, with one exception, and that happens
to be the bypass section of 401 in Toronto.
So this was the method by which the original
costs were worked out And I am given to
understand that the cost sharing with respect
to maintenance now, and by agreement, I
would say, with Ottawa and the Queensway,
is 50 per cent.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 804?
Mr. Newman; Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just
prior to the hon. member for Ottawa East
asking the question concerning the Queens-
way, I had asked the hon. Minister about
new Ontario Department of Highways regu-
lations. Now the city clerk back in my com-
munity has received a letter from Mr. J. E.
Weiss, district municipal engineer of The
Department of Highways, which sets out
new; rules. According to the new regulations
effective January 1st, the department's ap-
proval will be required by the city before it
1250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
can accept any road or bridge contracts
which would be subsidized by the depart-
ment. Can the hon. Minister elaborate on
this?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: There is nothing
new about that really. That is construction.
It is not maintenance. Their maintenance
expenditure bylaws are approved and
handled in the same way now as they have
always been.
Mr. Newman: No change at all?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, it is simply
reaffirming what has always been the case.
Mr. Newman: The reason I get this is, I
have a press clipping here which states there
has been a change. It would entail a lot
more red tape, as is mentioned in the article.
Mr. Adamac said the new rules would impose
more red tape on municipal administration.
The new regulations are unfair to municipal
engineers on the scene and familiar with
municipal projects. The regulations, he
said, would give the power to overrule their
decisions to other engineers from outside the
area, concerning roads and bridges in a
municipality.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, well, I do
not think that is any real change in the
regulations. If the hon. member would like
to send me that, I will pursue it a little
further for him.
I might, if I may, Mr. Chairman, get back
to this Queensway. I would like to pursue
that and give you some more precise infor-
mation than I have. It is quite an involved
procedure, because of the various agencies
involved in the cost sharing process. If the
hon. member will permit me, I will acquaint
him with that in detail.
Mr. Racine: Thank you.
Vote 804 agreed to.
On vote 805:
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under 805,
has this department considered getting to-
gether with other departments of the gov-
ernment to institute centralized purchasing,
as was recommended by the committee that
dealt with this last year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. This matter
was discussed when The Department of
Highways was before the public accounts
committee. As I recall it, I am of the opinion
we substantiated before that committee, that
because of the extensive volume of supplies
that we buy, we could not see any material
advantage in what was proposed.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Minister, could not that
be an asset to other departments then, the
fact that you purchase so much?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: There may be
areas where this may be helpful, Mr. Chair-
man, I would say to the hon. member, not
across the board. Many of the things we
purchase are exclusively the requirements of
The Department of Highways. I would say a
broad list of things we purchase are items
not used in any other department, because
they could not make use of them.
Mr. Newman: Vehicles, for example,
could be used by other departments in the
government. Would it not be better for you
then, possibly to do all the purchasing for
the other departments?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would point out
to the hon. member now the extent to which
it is done. We do buy vehicles for certain
other departments. I can think of one. We
buy all the vehicles for the Ontario water re-
sources commission, and there may be other
places where we act as purchasers.
Mr. Newman: Yes, this is good. This is
what I have suggested. Why not then for
Public Works and other departments of the
government, seeing that you do it for the
water resources commission? I think it is a
good policy.
Vote 805 agreed to.
On vote 806:
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Chairman, on vote 806 I would
like to speak about the revenue from the
commuter service. I am thinking of the whole
broad basis of it. I happened to notice that
his worship, the mayor of Toronto is present.
This is not influencing me to speak of another
sister city in any disparaging way because I
represent the province in the Liberal Party's
interests, but I also have a deep admiration
for the mayor and for the city in which I live.
However, at this point I want to talk about
the study which was done— the Metropolitan
Toronto and region transportation study— and
I think that quite rightly there was some con-
cern by the city of Hamilton that they were
not consulted in this—
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order. We discussed
this with the Chairman. I explained a few
MARCH 7, 1966
1251
days ago that I wanted to bring something
up on this, and he explained to me at that
time that we would have to, if we were to
discuss anything to do with Hamilton, bring
it up under vote 811.
Now vote 806 has nothing to do with the
commuter service as far as Hamilton is con-
cerned, and I would presume that you would
only discuss what is concerned in vote 806—
which is only operation of the commuter rail
project; the rest of it comes under vote 811.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on the point
of order; I had also discussed this with the
Chairman and he said that provided I was
relating this to revenue, it was quite correct
for me to speak at this time on the vote. And
I am referring to revenue.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, it should be
properly related to revenue-
Mr. Thompson: And it will be properly re-
lated to revenue-
Mr. Bryden: All that this point deals with—
Mr. Thompson: I am speaking on a point
of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bryden: I am speaking on a point of
order.
Mr. Thompson: I had the floor and I am
speaking on the point of order, and I am
saying that it will be properly related to
revenue, if I have the opportunity to speak
and explain it.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the regular
Chairman of the committee— I do not know
if he left the information with you— discussed
this with the parties. We agreed and thought
it was understood that this vote relates only
to the actual operation of the commuter
line as it is now envisaged, and that as far
as capital construction is concerned, which
would cover such matters as possible exten-
sions and so on, this would be properly dealt
with under vote 811. That being the view
of the Chairman and seeming to us to be a
reasonable division and one that was logical
in terms of the votes, we accepted it.
I would suggest to you, sir, that you
should follow that procedure and rule that
we, at this time, deal only with those matters
relating to the immediate operation of the
service as it is now envisaged.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wonder, Mr.
Chairman, if I may comment? Not because
I want to cut off the hon. leader of the
Opposition at all. I think it is more appropri-
ate under vote 811, and certainly, if the
Deputy Speaker and Chairman made a com-
mitment to this extent to anyone, I think it
should be lived up to by all of us. I am
quite prepared to accept this.
But I would say this, in all honesty, to the
hon. leader of the Opposition— it more ap-
propriately comes under the capital vote; it
very definitely does.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am quite
happy to take it under the capital vote, but
I simply say that when I talked to the Chair-
man, he sent a note to the Deputy Speaker,
and he sent a note to me, saying that if I
talked on revenue then it would be quite
legitimate to talk under this vote.
However, I say that if the other party
feels that there was some kind of an arrange-
ment made, I want to state again that it was
not made for me, but I will abide by it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will leave it
up to you, Mr. Chairman, of course.
Mr. Chairman: I would rule in this case
that the whole section, including vote 806,
deals almost entirely with maintenance and
I think that is the tenor of each part right up
to this point, and throughout, so I feel that
we should restrict the discussion on vote 806
to the maintenance of the commuter rail
project with a free opportunity for discussion
in the later votes under the "Capital Dis-
bursements" section, during which revenue
can be taken into consideration as well.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under "Plan-
ning Studies" may I ask questions then on this
vote?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, under "Maintenance."
Mr. Newman: In the studies conducted by
the department, to what points east and west
of the Metro area have the studies indicated
that it would be financially feasible to operate
at a profit, the commuter service?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I point out to the
hon. member that again this is not related
to this vote. He is confusing the Metropolitan
Toronto and region transportation study will
the commuter rail vote. You recall that at the
last session an Act respecting commuter rail
services was introduced. Now the studies to
which he has made reference are not this type
of study at all. This involves the cost of study-
ing things— I suppose, like signal requirements,
parking locations; this type of study is in-
volved and I do not think that that is what
the hon. member has in mind at the moment.
1252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Newman: No, I did not have that in
mind. How about the estimated operating
loss? What would that refer to in this vote,
Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: As I recall it, the
original projections that were made when the
service was announced during the last session
of the Legislature, were to be something
on the order of $1.5 million to $2 million
during the trial period.
Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to
the hon. member that these are no more
than projections; these are based on the re-
sult of the data research programme that was
undertaken, and that led up to this particular
project becoming, shall we say, a matter of
fact.
Mr. Bryden: What period of time does
this relate to?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This relates to
that portion of the year that we may be able
to get the service operative.
. Mr. Bryden: That is exactly what I am
getting at. I appreciate it only goes to March
31, 1967 and I was wondering in drawing up
your estimates what period prior to that you
had in mind?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say to the
hon, member that we will, of course, attempt
to implement the service as soon as possible,
but because of the variety of matters that re-
quire to be resolved, we cannot be sure
whether we can get it operative on February
1 or March 1 or April 1, but we have made
some provision here in the event that we do
become operative for a portion of the fiscal
year represented by these estimates.
Mr. Bryden: Then the figures appearing
here are, shall be say, nominal up to a point—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh, yes, quite. I
think two months is the figure. It is an esti-
mated sixth of a year's maintenance cost-
about one-sixth.
Mr. Bryden: Could the hon. Minister indi-
cate what the department has in mind with
regard to advertising and promotion? I see
that the figure here, which admittedly can-
not be very precise, for the two months or
whatever it is prior to March 31, 1967, is
$50,000. Now have you worked out in any
detail your plans in respect to the promotion
of this service? As I indicated when the bill
was . before the House last year, this seems
to me to be critical. If you can persuade the
public to leave their cars at home or to leave
them at the stations along the way it can
make a great difference, but that probably
will take a fair amount of persuasion.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, there is no
question about the advisability of whatever
promotional exercises are appropriate to de-
velop the patronage that we are interested in.
This whole exercise— or project, if we may call
it that— was designed largely to take vehicles
off our expressways and I can assure the hon.
member that there will be a programme of
promotion. It is in the study stage now. I
think it is not too far from becoming reality.
The whole matter of the concept is all under
close examination and study between repre-
sentatives of the department and representa-
tives of Canadian National Railway's. We are
working closely with a department of Cana-
dian National Railways called the visual de-
sign branch or department, whatever it is.
I can say we have pursued this to quite
considerable length but it is not- quite com-
pleted yet. Certainly there is every recogrii-^
tion of the extent to which we have to sell
the service. We quite appreciate that fact
and I am sure the hon. member, when he
sees what we come up with prdmotionally,
will be impressed. I hope he wilt, we spent
some time at it and a little more time will
round it out satisfactorily, I believe.
Mr. Thompson: Is the hon. Minister main-
taining an existing terminal at Burlington or
is he going to have to build one?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: At Burlington?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, or is the hon. Minister
going to have to build one?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, we will use
the same terminal facilities that are there
now.
Mr. Thompson: There is no need to buy
extra land for parking or anything like this?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Not at Burling-
ton. We have land bought—
Mr. Bryden: What are the hon. Minister's
plans with regard to parking? I assume that
all along the line existing railway stations
will be used, but the question could arise as
to whether or not the parking facilities avail-
able at the stations will be adequate. I hope
they will be. I hope a lot of people, instead
of driving from somewhere i in Trafalgar
township down to downtown Toronto, will
drive to the Oakville station and get on the
train there. But if they are to do that, they
will want to park their cars somewhere.
MARCH 7, 1966
1253
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
we are right back again into vote 811. I
might say that this is all capital construction;
the whole thing. It is certainly a valid ques-
tion, but it is valid under vote 811, I would
point out to the hon. member.
Vote 806 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Spooner: Mr. Chairman, it be-
ing almost 10.30, and as we have come to
the end of the vote, I move that the com-
mittee rise and report certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with
these estimates and from 5 o'clock to 6
o'clock we will deal with private mem-
bers' business. As I said on Friday, following
this department, we will deal with The
Department of Tourism and Information,
Lands and Forests, and Labour, in that order.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.25 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 42
ONTARIO
Hegtsilature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
Final report, standing committee on private bills, Mr. Reuter 1257
Statement re application for proposed heavyweight boxing championship match, Mr.
Rowntree 1257
Statement re Hydro exhibits at World Fair, Montreal, Mr. Simonett 1258
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1261
On notice of motions No. 8 and No. 12, Mr. Sopha, Mr. Knox 1278
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 1291
Recess, 6 o'clock 1291
Appendix A 1292
1257
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome, in the west gallery, students from
Irwin memorial public school, Dwight. And
I understood later, in the east gallery, Our
Lady of Lourdes separate school, Toronto.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South), from
the standing committee on private bills, pre-
sented the committee's seventh and final re-
port which was read as follows and adopted.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. PrlO, An Act respecting the board
of trustees of the continuation school of the
township of Pelee.
Bill No. Pr37, An Act respecting the city
of Hamilton.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills with certain amendments:
Bill No. Pr3, An Act respecting the board
of education of the township of Toronto.
Bill No. Pr7, An Act respecting the Til-
bur- public school board.
Bill No. Pr25, An Act respecting the city
of Hamilt< n.
Bill No. Pr32, An Act respecting the city
of Ottawa.
Your committee would recommend that the
fees and the penalties and the actual cost of
printing be remitted on Bill No. Pr28, An Act
respecting the estate of William A. Dickieson.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with
respect to a matter we discussed which was
raised in the House yesterday and which has
currently been before my department.
As you know, an application has been made
by Mr. Frank Tunney, promoter, to the On-
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
tario athletic commission for authorization
to stage, in Toronto, the heavyweight boxing
championship of the world between Cassius
Clay and Ernie Terrell on March 29 of 1965.
Before dealing with this specific applica-
tion, I would like to establish a few facts.
First of all, it should be emphasized that the
sport of boxing is legal in this province and
has been for many years. Rules and regula-
tions have been established by the provincial
government to ensure the protection of the
public, the safety of the participants and to
control the staging and promotion of boxing
exhibitions. The selection and appointment
of the referee, medical officer, judges, an-
nouncer and all other officials comes directly
under the control of and supervision of the
Ontario athletic commission. In addition,
a security deposit is required from the pro-
moter to guarantee the purses of the boxers,
the payment of the officials and of the com-
mission tax.
The licences of the promoter and of the
boxers and managers are also under the con-
trol of the commission, as well as other re-
quirements for the fight— Weigh-ins, medicals,
contract approvals and so on. All these re-
quirements are set out in The Ontario Ath-
letics Control Act and regulations.
It is clear then that the issue here does not
revolve around the legality of boxing in the
province of Ontario. That is entirely another
matter.
I would like to deal, for a moment, with
the attempts that were made to stage this
fight in other centres in North America and
to which some reference has been made
both in this House and in the press.
Following an inquiry by the Ontario ath-
letics commissioner to the Illinois state ath-
letics commission, we were informed that the
reason for their refusal to sanction this bout
was that, and I quote: "The promoters li-
cence was not complete."
In the case of Mr. Tunney, who proposes
to promote the fight here in Toronto, we
find that his licence is in order.
I have been informed by the New York
state athletic commission that no formal ap-
plication has been made to that state to hold
this particular fight. I understand that the
reason for this is that Mr. Ernie Terrell's
1258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
standing has not yet been cleared by the
New York state athletic commission. I should
point out that while New York state is not
a member of the world boxing association,
the province of Ontario is and Mr. Terrell's
standing has never been questioned by the
world boxing association.
Now, with respect to the approaches that
were made in the city of Montreal, I am
informed that the Montreal athletic commis-
sion, which incidentally is a municipal body-
there being no provincial commission in Que-
bec, I am informed that the Montreal athletic
commission approved the holding of this
fight in Montreal, but the promoters there
were unable to secure the Montreal Forum.
Mention has been made of Main Bouts In-
corporated and I want to emphasize that the
Ontario athletic commission has no direct
dealing with this organization, since all of
their arrangements with respect to the fran-
chising of closed-circuit television are with
the promoter of the fight. It is the promoter
who must in turn comply with all provincial
regulations.
I was notified of receipt of the application
on Monday morning, March 7. Since that
time we have been engaged in a review of
the application and matters surrounding it.
I am now satisfied that the application meets
all of the requirements of The Athletics Con-
trol Act and regulations and the commissioner
has no other choice but to authorize the
staging of this bout.
Now I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker,
that this decision in no way condones or sup-
ports the previous actions, affiliations or pub-
lic statements made by either of the major
participants in this fight. This decision is
based entirely on the fact that a proper ap-
plication for authorization has been submit-
ted. This application is in order and
complies with all of the regulations of the
province, which permit and control profes-
sional boxing. It is on this basis alone the
sanction has been granted.
Mr. Speaker, any other action, regardless
of how attractive it might be to anyone,
would be a clear case of unsupportable dis-
crimination against the promoters and parti-
cipants themselves.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
may I advise you that the major electrical
utilities of Ontario and Quebec have under-
taken to co-operate in producing exhibits for
the 1967 world's exhibition. Ontario Hydro
and Hydro Quebec will share equally in con-
tributing a total of $1.5 million toward the
cost of installing displays in the Resources
for Man section of the Man, the Producer,
pavilion.
Details of the hydro exhibit are being de-
veloped by Expo '67 officials in co-operation
with the two provincial hydro utilities.
I am pleased to note this joint effort be-
tween Ontario and Quebec in emphasizing
Canada's stature as a nation on its 100th
birthday.
In addition, Ontario Hydro plans to partici-
pate in the Ontario government pavilion at
the world exhibition.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question before
the orders of the day for the hon. Minister of
Labour, notice of which has been given.
Would the hon. Minister comment on a
suggestion by Mr. Jack Donaldson, manager
of the motor transport industrial relations
bureau, that the teamsters' negotiating com-
mittee is not going to allow the membership
of the union to vote on the industry's final
offer, which lapses on Sunday?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, in view
of the fact that my department is actively
engaged in efforts to mediate this dispute, I
think that the hon. leader of the Opposition
will appreciate that it is most inappropriate
for me to comment on public statements
alleged to have been made by representatives
of either side.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have another question for the hon.
Minister of Labour, notice of which has been
given in the usual manner.
Has the hon. Minister any information re-
garding the willingness of the publishers to
negotiate a settlement with the ITU?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am aware of the
position of the publishers. My information
was secured in the course of acting on a re-
quest by the Ontario federation of labour.
The information I received was conveyed to
the federation of labour and I assume— in
fact, I have been told personally— that it has
also been relayed to the international typo-
graphical union.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett).
In light of President Johnson's statement
that tire standards will be established in the
United States, will the hon. Minister assure
the House that similar standards will be set
up in Ontario?
MARCH 8, 1966
1259
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, The Department of Transport
does not contemplate setting specification
standards for automobile tires at this time.
We have, however, been actively studying
the situation with regard to tire performance
for about two years in concert with the mem-
bers of the American association of motor
vehicle administrators, which is an association
which includes in its membership all state
and provincial motor vehicle departments.
Some time ago a task force was appointed
from the association's membership to review
tire standards for new tires on passenger cars
and stationwagons. The information submit-
ted to the task force indicated that the rubber
manufacturers association, the society of auto-
motive engineers, and the automobile manu-
facturers association had been studying new
tire performance and requirements. Federal
specifications for tire purchases were also
available to the task force.
It is the considered opinion of the task
force that the standards and regulations for
new tires should primarily cover performance
requirements rather than construction require-
ments. It is the committee's thinking that
under no circumstances should we concern
ourselves with a phase of this work that might
interfere with the necessary research and ad-
vancements going on in tire technology.
Standards and specifications that reflect the
thinking of the task force on this subject after
reviewing the material from the above-men-
tioned sources, include definitions for break-
ing energy, cross section, official measuring
rim, ply rating and standard rims. The pro-
posed standards also include tests for strength,
endurance and high-speed performance:
Breaking energy is the energy in inch
pounds that is required to force a cylin-
drical steel plunger three-quarters of an
inch in diameter with a hemispherical end,
into the tread as near the centre line as
possible at a rate of two inches per minute,
avoiding penetration into a tread groove.
When determining the breaking energy,
the tire shall be mounted on the rim and
inflated to the pressure shown in table A.
(See Appendix 1, page 1292.)
Cross section is the dimensions in the
tire mounted on the official measuring rim
after it has been allowed to stand for 24
hours at room temperature, inflated to
the pressure as recommended in table A.
The tire shall be calipered at six differ-
ent points, spaced approximately equal
around the circumference. The average
of these measurements is to be taken as
the cross section. In the event that the
widest part of the tire occurs at a letter
or at a side wall design, the height of such
configuration shall be deducted from
measurements.
The official measuring rim is a standard
rim that has been calibrated and found
to meet the precise measurements as
recommended by the tire and rim associa-
tion.
The ply rating is the tire strength with
its recommended load and does not neces-
sarily represent the number of actual plys
in the tire.
The standard rims are those sizes of
rims and shapes of flanges as adopted by
the tire and rim association.
The strength: The tire shall meet the
requirements for minimum breaking
energy as shown in table A. No tire shall
have a strength below that of a tire of
the same size and cross section with four
ply rating.
For sizes not listed, the strength require-
ment shall be not less than that for the
nearest smaller size in cross section and
the same ply rating.
Five measurements of force and pene-
tration of break shall be made at points
equally spaced around the circumference
of the tire. In the event the tire fails to
break before the plunger is stopped by
reaching the rim, the force and penetra-
tion shall be taken as this occurs.
The energy to break a tire shall be
calculated from the average energy values
at break by means of the following
formula: W = F X P over 2; where W
equals energy at break in inch pounds, F
equals force at break in pounds and P
equals penetration at break in inches.
The endurance: Tires shall meet the
requirements of laboratory test wheel en-
durance without evidence of tread, ply,
cord or bead operation or broken cords.
Preparation of tire for endurance test:
The tire shall be mounted on the rim and
inflated to the pressure shown in table A.
The average radial deflection of the tire
at the load shown in table A shall be de-
termined on a flat surface after the tire
has been conditioned at a temperature of
100 degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus
five, for a minimum of three hours and
with inflation pressure adjusted to the
value specified in table A.
The equipment: The test wheel shall be
a flat faced steel wheel, 67.23 inches in
1260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
diameter and at least the same width as
the cross sectional diameter of the tire to
be tested. The tire while being tested
shall be located in an air space controlled
at a temperature of 100 degrees Fahren-
heit plus or minus five.
Procedure: The tire and wheel assembly
shall be mounted on the test axle and
pressed against the test wheel with the
required axle load. Specifications for the
test shall shall be as follows:
The tire endurance test: Speed, 50 miles
per hour; pressure from 100 per cent test
load; hours, four. Under appendix A, 120
per cent for six hours, under 140 per cent
for 24 hours at a test of 1,700 total test
miles.
One hundred per cent test load shall be
the load necessary to obtain the average
radial deflection of the tire against the test
wheel, as was determined above in the
preparation of the tire for the endurance
test. The tire shall meet the requirements
of laboratory high speed performance tests
without evidence of separation or tread
chunking.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I do
not think we have done anything to deserve
this!
An hon. member: The hon. member asked
a question.
Hon. Mr. Haskett:
Preparation of tire for high speed test:
The tire shall be mounted on the rim
shown in table A and inflated to 30 pounds
per square inch pressure. The average
radial deflection of the tire at the load
shown in tabic A shall be determined on a
flat surface after the tire has been con-
ditioned at a temperature of 100 degrees
Fahrenheit, plus or minus five, for a mini-
mum of three hours and the inflation
pressure adjusted to 30 pounds per square
inch.
Equipment: The test wheel shall be flat
faced steel with the wheel having a dia-
meter, not less than 67.23 inches and not
greater than 120 inches, and at least the
same width as the cross sectional diameter
of the tire to be tested. The tire, while
being tested, shall be located in an air
space controlled at a temperature of 100
degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus five.
After two hours break in at 50 miles
per hour, tire should be allowed to cool
at 100 degrees Fahrenheit temperature.
Inflation pressure should then be re-
adjusted to 30 pounds per square inch
before continuing the test. After cooling
period, resume test at 75 miles per hour,
increase speed five miles per hour every
one-half hour until the performance level
of 85 miles per hour has been achieved.
The proposals are still under study and dis-
cussion and when final recommendations are
available they will be given careful con-
sideration.
Mr. Young: May I thank the hon. Minister
for this very enlightening lesson in algebra;
and I would also ask him if he could tell us,
in a supplementary question, how soon this
study may be completed and how soon we
can look for its results in labels on the tires,
which means something for the safety of the
people of Ontario.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Read it again!
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, if I can
repeat what I said before, we have been
actively considering the situation with regard
to tire performance for about two years and
I concluded by saying that proposals are still
under study and discussion and when final
recommendations are available they will be
given consideration.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Dy-
mond), in two parts:
1. When was the last inspection of the
Ontario Steel Products plants at Chatham,
Milton and Oshawa made by the industrial
hygiene branch?
2. Did the department find conditions aris-
ing from tar smoke a health hazard for
workers; if so, what changes will be made to
correct the situation?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of
the hon. member's question is: At the request
of The Department of Labour inspections of
the Ontario Steel Products plant at Milton
were made by industrial hygiene branch
staff in May 1964, June 1965, and December
1965. Inspections of this company's plants
at Chatham and Oshawa were made on Feb-
ruary 16, 1966 and November 25, 1965,
respectively by staff of The Department of
Labour.
The levels of oil mist in the air at the
Milton plant were found by the industrial
hygiene staff to be within acceptable limits
and presented no hazard to health. Improve-
ments in ventilation for the better control
of oil mist were recommended and have since
been carried out. Improvements of ventilation
MARCH 8, 1966
1261
in the spray painting area have been made
within the past month.
No request has been received by the in-
dustrial hygiene branch within the past five
years to assess fume conditions in the
Chatham and Oshawa plants of this company.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of personal privilege, I believe it is
personal privilege if not a point of order.
This morning's Globe and Mail quotes
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Stewart) as saying yesterday: "I understand
he," that is I, "challenged the secretary of the
farm products marketing board to have him
thrown out."
Mr. Speaker, just to set the matter straight,
I approached the secretary of the farm
products marketing board who was screen-
ing people going into this meeting. We first
exchanged friendly personal greetings. I then
said to him: "Are members of the Legislature
entitled to attend this meeting?" His reply
was that he thought that it was for members
of the commodity boards. I said I found it
difficult to believe that anything would have
happened there that members of the Legisla-
ture were not entitled to hear and his reply
was that he personally had no objection
if I went in, whereupon I went in. That is
all. Which shows just how completely wrong
the hon. Minister of Agriculture is.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture): Well, Mr. Speaker, since the point has
been raised, may I—
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Out of order,
Mr. Speaker!
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The member for York South, I understand,
has risen on a point of privilege to correct
a statement in the paper. In his opinion,
he has now corrected that statement. I think
perhaps there should not be any debate
back and forth. It is just the same as if any
other member had risen and made a state-
ment before the orders of the day.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of personal privilege, surely I have the right
to express an opinion on what has been said?
Because there is an inference here that I did
not tell the truth and I would like to explain
my side of the story if I may.
Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps this is not
the correct place at the present time, although
if the Minister did rise he would have to rise
on a point of order, and not on a point of
privilege. He may rise on a point of order
on what the member has said.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on what-
ever point you suggest in this particular case,
as long as I have the right to say something.
I must say that I checked this morning
because I may have been wrong in what I
said yesterday, and if I was, I am quite
willing to withdraw it. I checked this morning
to see exactly what did happen, because the
Globe and Mail picked up the exchange we
had here in the House yesterday. So I asked
what did happen and now this is what I am
told.
The hon. member came to the door of the
meeting and asked the secretary of the farm
products marketing board if members of the
Legislature were being admitted— I think that
is what he has just said. I am advised by the
secretary— and this is all I know, what the
secretary of the board told me, I was not
there. He replied: "No, they are not, Mr.
MacDonald, this is a closed meeting." Mr.
MacDonald said: "Well, I'm going in and if
the Minister wants me to leave he will have
to ask me to leave." Now this is what I am
told happened yesterday and I think we
ought to put the record straight as far as the
other side of it is concerned. Thank you
very much.
Mr. MacDonald: But it is not accurate,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The twelfth order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
( continued )
On vote 807:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
there are a couple of questions that I would
like to ask the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. MacNaughton) in respect to this vote.
As he is aware, in the great township of
North York there is an interchange which is
called spaghetti junction. The interchange
between Highway 401 and the Spadina ex-
pressway.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): In the
riding of Downsview.
Mr. Young: In the riding of Downsview,
the hon. member pinpoints it that accurately.
Now I understand that interchange has
1262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cost something in the nature of $10 million?
Would the hon. Minister perhaps— about $10
million!
And then the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto has added to that by building a leg
of the expressway, if you will, down as far
south as Lawrence avenue and that would
cost another $2.5 million, something like this,
when it is complete. So there is an invest-
ment of something in the nature of $12
million in that interchange.
Mr. Minister, the question I have is: Is it
possible, or is there in these estimates a
subsidy for Metropolitan Toronto to put this
expressway farther south? Now I ask that
because it just seems to me to be completely
unreasonable that the hon. Minister should
have this very expensive interchange at that
point and have it not used to its capacity.
It was designed to bring traffic from 401
down into the heart of Metropolitan Toronto
and also to take traffic north up to Highway
7 at least, and farther north still.
Now it just seems incredible that an invest-
ment of $12 million should be sitting there,
that that spaghetti junction should be used to
a minimum degree. It is as a matter of fact
serving Yorkdale shopping centre, but in my
mind it is an extremely expensive bowl of
spaghetti to be sitting there on the highway
for the simple purpose of serving, at this
point, Eatons and Simpsons.
I wonder if the hon. Minister could tell us
if any plans are underway or if he is bring-
ing real pressure to bear on Metropolitan
Toronto to complete this leg of the express-
way?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the
hon. member would agree that the inter-
change, I will call it an interchange anyway,
had to be built at the time, but the agree-
ment that we have with the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto provides for the ex-
tension of what will be known as the Spadina
expressway. I would suppose it will go
down certainly as far as Bloor street. It
might even go farther than that.
Now the extent to which we could put
anything more than the ordinary pressure
that will be on the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto to complete this expressway,
under any circumstances, I just would not
know. I think the demands of the people
will probably provide all of the required
pressure to ensure that it will be completed
as quickly as possible. We will, of course,
subsidize the cost of it, to the extent of 50
per cent, the same as we do any other Metro-
politan Toronto road and any other Metro
road. But the extension of it really will be up
to Metro. They are committed to it and we
have an agreement with them to this extent.
Mr. Young: But it might help if the de-
partment met with the metropolitan officials
and urged them, in view of the great invest-
ment that the province has in this junction,
that they should speed up the construction
of the Spadina expressway. There is no
question that the northwest part of the
metropolitan area is in dire need of this
expressway. There are other pressures that
are being brought to bear on those hon.
gentlemen for other kinds of construction,
but it just seems that it is logical and reason-
able that the department should meet with
them, point out the very great investment
that is there, that is now useless in a large
sense as far as its ultimate use is concerned
and that the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto ought to be really pushing forward
with this project, and pushing fast.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think I have
commented in the only manner I can. Metro
is aware, as the hon. member is or anybody
is, that this expressway is going to be needed
for just the purposes you describe, but the
extent of the pressure we can put on Metro
I think is very limited, notwithstanding the
fact that we subsidize these expenditures 50
per cent. Nevertheless, the decision as to
how and where to spend their 50 per cent
of the money is pretty well in their hands.
We are in constant communication with
them. There is a very great awareness of
the need for this expressway, but I would
not like to be put in the position of saying
we are going to pressure a municipality to
spend a great deal of money. We stand
ready to co-operate with them, of course, at
any and all times; and as I say we are in
conversation with them at all times on all
these matters.
Mr. Young: Is it likely that you could
impress them with the fact that the province
does not like paying the interest on $10
million worth of debentures, when they are
there for their use as much as anyone else's?
It seems to me that the hon. Minister might
at least indicate something like that to the
authorities in Metropolitan Toronto and I
hope he will do this.
An hon. member: There were attempts to
stop the new city hall, too.
Mr. Young: Oh yes, they are building a
lot of things; but this is a great growing area,
MARCH 8, 1966
1263
as the hon. Minister knows. We want to get
traffic from 401 down to his riding, you see,
and bring people from his riding into North
York to see what a marvellous place it is up
there. So we hope he will help to push this
project along.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Metro and this government did
it all.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. I would ask the mem-
ber from that great county of Welland— there
is a postscript on this same point of view-
will you yield the floor to the member for
Downsview?
Mr. Young: I still have a question I wanted
to ask.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I was just
saying that perhaps pressuring is a kindlier
way. The hon. member for Yorkview was
talking about pressure. I think really what
is needed, if you are familiar with the Metro
capital budget, is more money. I know this
road has been in the works and it is a very
urgent Metropolitan Toronto project. The
question is: Is there money available within
the limits that Metro has to work? You can-
not build too many things at the same time.
The newspapers not too ago were sug-
gesting to some of the Metropolitan Toronto
members that perhaps some of us should say
—I think they directed their remarks mainly
to the government side of the House on that—
that some of us should say a bit more in
favour of Metro. So listening to that urging,
Mr. Chairman, it would be my thought that
since there is such a substantial capital invest-
ment of the province of Ontario here that it
would seem reasonable and logical that addi-
tional money was made available to Metro
to get on with Spadina road extension.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Have you spoken to the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben) about what he has to
say about the Spadina expressway?
Mr. Singer: No, I am speaking to people
like yourself, who really have great trouble
standing up on the floor of this House and
defending Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Singer: That is why you are so con-
cerned.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Ask the hon. member
for Bracondale what he thinks about the
Spadina expressway.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On vote
807, please.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would
think that a very good look should be taken
at the whole metropolitan budget, and par-
ticularly the urgent need for roads. The hon.
Minister is a chairman of this special com-
mittee and he must be very familiar by now
with all of the great needs for handling traffic,
both commuter traffic and roads and subways,
in this great metropolitan area. It would seem
to me that perhaps additional money could
and should be made available now to Metro
by way of loans to let them get on with the
Spadina road extension and let the heart
of the province of Ontario expand by getting
on with these road building programmes.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, there is an-
other matter I would like to ask the hon.
Minister, following up the statement the other
day by the hon. member for Windsor- Walker-
ville (Mr. Newman) regarding the Fort Fran-
ces situation. As the hon. Minister is aware
the bridge between United States and Can-
ada there is very much in need of replace-
ment.
I understand that some negotiations have
been going on for some years and some pres-
sure has been building up there.
The present bridge, I understand, has
recently been sold to the Boise Cascade Com-
pany and they are now operating it. The
problem there seems to be, according to
what the hon. Minister said the other day,
that local people should negotiate or take
some part in this matter. I would have that
elaborated on, as I do not quite understand
what the hon. Minister meant.
It seems to me that an international bridge
ought to be built by the jurisdictions con-
cerned rather than the towns concerned and
it looks as if this may be a new principle in
bridge building. Does he mean that other
bridges have been built by adjacent munici-
palities and by corporations formed by them?
Perhaps the hon. Minister could set me clear
on this and then perhaps I could say some-
thing further on it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
am pleased to comment on that. I think that
before I start though I should like to just
briefly comment on the remarks of the hon.
member for Downsview. I would say to him
that I am glad to have these comments. I am
glad to them reviewed here but I still say
to him as I did to the hon. member for
Yorkview that I do not think pressure is the
way to accomplish this.
1264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: I was not suggesting pressure;
I was suggesting a loan.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right; I am
glad to have these comments in any case,
Mr. Chairman.
As I pointed out, we are in very constant
communication with these people. On the
other hand— and I do not suppose this is too
pertinent to the discussion— when attempts
are made to get a little extra revenue for the
province, there is a strong voice of opposition
and criticism. Here we are on the other hand,
being asked to spend it in a variety of direc-
tions. But nevertheless we are aware of the
importance of this situation and we are
working constantly with them.
I commented on the other matter raised by
the hon. member for Yorkview the other day,
and if I did not make myself clear, I shall
try to do it briefly now.
He is right; this little bridge over the river
between International Falls and Fort Frances
may be under lease to or under the ownership
of the firm to which he made reference. At
one time it was owned by the Ontario Min-
nesota Paper Company, I believe.
Now I am prepared to admit that the
bridge itself is no longer adequate to take
care of the traffic at this point. On the other
hand the reason that we here have adopted
the policy or philosophy of making our views
known, in a report prepared by engineers
after examining the area, to a local commit-
tee—and the state of Minnesota has done the
same thing— is that in one particular respect
at least a location that has been suggested
would cause tremendous property damage
and disruption to the town of Fort Frances;
so the report that we have submitted recom-
mends consideration for certain alternative
locations.
I think it is fair to say that the report from
the state of Minnesota is not at the moment
on all fours with ours, so we simply feel that
the local municipality should have something
to say about the location of a bridge of this
type, when you consider the approaches that
are required and so on, and the extent to
which it could damage a fairly substantial
proportion of a relatively small community.
This is the basis upon which the thing is
under consideration now. The local com-
munities are examining these two reports.
The committee as a matter of fact was set up
by the local communities for this purpose and
after they have had a chance to examine the
proposals from both sides of the border I
think they may come up with some ideas of
their own. I think that at that point both
agencies are prepared to get back and con-
sider it.
To take it a step further, this is a—
Mr. Young: Could I interrupt?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I want to pursue
one more point that you made. This is a
bridge that crosses an international waterway
—an international boundary which in this
case is a river. Before a facility of any kind
is built, there will likely have to be a bridge
authority set up. These bridge authorities
are financed, usually, through the sale of
some form of bonds or debentures. Part of
that, of course, involves much negotiation
and legislative requirements at the levels of
both federal governments, because once you
cross an international boundary in the form
of an international bridge, then federal sta-
tutes become involved. The state of Minne-
sota will have to go to Washington, we will
have to clarify certain things here with the
government at Ottawa; and so the thing is not
as cut and dried as it sounds.
I do not know whether this is what the
hon. member had in mind or not, but this is
where it stands. First of all we want to get
some conformity of thought as to where the
bridge should go that will suit the people in
the community; they are the people who are
going to have to live with it, not us.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, once the de-
termination of location is made would the
province of Ontario and the state of Minne-
sota build the bridge?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No; I think it
would be the same as any other international
bridge. It would be built by a bridge
authority.
Mr. Young: And that authority would carry
it forever?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, forever is a
long time, but it would likely carry it until
the bonded indebtedness was retired. The
usual basis of financing is to set up an author-
ity that sells bonds or debentures or some
form of security to finance the capital con-
struction costs. Tolls are imposed and out of
the toll revenue, over a period of time, if it is
possible, then the indebtedness is retired.
That is usually the way it is done, but I
would not think that we would have all the
say about that here in Ontario; that is my
point.
Mr. Young: Does it revert to the state and
the province or is there a continuing author-
ity at that point once the debentures are paid?
MARCH 8, 1966
1265
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The authority
could continue to collect tolls for, shall we
say, continuing maintenance purposes. It
would be a sensible thing to do.
Mr. Young: This is the case in Sarnia?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Unfortunately it
is not the case in Sarnia, because one jurisdic-
tion is collecting tolls and the other is not;
this is what the ruckus is about in Sarnia.
Mr. Young: Which side is collecting tolls?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We are collecting
tolls on our side. Here again, you see, is
where the United States federal authority
gets into it; they will not allow the collection
of tolls once the capital costs have been paid.
Mr. Young: And they are subsidizing?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The state of Mich-
igan is now subsidizing; the federal authority
will not permit the collection of tolls.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me
that this is a situation which needs the atten-
tion of the hon. Minister, and serious atten-
tion, because this matter has been going on
for some years.
A year ago this matter was raised in the
House and at that time, as I remember, we
were told that there were three alternate
routes being explored. Now surely it does
not take more than a year, or two years as
the case may be, to explore these alternate
routes?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You would think—
Mr. Young: If there was real urgency in
the hon. Minister's mind about this I do not
think it would take this long. Certainly it
seems to me, in conversations that I have
had, that the state of Minnesota has pretty
well cleared away its problems and is going
to co-operate with the hon. Minister here in
doing this job. So unless other factors are
present, then this bridge ought to go forward.
The Mississippi parkway, I understand, is
going to terminate there and now the new
highway has gone through from the head of
the lakes to Fort Frances, and so it becomes
the natural funnel for a whole tourist indus-
try flowing both ways here.
I quite realize that there are tremendous
pressures against replacing this bridge— eco-
nomic pressures, because the Boise Cascade
Company is making a very large return on its
investment and the shareholders in that
bridge must find it a pot of gold, literally. I
can understand the kind of pressures that
can be brought to bear against any people
who may want to make changes here; but
surely, Mr. Chairman, the time has come
when this government ought to take the
initiative and really push now to make that
link with the United States roads a link
which will be adequate, a link which will
be a public utility in the sense that this one
is not, and a link that can handle adequately,
at a reasonable price— much more reasonable
than the present prices charged— the traffic
that will go across that bridge. I hope the
hon. Minister will turn his attention to this
and get a little more action than has been
apparent up to the present time.
Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr.
Chairman, the people of the great Welland
riding, and particularly those in the city of
Welland, are most grateful for the action
the hon. Minister's department has taken to
ease the traffic congestion which has plagued
us in that area for many years.
The proposed tunnel under the canal in
the city of Welland is a very important
project designed to remove the burden of
traffic and I only regret that it is held up
until the federal government makes a de-
cision on a new ship canal it is now consider-
ing.
Down through the years, your department
has been most sympathetic and co-operative
in providing solutions to our problems, which
makes me wonder what the future holds for
us. I must confess I share an anxiety ex-
pressed to me by the mayor of Welland, Mr.
Allan Pietz, and members of his council,
because in the capital programme of your
department for the coming year there is no
work listed for Highway 406, between
Welland and St. Catharines. I would like
to inquire from the hon. Minister what is
being planned for this highway, or whether
any alternatives are being considered at the
present time.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we are
quite concerned over there with the holdup
of Highway 406.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
before the announcement by the federal gov-
ernment respecting the relocation of the
Welland canal in the vicinity of the city of
Welland, it had been the intention of the de-
partment, and I am sure the hon. member
knows this to be true, to proceed with the
construction of this highway with all possible
speed because we have been over to Welland
and had a number of discussions with the
Welland county people and the hon. member
for Welland.
1266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But I would point out to you, sir, and to
the House, as a matter of fact the study for
the city of Welland had been completed
which indicated the manner in which High-
way 406 would tie in with the existing road
network in the city of Welland, and also for
future requirements for Highway 406 through
Welland in conjunction with the tunnel
that was being planned at that time and
which had proceeded to a rather advanced
stage. But due to the announcement, not
too many months ago, of the possible re-
location of the canal, which would run from
Port Robinson to just north of Port Colborne,
we have had to delay the construction of
Highway 406, until such time as the trans-
portation study in the city of Welland has
been redone, taking into account the new
location of the canal.
I point out to you, sir, to the hon. mem-
ber and to everyone, that the location of the
canal in the city of Welland means a very
great deal, because it bisects it right down
the centre of the city. I would say to the
hon. member for Welland that he will appre-
ciate, I am sure, that the terminal point of
Highway 406 could be very much affected
by the possible change in road systems in
Welland, because of the relocation of the
canal.
Therefore, sir, we have no alternative
but to delay the construction of this high-
way until these answers are available. We
hope they will be available this fall.
However, we realize, Mr. Chairman, that
an improved facility between Welland and
St. Catharines is necessary. If the location
of Highway 406 will have to be changed
because of the relocation of the canal, we
are studying the possibilities of improving
existing Highway 58, from Welland northerly
to Turners Corners, at Highway 20 and a
connection via county road 14, which would
tie in with the section of Highway 406 which
can be constructed, irrespective of the canal
location. This section of Highway 406 is
between Beaver Dam road, otherwise known
as county road 23 northerly to St. Davids
road. This would handle the traffic situation
until such time as the canal would be re-
located and Highway 406 could be pro-
ceeded with in its final location.
It is our hope to proceed with that section
of Highway 406 which I have just described,
from the Beaver Dam road northerly, plus a
connection from the Thorold tunnel to High-
way 406 in the near future. I would hope,
Mr. Chairman, that that is largely the infor-
mation the hon. member for Welland wanted.
We do hope to proceed along these lines.
Mr. Morningstar: Thank you very much,
Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): May I follow up, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Is it on the same point?
Mr. Thompson: On bridges!
Mr. Chairman: And would the leader of the
Opposition be on the same point? All right,
proceed.
Mr. Thompson: I just wanted to clarify if
I could, through you, sir, the hon. Minister's
policy on bridges. I have noticed that the
various international bridges seem to have
different fees for crossing. I will not bother
listing all these fees, but they vary from
Cornwall to Messina $1 to the Whirlpool
Rapids bridge, 30 cents. There is a disparity
in this situation.
I have, sir, several questions. First, I would
assume that the decreasing costs for travel-
ling across an international bridge is because
of the debenture having been paid off to an
extent or paid off completely. But I have
wondered if that is the reason. Second, after
the debenture is paid off, the bridge commis-
sion is then keeping up the maintenance of
the bridge. I assume that is the reason for
getting the toll. Apart from that, at that
point the bridge commission would be making
a profit. To whom does that profit go?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: First of all, the
rates of toll are set by each individual author-
ity. I presume they are set in those terms
that will take care of operational maintenance
costs and provide for orderly debt retire-
ment. I would assume that is the basis upon
which they are set. Now to proceed, if we
may, to what happens when the bridge is
paid off completely.
If it is an international bridge, we could
find ourselves in the same position as they
are at the Blue Water bridge between Port
Huron and Sarnia. It is a matter of record,
I think, to say that the federal authorities in
the United States will not allow tolls to be
collected once the capital debt has been
retired. There is not much point in discussing
whether that is sensible or not to do. That
is the way it is.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A
pretty good policy.
MARCH 8, 1966
1267
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It may be, unless
it is also sensible to have some type of nom-
inal toll that will take care of maintenance
and operational costs, without any other
means of acquiring the amount of money re-
quired for this purpose. I am not too sure
that a nominal toll is sufficient to take care
of operational costs and maintenance cost,
plus the payment of staff like toll collectors.
Painting the bridge from time to time is
costly, and has to be done frequently. In
many cases, when you start a large bridge
and paint it from one end to the other, you
might just as well start all over again, because
it is required. So costs do accrue to it.
I think the continuing toll, if this helps
to illustrate the situation at the Blue Water
bridge, is 25 cents, collected on the Ontario
side. I am not sure whether it is possible for
these authorities to make a profit; this I can-
not tell you. I do not know. Certainly once
the capital indebtednes is taken care of and
the bondholders have been paid off, there
is no more need for piling-up funds for that
purpose. But I cannot honestly tell you what
would happen if a profit was earned. It might
go back to the respective jurisdictions. There
is this possibility.
In the case of the Niagara bridge commis-
sion, it operates several bridges. Some are
older than others, so they get to the point that
where the debt is retired on one, they con-
tinue the operation and the earnings from that
bridge to help retire the capital indebtedness
and take care of maintenance and operational
costs on the others. That may be a unique
situation, because it is the only one I am
aware of where there is more than one
bridge. But I can tell you there are areas
in the province now where additional bridges
are being contemplated under existing author-
ities. That is where there is an authority
responsible for the operation and retirement
of an existing bridge, and possibly where the
capital debt is close to retirement. Some
thought is being given that the same author-
ity might well build another bridge and then
have the revenue from two bridges to retire
the indebtedness. This is a possibility. I
think the original bond holders or their trus-
tees would have to be consulted about what
is written into the original trust deed or in-
denture. I would not know, but there is a
variety of considerations involved here. I
think maybe they are about all the com-
ments I can make here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I appreci-
ate that. I am just thinking of the effect on
the province. The hon. Minister of Highways
is building roads right up to the bridge.
I am thinking of the need for tourists and
an attraction for tourists. I gather that the
bridge commissions are independent, that
there is no auditor who looks at whether
they are now making a profit on the basis
of the maintenance after they have paid off
the debentures. Does not any public auditor
keep watch over this? Is the public auditor
in the hon. Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, each author-
ity has its auditors, Mr. Chairman. I think
it should be obvious that the trustees for the
bond holders in any circumstances would
insist on auditors. And this is done. I speak
with some knowledge of how it is done in
the Niagara bridge commission, because I am
a member of it.
Mr. Thompson: My point is, after it is
paid off, how does the public know that and
how does the public benefit from this? The
bridge obviously is there because you have
built a highway and we, the taxpayers, have
paid for this highway. We would want to
know when we get some benefit from this.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Certainly you get
benefits in substantially reduced tolls which
would only be involved to take care of oper-
ation and maintenance costs. This is a major
consideration, I think. They drop down very
materially.
Mr. Thompson: My question, Mr. Chair-
man, is how do you know that happens? I
have a list of all these rates to cross a bridge.
Frankly, I do not know how long the dollar
that you have to charge from Cornwall to
Messina is going on or what the contract is.
Yet I notice that from Windsor to Detroit you
only pay 60 cents. '
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is very difficult
to be specific about this, Mr. Chairman. Some
bridges carry much greater volumes of traffic
than other bridges do. I think a bridge with
a sufficiently high volume of traffic would pro-
duce enough money on a lower toll rate to
take care of these cost factors and debt re-
tirement. That would be the order of things.
But then I can think of other bridges
where the traffic volume is of much less sub-
stantial character. If you are going to meet
the demands again that I have referred to
—debt retirement plus these other cost factors
—from the revenue obtained from fewer vehi-
cles, then it appears rather obvious that the
rate is going to have to be higher.
The authorities set these rates themselves.
We have no control over it; no jurisdiction
1268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at all. I think this may be one of the only
answers I can give the hon. leader of the
Opposition. Certainly, the bridges at Niagara
Falls carry a tremendous number of vehicles
and the rates for all types of vehicles there
is considerably lower than it would be at the
Cornwall-Messina bridge, because of the
volume.
I think that must be one of the principal
reasons for the disparity, I guess would be the
word to say, between these bridge tolls.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, just follow-
ing up on this, I would feel that because
you, as the Minister of Highways, have
obviously contributed to a bridge being
there, you would not have a bridge that
comes over into a pasture land. You have
a bridge connected with a highway. The
public, in having paid for the highway, have
a very real interest in when that bridge is paid
off.
It seems to me there should be a reporting
to you, or perhaps the Provincial Treas-
urer, but I think to the Minister, every
year on the decreasing amount of debenture.
And may I add again that I would assume
that the only private bridge to which you
have built a highway is at Fort Frances,
and I would hope, in view of the fact that the
public of Ontario had paid for a road to go
to Fort Frances and are proud of the road,
that we would not then say to a private
company, "Well, you can take the profits from
here on in with respect to maintaining the
bridge after it is paid off."
In other words, I am saying I think there
is very much an obligation for you to be
looking at a private company at the end of
your road having a bridge and charging a
toll. But I also complete what I said before,
that rather than us guessing at why some
of these rates are lower, and assuming
it is because perhaps they have cut down
on their debentures or they have more traffic
going across them, that we should have the
facts; because this is obviously of great
concern to the Minister and to the people of
Ontario.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
talk about another matter. On Highway 401
at Jane street— I think that is in the riding of
my friend, the hon. member for Yorkview—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
I have just one more little piece of informa-
tion for the hon. leader of the Opposition
and I am sure this may be of interest to him.
Mr. Chairman: I might say, Mr. Minister,
that two or three other members have in-
dicated their interest in bridge construction,
but the member for Downsview was next
on the list.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, well, I was
going to add one more piece of information
for the hon. leader of the Opposition. The
rates, this is precise information, are set out
in the trust deed, and they cannot be changed
unless the trustees are in agreement. And of
course that makes a very great deal of sense,
to me, anyway, I cannot argue with that,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, in the widening
of Highway 401 and the building of the new
entrances and exits, quite a problem was
encountered at 401 and Jane street. I do
not know whether the hon. Minister is aware
of this or not, but there is a rather interest-
ing series of newspaper stories about the
five stores that were apparently going to be
affected by this construction. I notice Mr.
McNab is giving the hon. Minister some
comments on this. Mr. McNab's name comes
into this story in rather a good light. My
complaint is not about the Deputy Minister
but the fact that it perhaps took the depart-
ment a month to get at it.
In any event, there are some five store
owners there who, because of the redesign
of that entrance and exit, found themselves
in a pretty desperate position. And I think
anyone who looked at this would recognize
immediately that they were in a desperate
position. They were about to be put out of
business.
These were older people who had invested
their life savings in variety stores, cleaning
stores, grocery stores, a small restaurant, a
laundromat and that sort of thing. And they
found themselves in a very, very difficult
position. They took their problem to a gentle-
man named Mr. Blevens, and Mr. Blevens
was described in one newspaper story as the
senior expressway design engineer of The
Department of Highways. Mr. Blevens is
quoted in the Globe and Mail of November
27 as having delivered himself of this very
fascinating statement:
It is a hard fact of life, he said, but it
happens all over. What is the difference
between being wiped out by a highway and
by the construction of a supermarket? A
proprietor receives no compensation when
a new supermarket takes all his business,
he noted.
And then Mr. Blevens goes on to say it is
tough, and these poor people are just going
to be out of luck. Well, as I say, the com-
plimentary part is just about to come. Mr.
MARCH 8, 1966
1269
McNab happened to see this in the news-
paper. And mind you, while it took a little
while, on November 27, the next month,
there is another story in the newspaper talk-
ing about moving the highway ramp to
meet objections.
Highway 400 exit ramp for southbound
traffic on Jane street will be built about 200
feet north of the original location, to meet
the objections of local store owners,
A. T. C. McNab, Deputy Minister said
yesterday. The original plans were drawn
in August of 1964 and showed two streets—
and it goes on to describe the difficulties
of the store owners.
Mr. McNab says it is a minor modifica-
tion; he had not heard of the owners'
complaints until he read about them in the
news report about a month ago.
Well, the moral of the story is pretty
obvious, Mr. Minister. First of all, I object
to the callousness of the senior design
engineer. I would think that when he had a
problem like this and could realize there was
real hardship being visited, or about to be
visited, on five store owners, that he should
have gone to the highest source in his depart-
ment and into immediate consultation to see
if anything could be done to help them.
Why did not the senior design engineer,
immediately prior to making what I think
are rather fatuous statements, go to the
Deputy Minister and say, "Here is a prob-
lem, can we do anything about it?" That is
point number one.
Point number two: In the designing of this
highway, why should that not have been con-
sidered, because as you run one of these legs
of a cloverleaf past a bunch of stores, it must
be obvious to any design engineer that you
can well ruin the stores' business. These poor
men can be put out of business, and this was
the way it was going to be.
Point number three: In view of this lack of
internal communication within the depart-
ment, how much extra did this change cost
the people of Ontario?
The hon. Minister was talking a little
earlier about our saying, "Spend more money,
but do not raise the taxes." Well, here is
something where obviously more money was
spent because there were two sets of designs
—at a certain stage along there would have
been a retreat and it must have cost more
money.
Mr. Chairman, I find some substantial con-
cern about the fact that senior officials of the
department take it upon themselves to em-
bark on public discourses which are very cal-
lous, without thoroughly investigating within
the department what can and should be done.
I am glad the Deputy Minister stepped in.
lam sorry he did not get in earlier and I am
sorry that these people had to go through a
month or six weeks of very severe mental
stress and strain. They had to hire a lawyer,
they had to fight their battle. Eventually they
did win, it appears, through the intervention
of the Deputy Minister. This is all to the
good.
The point is, there should be a better
system of building roads and not of worrying
people.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
without any other knowledge of this matter,
I will certainly take it as it has been read
into the record by the hon. member. I would
simply say that it would be my idea that any-
body who represents The Department of
Highways should conduct themselves in a
manner that is quite satisfactory to the public.
I will have to concur with that.
I think that it is probably quite fair to say
that the hon. member is as gratified as we all
are that the Deputy Minister was able to
provide a satisfactory solution and I can tell
him that in the practical sense it did not cost
us anything. We simply shifted a parking lot
on to some property that we owned from an-
other area that we owned, so that, in reality,
the expenditure of funds had taken place for
this complex in any case. We just shifted this
and made it possible to protect these people.
So really, the solution, when we got down to
it, turned out to be quite simple but quite
effective as far as the people were concerned,
and I share the hon. member's concern that
people who deal with the public do not deal
with them in the manner that we hope they
should.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr. Chair-
man, there is a radio programme every Sun-
day morning— I believe it is— and the
commentator is speaking for the weekly
newspapers of Ontario and he always says
that he is speaking to that "great part of
Ontario that lies outside the cities."
Now some hon. members today have
spoken for that great part of Ontario that lies
in and around the cities and, of course, they
have a case from their point of view. But I
do not want the hon. Minister to forget the
statement of the one who speaks for the
newspapers, that he is talking and he should
be acting for that great area that lies outside
the golden horseshoe.
When one looks at the hon. Minister's
schedule for construction during the coming
1270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
year, I am thinking particularly of the Strat-
ford area and the Owen Sound area— now if
hon. members will study those two maps very
carefully, they will have to come to the con-
clusion, Mr. Chairman, that indications of
new construction are more scarce than water-
ing places in the Sahara desert, which is an
indication, I would say, that my hon. friend
is not giving— in my judgment— sufficient at-
tention to those great areas that lie out and
beyond and there are two reasons. In the
first place, they are not being adequately
served for present-day needs and there is no
inclination, it seems to me, on the part of
the hon. Minister to look ahead to what will
be required for the expansion of those areas
in the next decade or so. I think all hon.
members will agree that one of the great
tributaries toward industrial expansion in this
province is the availability of good roads. The
railway trains are growing less and less im-
portant and roads are becoming more and
more important, and unless an area is con-
nected with a good highway, it can have
little or no hope of drawing unto itself indus-
trial capacity.
I am thinking at the moment, to give a
practical example, of No. 10 highway. Now
for years between Port Credit and Brampton
there was the two-lane highway with a ter-
rific amount of traffic, as everyone knows.
Now, lately, you have moved to the place
where four lanes are being provided for at
least part of that area. That is quite true,
but now when you move up Highway 10, up
above Orangeville, you find a sign there that
says, "Rough roads for 10, 15 20 miles"— I
am not sure of the mileage, but quite a long
stretch of miles. It is a crooked road and it
is quite inadequate for the present-day indus-
trial loads that are required if you have an
industrial capacity at the other end of the
line.
And Owen Sound and those places that lie
south of Owen Sound, in my considered judg-
ment, cannot hope to build up their industrial
capacities unless there is an artery that leads
from that town or from that city to the mar-
kets of this province and I believe— and this
is all I am going to say on this; I have said
it before and I will say it again— I believe
tli at one of the greatest contributing factors
that we can have in this province toward a
decentralization of industry, if you will, is to
build good roads so that industry can get to
the place where they manufacture, to the
place where the markets are; and with all
this talk about getting more roads around To-
ronto—well, that is all right. I do not go as
far as some do in saying that they should not
have roads. I think they should; I think their
need is great, but what I want the hon. Min-
ister to keep in his mind is that not only are
the needs of Toronto great, but the needs of
the rest of the province are also great and I
would say that the needs of the rest of the
province should not be subject to the needs
of any other parts of the province but they
should be dealt with as a province and not
as a geographic unit.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
it simply is not possible for me to do any-
thing but concur with the hon. member for
Grey South.
I suggest to him that I am not likely to
forget that coming from the part of the
province that I live in. However, I would
like to come back, once more, to three situa-
tions that are now fait accompli and make
one more reference to the continuance of a
study programme. He may well say that
we study forever and we do not do anything.
In all frankness, in this particular day and
age, I hope when I stress the fact that it is
as important to know where the road should
go and why it should go there as it is to
know how to build it, I hope that the hon.
member would say that that is a pretty sen-
sible way to pursue it.
I have mentioned to the House that we
have studied three areas of the province and
have several more areas under study and I
would like the hon. member to listen once
more because I have indicated to him that
one study that is just about to get under way
will have a very great bearing on the area
that he is concerned about and this one that
I make reference to is the Kitchener-
Waterloo area, and we have another study
that will get under way shortly. It is called
the Owen Sound area transportation study-
more appropriately, I think, it should be
called the Upper Lake Huron-Georgian Bay
study. These two studies will tell us what we
were told in London, what we were told in
the Niagara peninsula, and what we were
told in Ottawa, and we certainly hope to
move in the direction of the implementation
of the recommendations of these studies as
quickly as we possibly can.
I would like to give the hon. member an
example of what will emanate from the
London area transportation study. This
study revealed, without very much doubt,
that a completely new controlled access
corridor between London and Sarnia is
needed, and it is not hard to accept it when
you hear these study reports presented. This
will be given very high priority, but even of
more interest to the hon. member, it showed
MARCH 8, 1966
1271
that Highway 4— we both live on Highway 4
rather some distance apart— but it pointed
out that at least to the northern boundary of
the London area study, Highway 4 was cer-
tainly in the category of an arterial road.
Now these studies border each other; they
overlap each other and when the rest of
them, that I made reference to, are com-
pleted, we will know the story completely
about No. 4 and we will know about High-
way 10.
This may take a little time, Mr. Chairman,
but I think it is a better way to do it than
to just crash in with new construction here
and new construction there. We are going
to do it on a planned basis; certainly we are
not forgetting these areas of the province or
these studies would not be under way.
But we are going to do more than just
study them, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the
hon. member that we are going to accept
the recommendations of the study and on a
staged, planned basis we are going to build
the kind of roads he talks about. There is
no question about it, I agree with him
entirely.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Brant.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
I want to ask the hon. Minister something
about the staged, planned basis of construc-
tion that he has just referred to. The arterial
corridor, a new phrase but a descriptive
one, called Highway 403, that is presently
being extended around the city of Brantford
and heading west toward Woodstock is
scheduled to cross the Grand river in the
long stretch between Gait and Brantford
where there is at present no adequate cross-
ing. The hon. Minister is aware of the fact
that No. 5 highway crosses the Grand river
at Paris at a high level bridge which, in my
view, was not designed to stand the tre-
mendous stress of traffic that it has received
in the years up until the opening of the
Macdonald-Cartier freeway. This bridge, in
my opinion, is in a serious state of disrepair.
Frighteningly so, as far as the people in the
Paris area are concerned, who must cross it
regularly.
I want to bring to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, the fact that in the past few years
there has been every indication that The
Department of Highways is aware of the
increasing difficulty. The bridge has been
narrowed down, there have been special
speed limit signs put up calling for a maxi-
mum speed of 15 miles an hour crossing this
fairly long and very high bridge. There was
a time, a year ago, when watchmen were
posted on this bridge and they were supposed
to ensure that the speed of 15 mph was not
exceeded. Naturally this was a difficult thing
to do, because there still is a heavy volume
of traffic and many very heavy transports
using it.
My own experience, I cross the bridge very
often, is that nobody gets down to the speed
limit of 15 mph. When I inquired about
this I was told by the department that actu-
ally it was the responsibility of the police to
see that the speed limit was not exceeded. I
would not for a moment, Mr. Chairman, stand
here and say that The Department of High-
ways is playing fast and loose with the safety
of the people who are using this road, for
I am sure this is one thing that must be of
prime importance to the engineers and, of
course, to the hon. Minister. The fact remains
the bridge is inadequate. When you cross it
you feel as if it were made of toothpicks and
scotch tape. We are very much concerned
as to the assurances that the hon. Minister
might give us in the House as to its safety
and what programme there is that will ensure
that it is kept up to standards.
There is even one rumour going around
that there is a bailey bridge kept quite handy
in case it does fall in, and he might refer to
that.
Now just in this connection, the relief that
is expected for this bridge is the crossing of
the river a few miles down by the new double
bridge where Highway 403 will cross the
river. Try as we might we cannot get any
definite indication from the department when
this bridge will in fact be built. There are a
lot of statements that have been made through
various agencies associated with the hon.
Minister that it will begin within two years.
It would be a great help if, once the plan is
made to build these large and important new
highways, something more specific than has
been available so far could be given to the
people in the area as far as the timing is
concerned.
Mr. Chairman, rather than stop at this
point and let the hon. Minister comment
further, as I hope he will do, on bridge cross-
ings of the Grand river, it appears to me
that between Caledonia and Gait the cross-
ings are completely inadequate. I feel sure
that in the five to ten years that lie immedi-
ately ahead this will be remedied.
There are a number of plans for these
river crossings and one of the plans that I
hope the hon. Minister is considering most
carefully is the request that was put before
him by a delegation from the Six Nations
1272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reserve so that the two parts of this reserve
that are divided by the Grand river would be
joined by a suitable bridge. I know the hon.
Minister will say that the responsibility for
this lies with the federal government, and
yet in Ontario his department is the main
agency that must make the plans and execute
the construction of these important, and of
course, expensive projects.
I was present with the delegation in his
office and I must say to you, sir, that we
were royally received and the representations
of the Six Nations council were listened to
attentively. The hon. Minister sent out a
group of people who were going to examine
the warrants for such a bridge and, if I
understand this correctly, they have a sys-
tem whereby they would examine just what
the need is.
But in this case I want to say to you, sir,
that the regular warrants simply cannot apply
if these in fact refer to the proposed usage
by numbers of cars and so on, because a
special community within our province is di-
vided by the river. The one section of the
reserve that is cut off from the main town
and the main population is lost to the use of
the Indians through rentals to the white pop-
ulation simply because they do not have ready
access to it. If they are going to consider any
farming of the small part of the reserve that
is removed from them by the river, they have
to trundle their equipment many miles around
through Brantford or Caledonia in order to
get across. The alternative is to cross on
the ice in the winter time; which of course, is
being done, but this is not useful in the
harvest and regular farming season.
So in this whole area the crossings of the
Grand river are of great and growing im-
portance. I hope that the hon. Minister will
be able to give us some definite indication of
what the plans are for the rebuilding of the
crossing of Highway 5 at Paris, the new
crossing on 403 and the possibility of doing
something for the very pressing needs of the
people on the Indian reserve.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
think I can.
The hon. member will recall we have said
on a number of occasions that we would
attempt to repair the bridge. I think you
will be pleased to learn that upon investiga-
tion we find that it is going to cost too much
to repair it. Our estimates of the cost of
repair approximate $800,000, and our esti-
mates of the cost of a new bridge run
around $1,250,000, so it is simply not econo-
mical to repair it
Mr. Nixon: Is this the bridge at Paris?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This is the
bridge at Paris. Certainly we will rebuild
the bridge, it is a matter of simple economy,
I think. With the kind of money I have made
reference to here now we can have a new
bridge rather than a patched up or repaired
one; this is the sensible thing to do. This is
our present plan. I would like to be more
specific about when, presumably we can now
commence the design of a new facility rather
than plan for the reconstruction of the old
one.
As far as the bridge over Highway 403 is
concerned, this is definitely planned for con-
struction in 1967. I can assure the hon.
member of that now and make the statement
here that it will be on our 1967 construction
programme.
Now we come to the bridge of the Six
Nations reserve. I am going to have to dis-
cuss this with the people that we assigned to
do the investigation work while you were
there with the representatives of the Six
Nations reserve. If you will permit me to
find out what they have accomplished, I
will certainly pass it along to you, but I can-
not do it at the moment.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma-
Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. Min-
ister a question, if I may, on matters that
will take us even further into the hinterlands
than either the first two previous speakers.
I am sorry if I have not been able to quite
understand the application of some of the
changes in the budget this year as it affects
the unorganized townships. I realize we
have passed this particular item and I will
make my question very short.
The hon. Minister yesterday made a re-
mark to the effect that certainly some of
these roads should never have been built in
the places they were. I can certainly agree
with that, but in the meantime people live
on those roads and people have to get to
school on those roads. The hon. Minister
will immediately say that there is an arrange-
ment through the statute labour board and
local roads boards to take care of these
matters.
In some of the townships, as he knows,
and I know very well, this will never work
and this will never build those roads. In
several places in Algoma, and there are
dozens of this kind of township there with
MARCH 8, 1966
1273
an assessment in the area of $1,000 a mile,
we just never will get these roads. It must
be a problem that I know the hon. Minister
has looked at. I am wondering if there is
some way, through the increase in the budget
this year, in the estimates this year, that he
has taken this into consideration in a way
that will be a little bit easier to get some
relief to these people.
Now for instance, we do have some of
these roads, and I will have to say that part
of one of them is a King's highway, where
school children had to go by boat over a
section of road— by bus to a point, by boat to
a point, by bus from there to a school-
through several parts of the seasons last
year. This means that this road is finished.
Under any circumstances, neither statute
labour board or roads board will ever rebuild
these roads. Could I have a comment on
this, please?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes Mr. Chair-
man, I think I would almost be inclined to
ask the hon. member, either now or at some
future occasion, to be specific about these
situations. I am quite prepared to review
them on an individual basis with the hon.
member at any time. But to say across the
board just what is to be done about that
type of road is a little difficult. If you have
specific situations in specific townships that
you are concerned about, I should be very
happy to look into what can or should be
done. If you would care to indicate the
section of King's highway that was under
water, there is another situation we would be
happy to discuss with you. But I would have
to have something of a more specific nature,
I would say to the hon. member.
Mr. Farquhar: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know that I have brought the matter of the
road under water to the hon. Minister's
attention. I have certainly brought to his
attention a great many times the specific
roads that I am talking about in Algoma,
the King's highway north of Bruce Mines,
and I cannot remember the number of the
particular highway at the moment. This is
the area that I am speaking about particu-
larly, this whole area up there, a depressed
area and an area that is not going to be able
to do what needs to be done for those roads
under either statute labour or local roads
boards arrangements.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to comment on the bridges
at Niagara Falls; they were mentioned here
several times earlier in the day. They were
talking about prices in crossings and how
much they charge on individual bridges.
The Peace bridge, I know, does not come
under the commission that the hon. Minister
sits on.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not trying
to choke this off, Mr. Chairman, but dis-
cussion on matters related to international
bridges under the capital construction vote of
The Department of Highways is very much
out of order, I would suggest.
Mr. Bukator: It is funny that it should be
out of order at this particular time.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: There is no men-
tion in here. These bridges are not even the
property of The Department of Highways.
We have nothing to do with them.
Mr. Bukator: This is what I was coming to.
I was trying to make a point and give this
House some information that they appar-
ently do not know about. You were all
floundering around here, talking about the
prices of bridges, and I thought, Mr. Chair-
man, my comment would be in order. It is
a remarkable thing that others can get the
stage, but I have to be stymied at this stage.
Mr. Chairman: I suggest that the member
for Niagara Falls-
Mr. Bukator: I would suggest that the
Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: —should not be stymied,
that other members have been permitted to
speak on it and I will rule him in order.
Mr. Bukator: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I was going to say that at the
Peace bridge you can get a book of tickets.
This is relevant to our bridges as the hon.
Minister is a member of that board. You
can get a book of tickets at Fort Erie. You
can cross the bridge with one ticket, which
costs you 25 cents at least if cashed, whether
there be one in the car or five. There is
no difference in charges for the number of
passengers in the car. This is a 25 cent
charge. If you buy a book of tickets, it is a
little less than 20 cents, whether it be one
or five. This is very cheap and there is
nothing to compare to it, I do not believe,
in any international bridge in the country.
In the meantime, I would like to mention
also the private bill that was presented here
some years ago— three years ago, to be exact.
1274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They give grants in lieu of taxes, Mr. Minis-
ter, to the tune of $64,000 a year to the town
of Fort Erie, because their bridge is prac-
tically paid for. This is the point I want to
make. And so, because they have the
money, they are giving a lower rate to cross
and they are also paying to the municipality
a portion of the money towards taxes, a grant
in lieu of. Now to get to the Rainbow bridge.
The Rainbow bridge has a similar arrange-
ment, only you can buy a book of tickets, I
believe, for $2.50. The local residents buy a
book of tickets and have three months in
which they can use those tickets. The authori-
ties put a date on it, they stamp it the day you
buy it, and if you go across that bridge just
once, as I have done on many occasions,
and not go back across that bridge again,
it costs $2.50 to cross the bridge once.
I would think that this concession could be
given to the residents in an international area
such as that is. This request has never been
made of the department before, or of the
bridge commission on which you sit. I be-
lieve this should be considered in favour of
the people of that area to allow the purchaser
to use the tickets until they are all used, re-
gardless of date.
The point I was trying to make also, since
you have taken over the Whirlpool bridge, is
that when it was a private bridge it paid to
that city some $38,000 a year in taxes. For
five years after the bridge commission took
over the Whirlpool bridge— it was bought
from a private company— a grant was paid in
lieu of taxes to the tune of $38,000. There
was no statute that the bridge commission
should pay this, or The Department of High-
ways should pay it, the parks commission
contributed the $38,000 for five consecutive
years. When that agreement ran out, the
grant was cut off. I think it has been so for
the past two years.
The reason I draw this to your attention is
that since the hon. Minister is on the bridge
commission, and since this grant has been cut
off, as I mentioned in the House last year, I
think this should be given consideration. Why
should the government take over from private
enterprise and then deprive that municipality
of its just dues? I make this point very briefly
and I will quit at this point with the particu-
lar request to give the people of that area the
opportunity to use their tickets until they are
used up.
This is no different than they do at the
south end in the Peace bridge area. I do not
think this would hurt the commission finan-
cially at all. The tickets are there; it would
entice me to go back after the third month,
rather than because you charge per passenger
and for car. If there are three in the car, I
think it is something like 60 or 70 cents each
way. So I think if I make two trips I can
use up my $2.50. I buy the tickets and I find
I leave them in my glove compartment, and
I am in Toronto rather than home. I have
lost that amount of money for those tickets.
I believe that your commission should look
at this very seriously, and possibly make this
concession to the people of that area.
The question I was going to ask you when
I got to my feet, pertaining to construction
about the bridges, is as follows.
In your estimates, you indicate that you are
going to spend some money in the traffic
circle at the Rainbow bridge. My question is
are you also going to do some work under
the bridge where the stores are? I under-
stand that the leases of the people who are
there will expire this fall. Is the purpose of
not renewing those leases— and I have only
heard this, I have not spoken to any of the
tenants there— for the purpose of widening
that road?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: There are a num-
ber of items here. Probably the disparity
between the tolls on the Rainbow bridge and
the bridges under the jurisdiction of the
Niagara bridge commission versus the Peace
bridge at Fort Erie would be the debentures
or bonds issued by the Niagara bridge com-
mission, secured by three bridges. There are
three bridges to maintain, three bridges to
operate. So this may account for the disparity
in the rates of toll. Again, the tolls are part
of the agreement with the debenture holders.
I pointed that out before, when we were dis-
cussing this matter. These bridges must be
self-supporting, that is the story. However,
these are matters I will be happy to take up
at a subsequent meeting with the bridge
commission. I cannot speak for the commis-
sion here today; it is not possible.
The matter of the redevelopment of the
bridge plaza area has nothing particularly to
do with road widening or anything. It is
simply what I have said; it is a contemplated
complete redevelopment of the bridge plaza
area. I would hope the hon. member would
agree with me that this is overdue. The
bridge plaza area is not quite in keeping with
the general character of Niagara Falls, On-
tario. So we are in the process of contem-
plating, as a matter of fact we hope to
present our ideas and concepts for, the rede-
velopment to an early meeting of the bridge
commission, probably within the next few
days. So we are contemplating something
that will completely face-lift the whole bridge
MARCH 8, 1966
1275
plaza area that the hon. member is very
familiar with.
Mr. Bukator: This is the point I was trying
to get at. I might say to you, Mr. Chairman,
that on occasions in the past when they con-
sidered a complex of that type or even re-
vamping and reconstructing roads, the hon.
Minister has been good enough to invite me
to sit in. After your preliminary meetings
with the bridge commission, I hope the hon.
Minister intends to extend that courtesy to
me; I would like to know what is going on,
since the hon. Minister said we are in the
process of bringing plans about.
Mr. Chairman: I should explain to the
member for Niagara Falls that as far as the
collection of bridge tolls is concerned, it
comes under section 4 of vote 801. I did not
want him to think that I had allowed other
members to speak and I would not allow him,
although technically it was out of order.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Chairman, we are on 807, I believe?
Mr. Chairman: Correct!
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: While I sit here I
listen in amazement and consternation to the
criticisms and the talk about roads in Ontario
which leads me to believe that the majority
of the hon. members of the Opposition never
travel over roads in this province.
I would like to say something about the
road situation prior to 1943, when my friends
the Liberals were in power. This will make
you laugh, and rightly so.
The Liberal Opposition before 1943 had
a great habit up in my area a little west of
Port Arthur to build a road there. It was
called "The road to Duluth." And every year
our member would make an announcement
that this road would be paved, and the same
contractor got the job every year. He would
go out— my hon. friend who is smiling over
there would know about this— he would go
out and lay about two inches of blacktop for
five miles on the road to Duluth. That was
the road paving in Lakehead. By spring it
would be broken up and the same contractor
would get the same job again and he lived
off that for 10 or 15 years.
That was the great Liberal Party contribu-
tion to highways in the Lakehead area. Now
the NDP has come into the picture. They
were all Liberals before, but they got tired
and formed a new party of their own. I just
want to compliment you—
Mr. Chairman: Do you think this properly
comes under vote 807?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Yes, this is con-
struction, I am talking about now. In my
area I will tell you about some of the roads
we have. The trans-Canada highway— and
any of you who wish to travel over a beauti-
ful road, travel east from Port Arthur to
Sault Ste. Marie and on down. You will see
curves there and cuts that cost a million
and a half or more dollars a mile. You will
see the finest road of any place in the world,
both east and west from the city of Port
Arthur down to Toronto and farther east.
We are very proud of our Department of
Highways up there. We have a lovely road
to Duluth, which is kept in fine shape.
Last year, many of the hon. members
in the Opposition travelled up to Atikokan
and Fort Frances to see that marvellous
Noden causeway opened; a beautiful road,
the like of which you will never see in any
other part of the world.
Highway 17 west to Winnipeg; and then
on the northern route we have Highway 11,
another beautiful road. In my area again we
see, starting next year, Mr. Chairman, the
ring road which is going to be a marvellous
thing for our two cities and that whole area
up there.
Mr. Chairman, I think The Department of
Highways has done marvellous work, and I
hate to hear somebody get up and talk about
some little bridge or some toll that is two
cents too high or some petty criticism of
that kind, when we should be talking about
big things in the biggest province in Canada;
a province that has been made the greatest
in Canada simply by the work of departments
such as our Department of Highways today.
Now, let us say something about the per-
sonnel.
Mr. Chairman: Before the Minister starts
this, the member for Ottawa East wants to
know if he will answer a question.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I would be very
glad to.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question to ask of the
hon. Minister. Has he ever travelled in
eastern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Who, me? I lived
there for years.
Mr. Racine: Apparently he must not have,
because according to one of the hon. mem-
bers opposite, in the last federal election,
speaking in the great county of Renfrew
South, he referred to Highway 17 as being a
"goat trail."
1276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Does Highway 17
run through there?
Mr. Chairman: Is this a question?
Mr. Racine: I want an answer from the
hon. Minister.
An hon. member: Is this a goat trail?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I have been from
coast to coast and I think the hon. member
has alternate routes there, does he not? He is
talking about the Ottawa Valley road. Do not
forget that there are two roads, one of them
that is a lot better than the one the hon.
member was speaking of. So that he is well
served. He has no kick there because he has
two routes to use.
However, I wanted to mention another
thing in connection with construction, and
that is new roads that we have going into our
mining areas in my area and farther west.
This is construction still, Mr. Chairman.
The road into Red Lake, which is 100 and
some miles long, is a road that you would
be proud of in the city of Toronto— all paved
with the exception of 10 miles; that is all
there is to finish. And that road is one that
is taking you 110 miles north of Highway 17
to serve the great mines in the Red Lake
district, and the new one that is going to be
built now at Bruce Lake.
This department is doing a tremendous
amount of work that hon. Opposition gentle-
men do not see, and one reason they can
criticize so badly is because the people in the
eastern part of the province do not get up
there to disprove Opposition statements here.
I for one will not stand here and hear this
department criticized, and its personnel
criticized, because for my money and for the
moneys of the people of Ontario, they are do-
ing a great construction job.
I might mention two of our civil servants
who are sitting in front of the hon. Minister.
I would hate to tell you how many years they
have been with the department, what knowl-
edge they have of roadbuilding when some
of you have been in this House for about
two years and have never seen a road built—
a lot of you. I think criticism of that kind
is unfair and the hon. members seem to pick
out the tiny little things that they have
to criticize and forget to look at the overall
picture that is evolving in this province of one
of the finest road systems in this world.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say another
thing, I will just mention it, and that is winter
travel in this province as you know is just
about as tough as any place in the world.
Mr. Chairman: Under new construction,
vote 807.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Well, this is concern-
ing snowplowing.
But I think the hon. members over there
have noticed what happens after a heavy
snowstorm? Every vehicle in The Depart-
ment of Highways is out, day or night, clean-
ing those roads to make travel safe for the
population of this province.
Gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing
but praise for The Department of Highways;
and all I can say to the hon. Minister is to
congratulate his staff and tell them to carry
on with the good work because the people
of this province are well satisfied with what
they are doing.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Chairman: Of course I shall have to
rule the last statement out of order!
Some hon. members: hear, hear!
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
may I say just one word with respect to what
the hon. Minister of Mines has just said?
Mr. Chairman: If your colleague will yield
the floor.
Mr. Bryden: I do not think that I will
have any trouble with him, sir.
I must say, and I think I speak for all
hon. members of the House when I say, that
I am tickled to death to see the hon. Minister
of Mines back in such good form again,
soaring all over the rafters. I think this is one
of the best efforts I have heard him make and
he has made a great many good ones in the
House.
It is not very long ago, Mr. Chairman,
when the hon. Minister used to get up under
the estimates of department after department
and make the same laudatory speech about
the entire department from the Minis-
ter down to the lowliest office boy. I take it
that he has now concluded that The Depart-
ment of Highways is the only department
worthy of such praise and I am inclined to
agree with him.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: You mean you are
excluding The Department of Mines?
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to get back down to
MARCH 8, 1966
1277
earth and look at some of the problems that
we have in the highways situation.
I would like to bring to the attention of
the hon. Minister a problem that we have in
the Hamilton area concerning the construc-
tion of the overhead signs. As you know we
now have two main highways running in or
around Hamilton, which are the new 403 and
the Queen Elizabeth Way.
The 403 starts about eight to ten miles
outside of Hamilton with a great big sign,
"Hamilton— You go by 403." Now if you take
the other way over the skyway bridge, which
was always the main way into the east end
of Hamilton and still is the main way, you
will discover a big sign saying "Niagara
Falls" and nothing about Hamilton at all.
Most of the tourists and people going to
Hamilton would prefer to know that there
are two ways to go to Hamilton.
The business people in the east end of
Hamilton are really losing out because a
stranger going into Hamilton will go in on
403 which actually goes right through the
west end of Hamilton. If they want to go
to the east end they have to go completely
through the city, about an hour's drive. I
wonder if it would not be possible to erect
a sign there that would indicate that one
could go to Hamiltton through the Queen
Elizabeth Way, too?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
we will certainly examine this. What the
hon. member says seems sensible and we
will have a look into it.
Mr. Chairman: I suppose, Mr. Minister,
that for the satisfaction of the member,
this would properly come under vote 803.
We discussed signs at that time, but I did
not want to cut the member off.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister regarding a problem
that has been a vexing one in my riding for
some time. As the hon. Minister knows this
government has spent more money on high-
ways in Yorkview than perhaps in any other
single riding during the past year or so. In
that process they have probably not only built
a top quality highway through that riding,
but have also created some very great prob-
lems for people living adjacent to the road.
A couple of years ago some agreement was
reached and a 50-foot line was established
from the edge of the pavement within which
people's property would be purchased. I
wonder if the hon. Minister could tell us
how many settlements have now been made
on the basis of the agreement at that time?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would have to say to the hon. member that
while we were involved with the original
considerations that were followed in terms of
the purchase of these homes, he will recall
that The Ontario Housing Act was the vehi-
cle that was used for the purchase. Now
The Ontario Housing Act is administered by
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Randall). I do not have this pre-
cise information; I could get it but I think
the hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment, who has conducted the actual opera-
tion, could give the hon. member this
information in due course.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, my problem is
that if I wait for those estimates to get the
information then I cannot come back to the
hon. Minister of Highways in the House be-
cause his estimates will have been completed.
The problem is a very simple one: If those
transactions have in fact been completed,
there are other transactions that should be
completed following that. In other words,
there are properties lying along the highway
which have flankage along the highway bring-
ing the houses within a very few feet of the
edge of the highway right of way. Now these
are the people who are very seriously affected.
In the case of some of the other homes
that are being bought, the back of the lot
might be 100 feet or 150 feet in some
cases from the houses. These are being
taken in and are being purchased. But many
of the houses with flankage and therefore
lying very close to the highway are being
ignored. They are just outside the 50-foot
line.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister if
there has been any further consideration
given toward these people? Is there any
thought on the part of the hon. Minister
that there might be an extension of that 50-
foot line in certain specific cases where hard-
ship is being suffered by people whose
flankage lies along the highway?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say that
there certainly has not been by The Depart-
ment of Highways, Mr. Chairman. We cer-
tainly had something to do with the original
rules, but since that time the implementa-
tion of those rules and the purchase of these
properties has been exclusively the preroga-
tive of the hon. Minister who administers
The Ontario Housing Act.
It is possible that the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development — he is not here,
but I am confident that if the hon. member
1278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
requests this information of him it will be
given him. I could probably obtain it from
the hon. Minister but then so can the hon.
member. On the other hand, I can say with
some degree of assurance that there has
been no departure from the original terms
of reference. I think the hon. member will
find that when he gets confirmation from
the hon. Minister.
Mr. Young: I will ask the hon. Minister of
Economics and Development about this
when the time comes but the problem, I
am afraid, is going to be that he cannot act
without some assurance from the hon. Min-
ister of Highways that money will be forth-
coming or that the techniques will be worked
out so that he can act. The people on Lome
Bruce drive and Culford road and other
places are wondering just what is going to
happen and I do not want to be caught in
this problem of the hon. Minister here say-
ing that it is the—
Mr. Chairman: I would remind the mem-
ber for Yorkview that the hour is five o'clock.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs) moves that the committee rise and
report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report progress and
asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
8, by Mr. F. R. Oliver,
Resolved,
That, the Ontario water resources com-
mission be instructed to report upon the
feasibility of piping water from the Great
Lakes to drought areas in western Ontario.
Notice of motion No. 12, by Mr. E. W.
Sopha,
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is
deplorable that the citizens of many
organized municipalities have not got ade-
quate and certain supplies of fresh and
potable water, nor have the citizens of
many municipalities adequate sewage dis-
posal facilities, and, in the opinion of this
House, adequate water and sewage serv-
ices are a minimum requirement for the
protection of health, enjoyment of a
reasonable standard of living and the
attraction and development of industrial
growth. This House is further of the
opinion that the government has lacked
direction and purpose in providing for
many thousands of our citizens their mini-
mum requirements of fresh water and
reasonable facilities of sewage disposal.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I move,
seconded by Mr. Nixon, resolution No. 12
standing in my name which has just been
read.
Mr. Speaker, it is trite but basic to say
that in relation to everything else that exists,
water along with air and sunlight is a funda-
mental essential to the emergence and con-
tinuation of human life in the form in which
we know it on this planet. Accordingly, if
problems exist, as they do, and indeed exist
in very gross and anxious form, in relation
to the supply of fresh water to inhabitants
of this part of the planet over which this
Legislature has jurisdiction, then perhaps it
is not an exaggeration to say that there is no
problem with which this governing body
ought to be more anxiously concerned than
that of water.
Since man began in his gregarious fashion
to assemble together in fairly compact units
of population, whether they be cities, towns
or townships as we know them, there has
been always extant the problem of making
available to these various units of population
density, adequate supplies of fresh water.
Such water supplies represent one aspect and
important as it is, only one part of total
water services for another aspect which is
an outgrowth of the fact that man, on
birth, immediately becomes a waste-producing
animal. These wastes, organically and indus-
trially, he produces in large quantities. He
can do three things with his wastes and all
of them involve contamination. He can bum
them and he pollutes the air. He can bury
them and he pollutes the ground or he can
put them in watercourses and he pollutes
the watercourses.
Uncritical judgment treats the problem of
the provision of fresh water supplies as
occupying one compartment of human
activity and the problem of disposal of
wastes in watercourses as being a different
problem. In truth the conservation of avail-
able water supplies and their freedom from
pollution are two subjects which, in fact,
are one.
At the outset to give the appropriate con-
text which later remarks deserve, and in
MARCH 8, 1966
1279
dealing with matters inherent in these two
resolutions, Mr. Speaker, I charge upon this
Legislature the responsibility of being
trustees in the truest sense in which these
words can be used, for the people of this
province of our water resources. For greater
certainly I say that each and every mem-
ber of this House holds in trust for those
outside this House, the supplies of fresh
water with which we are providentially en-
dowed.
This vital trust is coupled, inescapably,
with the responsibility to so order events as
well and as reasonably as they can be
ordered by intelligent minds, to the end that
no citizen of this province regardless of his
financial or other status is denied the basic
standard of living which is a reflection of
having available to him, adequate supplies of
fresh water and reasonably efficient sewage
disposal facilities.
If that is the norm which our people are
•entitled to reach, then I will show illustra-
tively that, with many municipalities involv-
ing large groups of people, the standards fall
sadly and shockingly short of it. In other
words I am saying that it is so intimate a
responsibility to each and every member of
this House, whether he supports the govern-
ment or rests in Opposition, that the respon-
sibility cannot be sloughed off by saying that
the Legislature before us has set up an in-
dependent commission to carry out our
responsibility. I reject that excuse and I
shall take the time of the House to examine
to what degree of efficiency that independent
commission, the Ontario water resources
commission, has carried out its functions.
The bill which was the genesis of the
Ontario water resources commission, passed
this Legislature ten years ago. It is abso-
lutely clear that during the days when the
Premier of the province used to introduce
important pieces of legislation as expressions
of policy for the government which he
headed, that the hon. Mr. Frost was pre-
occupied with the problem of pollution. He
said so when he said:
It is quite apparent that what I said on
the introduction of this bill, as to its im-
portance and its implications, was by no
means an overstatement. This is an
immensely important and far-reaching
matter. It means that the problems of
water contamination and pollution in this
province have to be faced. Every muni-
cipality must become conscious of this and
must take steps to eliminate it. It re-
moves the difficulties of securing money,
from a credit standpoint, and will provide
ways and means for the retirement of costs
involved on a long-term basis. Municipali-
ties are, of course, empowered to proceed
on their own.
Yet the committee known as the water
resources supply committee, out of which the
OWRC grew, had ten terms of reference
which bear recital if only to provide a
gauge, a measuring stick, to determine to
what extent the OWRC has fulfilled the
reasons for its creation. They were asked to
consider and deal with the following:
1. The present and prospective need for
an integrated system of water supply in
Ontario with particular reference to south-
western Ontario.
2. The best method of providing ade-
quate quantities of suitable water to munic-
palities, industries, agriculture and other
consumers.
3. The extent of pollution in the lakes,
rivers and streams, and the best means of
controlling it.
4. The effects of the construction of an
integrated water supply system or systems
to municipalities on local water tables and
on the availability of water resources for
agriculture, including irrigation and other
purposes.
5. What legislation may be necessary to
ensure satisfactory control of the water
resources as well as the legislation which
may be required to provide for transmission
of water from source to municipality or
user.
6. The estimated cost of an adequate
system or systems and the best means
for financing such system or systems on
a self-liquidating basis.
7. The co-ordination of action by munic-
ipalities and the provincial government
in the financing, administration and control
of the water system or systems.
8. The best administrative organization
for maintaining continuity of operation and
expansion, and for providing efficient man-
agement and effective safeguards to ensure
the purity and adequacy of water supplies.
9. The urgency of each portion of the
water system or systems so that a schedule
of priority of completion may be provided.
10. The best means of ensuring the prov-
ince's continued control over water re-
sources, particularly with reference to
provisions of the international boundary
water treaties and other relevant statutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make at this time
this fundamental point. The provision of
adequate supplies of fresh water and the
1280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
creation of adequate sewage disposal facilities
are economic matters which exist outside of
the normal operation of the laws of supply
and demand, that is to say, that the problem
operates separate and apart from the ordinary
working of our economic system. If the citizen
needs water for his daily living then no
private enterprise, apart from very isolated
instances, is going to supply it to him. On the
one hand the capital cost is often gigantic,
on the other hand it is unprofitable.
Only society acting co-operatively through
government can satisfy the demands for and
the human needs of fresh water. Therefore
we arrive at this simple question: Is the
OWRC fulfilling its purposes and tasks in
providing for our people in organized centres
of population adequate supplies of fresh
water and sewage facilities? I for one, for my
own part, am ready to say categorically that
it is not, and I say it emphatically. In truth
it is open to one who has no need in politics
to put on a blindfold to reality to say that the
Ontario water resources commission, in the
ten years since its inception, has grown like
a dinosaur, and like the dinosaur its brain
is too small for its body and again, like the
dinosaur, if it cannot respond to the environ-
ment in which it operates, it must disappear.
To illustrate with reference to the area I
know best, look at the Sudbury basin. Pic-
ture the Sudbury basin, metaphorically as
being represented by a saucer, the rim being
composed of precambrian rocks and the
centre composed of agricultural soil. The city
of Sudbury is situated on the southeastern
portion of the rim. The central portion of the
saucer, lower in elevation than the rim, is
comprised of a number of municipalities,
and not all of the municipalities, it should
be said, are plagued with water problems.
Those that make up the principality of the
International Nickel Company, that is,
Copper Cliff, Levack, Lively and Creighton,
have no problems. Mother Inco has decreed
and has provided the funds to grant to
the inhabitants of those communities quite
satisfactory sewage and water services.
No one, but no one, in any way wants to
detract or derogate from what they have
achieved. But one is entitled to say, and I do
say it, that particularly in regard to water
service, what is sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander. If the aforementioned mu-
nicipalities have had directly conferred on
them by a paternalistic industrial giant,
which feeds on the entire area or region,
those services to which normal living entitles
the inhabitants, then why should not the
inhabitants of Capreol, Hanmer, Blezard,
Rayside, Balfour and Dowling townships and
indeed the most important municipal unit
of all by virtue of its size, the city of Sud-
bury, also enjoy the same normal services?
I digress from this theme for a moment.
A half century ago surveyors came along
and laid out six-mile square townships which
eventually became units of municipal govern-
ment. The boundaries are fictional, unobserv-
able lines, arbitrarily set. These boundaries
I say have no relevance, absolutely no rele-
vance, to the intelligent solution of the prob-
lem of providing fresh water and sewage
facilities to the inhabitants of the municipali-
ties in the second group I have named.
Of course the problem is regional. Water-
sheds have no concern for man-made boun-
daries except as man used them to be
boundaries. In this geographic and political
complex as I have described, early this year
the Ontario water resources commission
arrived in its full majesty. The commission
had summoned political representatives of
all the municipalities to discuss water and
sewage problems. Those with problems came
to the public meeting. Those without water
problems stayed away. I attended and I can
fairly report that those who came, came in
a state of bewilderment, not knowing what
they were to meet. They came not in any
spirit of co-operation to solve a common
problem; on the contrary, they came as re-
presentatives of political units which had a
problem, a very anxious problem, a problem
that transcended artificial political boun-
daries and of the practical engineering solu-
tion to their problem they had but little
preparation.
The commission listened to them and at
the end the commission suggested that each
of them go back and pass a resolution asking
for a study by the commission.
Well, very few of them have passed that
resolution and their failure to pass it, I say
objectively, speaks loudly of the suspicion
with which they treat the commission. They
know that a study is going to cost them
money, they don't know how much money
but they know that if it leads to a project
then that project is going to cost them money
and they don't know how much money nor
any of the other important implications.
You see, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you out
of my own experience that the Ontario water
resources commission is not known for its
generosity. It doesn't give anything away.
Anything it gives it expects to get paid for
and with interest.
Now to return to the meeting. At the end
of it the commission issued an edict to the
city of Sudbury, an edict worthy in every
MARCH 8, 1966
1281
way of comparison to an imperialistic czarist
ukase. This was directed to the city of Sud-
bury and the city of Sudbury was ordered to
build a sewage treatment plant within five
years which would cost millions of dollars.
I can tell you here and now that the council
of the city of Sudbury, together with the tech-
nical and engineering experts which staff the
administration, are, taken together, a very
responsible group of people.
They know that the citizens of the city are
already overburdened with debentured debt
and the natural query is "where do we get
the money?" It is all right for the OWRC
to issue its orders but who, it may be asked
legitimately, is going to pay the cost of carry-
ing out the order? Sewage disposal facilities
and a sewage treatment plant are very
anxious problems to the council. They are
only a part of the problem.
Adequate supplies of fresh water for a
population past the 80,000 mark and grow-
ing, is quite another problem and a problem
of considerable magnitude. It is safe to say
that the political heads of the city are very
conscious of water. They must go to sleep
thinking about it for they know that the last
administration was defeated at the polls be-
cause of water. The housewife turned on her
tap and out of it came a stinking, putrid,
unpalatable, unpotable solution, unfit for
humans.
This last autumn, sir, fathers, mothers
and children sought ground water where and
when they could get it. They journeyed to
faucets provided in the eastern part of the
city. They lined up outside the beneficient
business in the north end which provided a
tap which emitted ground water. The brew-
ery which is a good citizen in the community,
provided large quantities of filtered water.
This they did for weeks on end, ungrudgingly
and without complaint as typifies the phleg-
matic people that occupy that city— but came
the first Monday of December, they went to
the polls and they turned out the administra-
tion because the administration refused to
recognize that good decent people in the
modern world don't have to drink a solution
which literally contains millions of the dead
bodies of organisms. Algae is nature's way of
setting up a process which tends toward the
purification of water, but nature's process is
too unpalatable for human consumption.
Sudbury gets its water from the Ramsay
watershed and Lake Ramsay is landlocked
with no large increments flowing into it. My
point is, and I wish to emphasize and re-
emphasize it, that there comes a time in
human affairs when we have had too many
studies, when the time for further study is
past, when the time for action is required.
The OWRC ought to have arrived at the
point long ago where it must take the lead
in assisting the people of Sudbury and their
political representatives to determine whether
Lake Ramsay is to continue to be the reser-
voir from which water supplies for the city
of Sudbury will be drawn, or whether some
alternative source is to be used. If Lake
Ramsay, which apparently has supplies suffi-
cient to meet the demands for a further ten
years, is to be the source of our water, then
action must be taken to bring large addi-
tional amounts of water into the lake.
I am no engineer. I don't profess to have
technical competence to advise on such mat-
ters, but those who are skilled in these arts
point out that among the solutions to the
problem of the supply of potable water to the
citizens of Sudbury are these:
(1) The bringing of water from the
Wahnapitae river, five to eight miles to
the east. The distance depending respec-
tively on whether Lake Ramsay is or is not
used as a reservoir.
(2) The bringing of large amounts of
water directly to the city of Sudbury from
Lake Wahnapitae, 18 miles distant, with
or without the use of Lake Ramsay as a
reservoir.
(3) The bringing of water from Lake
Wahnapitae using an intermediate Sud-
bury basin reservoir such as Whitson
lake.
This latter system, while no doubt more
costly, would be a regional rather than a city
plan and would have the beneficial effect of
providing water for the Sudbury basin. How-
ever, and this is very important, since in the
present circumstances this cost would be a
burden for Sudbury city taxpayers, they are
quite naturally and properly opposed to the
co-operative plan.
My point is simply this, since in the long
run the government controls the taxing
power, the spending power and the juris-
dictional limits of the city of Sudbury, as
well as the other Sudbury basin communities,
surely this government must take the lead in
providing the best service for all without
placing the great bulk of the burden on the
long-suffering people of Sudbury. The long-
term solution to the water problem demands
that in doing so, the government is bound to
intelligently seek for, and obtain, the advice
of those technically qualified to advise on the
engineering problems and the cost thereof.
It is not sufficient that the government
1282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
carry out its political and indeed moral
responsibility simply by holding puerile,
disturbing and troublemaking meetings which
tend to set one community against the
other, such as the one I have described,
and in issuing orders to a struggling city
already overburdened with debt. And I
want to say this in the clearest possible terms
so that no man will misunderstand me, and I
hope the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. Spooner) listens to these few brief
sentences. I want to say this in the clearest
possible terms, so that I will not be misunder-
stood.
Water and sewage services being a mini-
mum requirement for the protection of
health and the enjoyment of a reasonable
standard of living, the industry carried on in
the Sudbury basin must bear its full measure
of financial responsibility for the cost of the
provision of adequate water and sewage
facilities in regard to water services. I see
no difference between the government com-
ing along as it did and saying to this indus-
try: you must be responsible for financial
assistance to the indigent; you must be re-
sponsible for financial assistance to the aged-
no difference between them and in saying to
this industry, in the clearest possible terms,
you must be responsible for paying a fair
share of the cost of sewage and water facili-
ties for the inhabitants of this entire large
dormitory municipality which includes not
only the city itself but the whole basin.
In addition to corporation taxes and all
other forms of general taxes, this govern-
ment has collected, in the last fifteen years,
in mines' profits taxes from the mining indus-
try in Ontario, the sum of $141,464,158, and
it is safe to say that more than half of this
was collected from the mines in the Sudbury
basin. The people of Sudbury, through their
elected representatives, have said to the gov-
ernment, have pleaded with the government,
have abjured the government, have cajoled
the government, to return more of this special
tax which, when all is said and done, is pro-
duced through the sweat of the workers in
Sudbury to meet the needs of the basin.
This government, in 23 years, has turned a
deaf ear upon their pleas. The only solution
that the people get is a visit from the first
citizen every once in a while, who tells them
what great people they are and what a great
future they have.
Summoning up considerable temerity, and
being entirely conscious of my own limita-
tions of knowledge in respect to the impor-
tant and complex problem of water, I turn
now to a consideration of the problems of the
southern part of the province. One can
graphically portray the geographic, topo-
graphic and geologic character of southern
Ontario by pointing to, by way of contrast,
the characteristics of a large area of the
United States, and the demographic implica-
tions of geography. In southern Ontario we
have no large river basin such as the
Mississippi which has provided facilities of
transportation and supplies of water to
support large, highly industrialized urban
centres. On the contrary, our rivers on what
I may call Ontario island are small water-
courses with many even smaller tributaries.
This means that the riparian inhabitants of
the Great Lakes have access to unlimited
quantities of fresh water and waste water
disposal facilities, and that is not so for
deposits of population even moderate dis-
tances from the shoreline of the lakes. There-
fore, massive industrial expansion in such
places as Brantford, Chatham, Stratford, St.
Thomas, London, Gait and Guelph, to name
a few, will be a direct correlation of the
availability of large supplies of fresh water.
Put another way, this means that the eco-
nomic growth of communities such as these
will depend on the building of the engineer-
ing projects to bring fresh water to these
communities, as well as the erection of
facilities to dispose of human and industrial
wastes. Both problems are at least of equal
magnitude. Strange it is to recall that only
a few years ago the Hon. Leslie Frost stood
in this House and talked down to the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) when
that member suggested that the government
get on expeditiously with the building of
pipelines to supply fresh water to the hinter-
land of Ontario island. Therefore, we might
say to the government that if it is the inten-
tion of the government that the golden
horseshoe alone shall enjoy unhindered eco-
nomic development in this province because
it has reasonable access to large quantities
of fresh water, and the development of in-
dustry in other centres removed from the
shoreline shall be inhibited because of the
limitations of water services for which the
government itself is directly responsible,
then the government should say so and the
people of this province will understand, in
comprehensible terms, the nature of the eco-
nomic restrictions on growth which can be
expected in the development of the southern
part of the province.
Another way of looking at the same thing
is to reflect that in 1966 the problem of con-
trolled flooding from the heavy runoff which,
after all, occurs during only 20 per cent or
MARCH 8, 1966
1283
less of the year, is fast becoming far less
serious and of much lesser magnitude than
the problem of dealing with "low-flow"
periods with the increased concentration of
pollutants.
We have either provided defences against
flooding or we will know the steps to take
to control it. We have only begun to think
about the control of the damage caused dur-
ing the periods when our relatively small
watersheds are not carrying adequate quan-
tities of water to foster the growth of vege-
tation, to provide irrigation for agriculture
or, perhaps most important of all, to safely
dilute and assimilate the irreducible amount
of wastes that they are expected to dispose
of. One hears such problems in the anxie-
ties expressed by hon. members such as the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon), who is
deeply concerned about the state of that
watercourse, the Grand, in his riding. Or
harken to the words of the writer of a bulle-
tin of the Grand river conservation commis-
sion, when he said: "Studies made of the
Grand river and its tributaries show that
additional reservoirs are needed to provide
flood protection against storms like Hurricane
Hazel, which caused great damage in the Don
and Humber river valleys in 1954, over which
it was centred. Such flood protection reser-
voirs would also provide stored water for in-
creasing low river flows in dry weather, and
help a situation which is becoming increas-
ingly difficult."
There are many members of the House,
including the hon. member for Oxford (Mr.
Pittock), who are far more qualified than I
am to inform us about the vexing problems
with which the people of their areas are
very intimately concerned in relation to the
preservation of these valuable watercourses.
I wish to draw the attention of the House
to one aspect of it. If I am wrong, let some-
body get up and show me how I am wrong.
I will reject as unworthy of attention any re-
marks of a general nature which merely say
that I am wrong and do not clothe that
statement with hard facts. Let me approach
it this way. Water is a multi-purpose, multi-
use commodity. It can destroy wealth as well
as create it and wealth and welfare lie in the
control of water, not merely in its possession.
The control of water calls for the ability to
store it safely in times of flood or high flow
so as to enjoy its use during the natural low-
flow periods. Therefore, safe storage areas
and the means to effect water storage and
distribution over the low-flow periods are
required on a universal scale in order to abate
the effect of the irreducible amounts of pol-
lutants in watercourses during such low-flow
periods.
To illustrate, if the city of London, or
any other city, is going to get large amounts
of fresh water through a big pipeline, then
the amounts required for human and indus-
trial use must be supplemented by large and
dependable quantities of stream flow which
will dilute and assimilate the resulting wastes
in the Thames river, or any other Ontario
river. No sewage treatment plant, no facili-
ties for treating industrial waste can ever
achieve 100 per cent efficiency. Put another
way, this merely means that in putting even
so-called fully treated human and industrial
waste into a watercourse, there is unavoidably
going in with it a certain percentage of the
unassimilated wastes of large numbers of
people and industrial processes. Thus the
adequacy of river flows at all times is a
vital and necessary part of total water
services.
Frankly, what bothers me is that having
the knowledge that the three major bodies
concerned with water and wastes now being
under the rubric of one department— that is
to say, Hydro, conservation authorities and
the OWRC— I wonder, very anxiously, as I
am sure a good many other people do,
whether there is a nexus between them.
Within the ministry of the Energy and Re-
sources Management department, is there a
dialogue going on among these three groups
so that there will be a policy evolved in re-
spect to the overall composite control of
water?
The only intelligent approach, sir, which
fits this day and age is to be concerned with
the total and comprehensive picture of what
we ought to be doing with our water. There
is plenty of evidence' that Ontario Hydro is
exclusively concerned with falling water for
power generation only, and does not want
to be bothered with the consideration of any
other implications of the commodity.
For example, one would like to know
whether any consideration is being given in
reference to the planned Blue Mountain
pump-storage development, and whether it
would be possible to combine the use of the
water that will be brought 900 feet up to the
plateau to other useful purposes such as pol-
lution abatement, in addition to simply letting
it fall back again into Lake Huron to gener-
ate power. For example, and I do not profess
to be an expert and many men have been
condemned for less vision which eventually
becomes reality: Is any really serious con-
sideration being given to the use of a part
of that hydro power facility for the possible
1284
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
development of an artificially augmented re-
servoir in the Luther Marsh which, in turn,
could be used to supply fairly large quanti-
ties of badly needed water during the damag-
ing low-flow periods to the watersheds which
are relatively close, and which radiate from
this marsh, that is to say, the Conestogo, the
Grand, the Saugeen and, a little farther away,
the Thames, and others as well to the south
and east?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not
want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but
clearly from the text, a copy of which I have,
he is not more than two-thirds of the way
through. He is on page 17, and he has 28
pages in all. That half-hour, which we have
agreed on as being the maximum for the
introduction, is up.
Mr. Speaker: It is not up. We started a
little late; it was about seven or eight minutes
past the hour when the debate started, so I
was allowing the member to go another five
or seven minutes.
Mr. MacDonald: If he is going to do the
last 11 pages in seven minutes, I look for-
ward to watching this.
Mr. Sopha: I will not delay to get into
an argument with the hon. member. I will
leave out an appropriate portion, but let me
point out the point of order. There is no
rule in this House that restricts me to 30
minutes; let that be understood.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. We have an agreement-
Mr. Sopha: No, the hon. member has not
read it.
Mr. MacDonald: We have an agreement in
which the introduction is to be a half-hour.
If we are not going to abide by it, then the
gentlemen's agreement is out of the window.
And if this is, once again, our problem with
the Liberals, then we will have to review the
agreement-
Mr. Speaker: May I inform the member
that I will endeavour to keep the mem-
bers within the agreement? For their informa-
tion, in case the member speaking did
not get a copy of this from the Whip of his
party, there will be no formal time. Item
2 of this agreement was that there would
be no formal time limits, but the Whips will
encourage the mover to speak not longer than
30 minutes, and other debaters to speak not
more than 15 minutes.
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Mr. Chairman, am I to assume from
your statement that the hon. member will be
given the opportunity of reading the last ten
pages of his address? I cannot see how you
can cut it down to seven minutes.
Mr. Speaker: I am going to allow the mem-
ber to proceed and judge in five or seven
minutes whether he will be nearly finished
or not.
Mr. Sopha: This time out will not count, I
trust. I thank the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs. Now to continue at the point where
I was so rudely interrupted.
Mr. Speaker: The member will please pro-
ceed.
Mr. Sopha: To revert to what I said earlier,
it seems to me to be as simple as this: Some
government is either going to construct very
costly pipelines to the hinterland of Ontario
island, with its multiplicity of small water-
courses, to foster industrial growth as well as
to support large deposits of population, or
it is going to construct more permanent reser-
voirs in co-operation with conservation com-
missions, which might well be less costly in
the long run because they serve a greater
number of users thus reducing per capita
costs. I have not yet seen, and would be
happy to have it drawn to my attention, any
expression of long-term policy on the part of
the OWRC in respect of future developments
in this way. On that score I want to say two
things. 1. There is evidence provided by
talking to people, principally engineers, who
deal constantly with the Ontario water re-
sources commission, that the dinosaur has
truly a small and highly inflexible brain.
There is a feeling abroad in the engineering
community that the OWRC does not truly
and reasonably seek the advice of competent
people. On the contrary, the dinosaur makes
up its mind about the nature of the solution
to problems and then only invites and encour-
ages advice which conforms to its precon-
ceived ideas. If the OWRC says that this
attitude is wrong, there are quite a few
municipal engineers whose minds it should
disabuse of the notion. There is plenty of
evidence, and some of that evidence is of
such recent currency as last week when the
association of municipal engineers met, that
the OWRC is extremely unpopular. It is
viewed as an almost classic case of empire
building, concerned more with its size, power
and influence than with dealing with the very
pressing problems in regard to water which
face our people. I really think, and I charge
MARCH 8, 1966
1285
upon it, that the commission views itself as
the owner of the biggest water distribution
system in the world. To create that water
distribution system it is apparent that inde-
pendent engineering consultants' conclusions
must be tailor-made to meet the preconceived
conclusions of the staff of the commission
itself— that is, to crystallize the dinosaur's
predispositions and predilections. To illu-
strate, for I do not wish to have to seek
anybody's forgiveness for failing to buttress
my arguments with specific illustrations, one
can ascertain no evidence that the OWRC,
in issuing the czarist ukase to Sudbury to
build a sewage treatment plant, considered
that the securing of the financial means to do
so is the only part of the larger economic
problem of financing municipal government
and services in Sudbury and in a community
that lacks even a modern industrial assess-
ment.
There is no other solution than to provide
Sudbury with the money, possibly in the form
of a grant instead of the industrial assessment
which our cumbersome and antiquated legis-
lation now denies them, while the very in-
dustrious people of Sudbury want no charity
from anyone. They have borne such a burden
in inequity that not another straw can be
added. One hears that when Sudbury had a
member on the commission, that the commis-
sion came very close to securing $12 million
from the government to build sewage treat-
ment plants in Sudbury and in four or five
other centres which lack them. Perhaps we
had a chance when Mr. Desmaris was on the
commission. It appears to have evaporated.
2. On the subject of planning as it relates
to the carrying out of its functions by the
commission, one wonders with some amaze-
ment and a considerable degree of shock
whether the omnivorous wandering dinosaur
is able to distinguish between what is long-
term planning and that which is short-term
needs. Let me refer to certain remarks made
recently by the general manager of the
OWRC, and I am quoting from the Globe
and Mail of January 27, 1966:
David Caverly told the annual conven-
tion of the alumnae association of the
Niagara parks commission school of hor-
ticulture:
We are taking a cautious approach. We
are at present planning a study in co-
operation with The Department of
Northern Affairs on the quantity, and the
quality, of water resources in the Arctic
region.
The study starts this year and may take
from 10 to 15 years. It will give the first
exact information on the water resources
of the area. Except for limited studies of
some northern rivers by Ontario Hydro,
little is known.
A lot of people have been making
assertions about diverting this water, but
until the study is completed we just don't
know the situation, he said. We will
want to know how much there is and what
the quality will be, for it might have too
much mineralization to be of use.
Maybe we will find out that it might
be better to leave the water where it is
and bring people in to develop the country
there. The Russians are making big devel-
opments in their Arctic regions. Perhaps
we should, too.
There is a considerable body of respectable
opinion in this province, in this country and
on this continent that believes we have great
need for a new, more intelligent, more
comprehensive, more co-operative and at the
same time fully protective approach to Great
Lakes management than we now have. In
particular this opinion emphasizes the vital
urgency of wise action in Canada in the face
of the rapidly growing pressures developing
in the United States.
I personally believe that the greatest single
threat to our national sovereignty, and in
particular our position as downstream in-
terests on the St. Lawrence system, lies in the
negative posture which is our current policy
in regard to adding new water to the Great
Lakes from our north for co-operative use.
For example, a fully protective plan for
recycling northern rivers after they have
completed their flow in Canada was proposed
several years ago. Only after strongest re-
sistance by this government and the federal
government, have we even reached the stage
where we are now taking an inventory of our
northern rivers.
Insofar as I know, no consideration has yet
been given to full and adequate engineering
studies of this fully protective Canadian
developed concept which, it should be noted,
could not possibly, from a technical point of
view alone, ever be carried out by Canada
in our own specific interests. Its develop-
ment indicates great promise for this prov-
ince and yet no adequate studies are under
way. Surely something can be done to expose
the hidden riches indicated in this concept.
Attention was drawn last week to Public
Law 89-298 of the United States Congress
which authorizes the transfer of water from
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river
watershed to other watersheds in the north-
eastern United States.
1286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Everyone knows that Chicago wishes to
draw off further large amounts of water for
sewage treatment from Lake Michigan, and
other large urban centres on the United
States Great Lakes shoreline will have in-
creasing demands for supplies of water.
With all respect to Mr. Caverly, the prob-
lem simply can't wait for 10 to 15 years to
find a solution followed by many years of
construction. On the contrary, the economic
and engineering aspects of protective re-
plenishment for fully co-operative use and
trade with the United States, must be dealt
with now— today.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I say this,
on this 8th of March, AD 1966, and I say
it to this House, that if people on the North
American continent get thirsty enough they
will come and take our water somehow and
in some way.
Economic strife with the United States
could cripple us more than it would cripple
them and it would be so foolish and un-
necessary; whereas a display of leadership
on our part could place our province in the
lead in this regard.
I have no desire to, and I don't like to
use the floor of this House to disagree with
a civil servant. He must needs answer
through the hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin (Mr. Root) and I do say to that hon.
member that if Mr. Caverly, in his leisurely
approach to this urgent problem, is express-
ing the views of the Ontario water resources
commission, then the analogy of that com-
mission to a dinosaur is truly an apt one.
I say again in the clearest possible terms
that neither Mr. Caverly nor Mr. Vance nor
the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin
are the trustees of water exclusively, in the
truest sense of the word.
We are all trustees for this and future
generations in this matter, and at this hour
it is not sufficient for hon. members of this
House to yawn while reflecting that they have
placed their responsibility for our water
resources in the hands of an independent
commission. Either the trustees that sit here
will carry out their responsibilities or they
will suffer the consequences of the wrath of
the people of this province.
The people of our ridings have sent us
here as members of a vital democracy, not
merely as the rubber stamps for an empire-
building technocratic commission. And today,
the searchlight of public opinion is pointed
directly at this crucial resource with which
this commission and this government deals.
I wish there was more evidence that the
OWRC is acting in accordance with the
realities of present problems.
I have heard that the commission already
knew the problems and all that was needed
was some action directed toward their solu-
tion.
The problem is simply this: Sudbury is not
getting a sewage disposal plant, not because
it does not want it but because it simply does
not have the money.
Lake Ramsay needs increments of fresh
water. The people of Capreol, Hanmer, and
Rayside townships have not got the common
use of sewage disposal facilities, and all the
meetings in the world are not going to change
that unless and until engineering specifica-
tions are prepared and positive steps are
taken to provide the facilities without crush-
ing the water user under a financial burden
impossible to bear.
In the words of my resolution, such facili-
ties are a minimum requirement to good
living. The people of these communities have
a moral claim upon the wealth of this prov-
ince and that claim is being asserted here
and now in no uncertain terms. It is incum-
bent on the dinosaur to get his bulky frame
moving, or the inexorable laws of evolution
will displace him from our future.
What must be decided first, and will never
be decided at a public meeting where people
are assembled who do not even assert that
they have the qualifications to decide, is the
question of whence supplies of water are
going to come, and how that water is going
to be handled and charged for.
Put in specific terms, will the valley munic-
ipalities forming a part of a geographic,
geologic and demographic unit, be supplied
from Lake Wahnipitae or elsewhere with
Whitson lake being used as a reservoir and
Whitson creek being employed as a water-
course to supply the western side, or is there
some alternative plan that is more feasible
from an economic and engineering point of
view?
As matters stand, already overburdened,
the city of Sudbury has no alternative but to
solve its own problem and in the end where
will this piecemeal policy lead us?
Impatience with the OWRC in the Sudbury
basin knows almost no bounds. In my view,
in the words of the little girl who got less
than her little brother at Christmas, "it ain't
fair" that people should work to create
wealth, can look at their neighbour in the
next-door municipality in the principality of
Inco and see that they have adequate services
while they have none.
MARCH 8, 1966
1287
Simple justice, ordinary equity, demands
that these workers, these good, law-abiding
people, trying to do the best they can for
themselves and their families, be treated with
equal fairness.
Many useful developments, when based on
the consideration of only one aspect of water
use, present economic difficulties impossible
to overcome. Taking several uses together,
however, and sharing the burden of cost be-
tween them often makes all of them feasible
realities. It is particularly in this compre-
hensive approach in which this government
has failed utterly and dismally, and we see
no evidence except the evidence of aggran-
dizement and empire-building that they as
yet even understand the meaning of the re-
sponsibility which is in their hands.
Unless there is a total concept of water and
all that this implies, we are in jeopardy of
failing to meet the basic requirements of our
people. And we are in double jeopardy of
wasting and throwing away invaluable assets.
This House is the trustee of our water re-
sources. The hard reality of the approach we
have made to date, and the glaring deficien-
cies arising out of the failure to provide for
our people, invites support for this resolution.
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in
the debate on resolution No. 8, which stands
in the name of the hon. member for Grey
South. This resolution reads as follows:
That the Ontario water resources com-
mission be instructed to report upon the
feasibility of piping water from the Great
Lakes to drought areas in western Ontario.
While I agree that this resolution deals with
the most important aspect of water supply, I
am indeed surprised that such a resolution
should appear on the order paper of this
Legislature. I am surprised for two reasons.
First, because the Ontario water resources
commission has already reported in great
detail on the feasibility of piping water from
the Great Lakes to drought areas in western
Ontario, as well as to drought areas in other
parts of the province of Ontario. And
second, not only has the commission re-
ported, it has acted.
However, despite the apparent reluctance
of the hon. member for Grey South to read
these reports, all of which are readily avail-
able, or to take cognizance of the tremendous
accomplishments of this government through
the operations of the Ontario water resources
commission, I should be pleased to accept
the opportunity to review these operations
and accomplishments in detail.
This is a proud record and one which it
is a pleasure to discuss.
The provision of adequate safe water
supplies for individuals, municipalities and
industries alike, and the protection of the
water resources of the province against
pollution, remain the principal objective of
the commission. Considerable progress has
been made in this regard over the years.
Under section 16 of The Ontario Water Re-
sources Commission Act, the commission has
power to control and regulate the collection,
production, treatment, storage, transmission,
distribution, and use of water for public pur-
poses, and to make orders with respect
thereto. Since the commission was formed in
1957, a tremendous construction programme
has been undertaken throughout the prov-
ince in the field of water supply and pollu-
tion control. Under the Act, all plans for
the establishment of any waterworks or
sewage works, as well as extension of and
changes in existing works, must be submitted
to the commission. No such work may pro-
ceed until the commission's approval has
been given.
Hon. members will be interested to know
that as of December 31, 1965, the number of
certificates issued by the commission since
1957, with respect to such works, totalled
15,095, at an estimated value of over $1
billion.
As hon. members are aware, provision was
made in the Act for the commission to
finance, support, construct and operate water-
works and sewage works on behalf of mu-
nicipalities. A number of the projects referred
to above have been undertaken on this
basis. A municipality may, of course, under-
take a project entirely on its own, although
the plans for such a project must have
approval of the commission.
To date, some 340 projects, serving 204
municipalities, have been developed by the
commission at a cost of $133,500,000. Of
these, 251 are in actual operation, while the
remainder are in various stages of develop-
ment. Under this arrangement, the facility
remains the property of the commission until
such time as the debt on the project has been
retired by the municipality.
By the year 1964, due to the acceleration
which had occurred throughout the province
in the construction of water and sewage
works under agreement with the commission,
most of the municipalities which could use
this type of financing had been covered.
Notwithstanding this, there were still a
number of municipalities which could not go
forward, either on the basis of their own
1288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
arrangements, or under commission financing,
because of their inability to undertake
further capital debt. It was for this reason
that the authority of the commission was
extended in 1964 to allow construction of
provincially owned water projects, with the
municipality signing a service contract for
the supply of its water needs.
In August of 1965, this new provincial
financing arrangement extended to include
sewage works as well, both on an area and
an individual municipality basis. This will
mean that sewage will be accepted and
treated at provincially owned plants with a
charge levied on the basis of volume.
Some of the advantages of this new pro-
gramme will be immediately apparent; no
capital debt as such will have to be under-
taken by the municipality. This will be re-
covered over the years through the water and
sewage rates based on usage.
Another major benefit arising from this
programme is that the province may con-
struct oversized works, depending on the
anticipated growth of a municipality. The
cost of oversizing will be carried by the
province until the added capacity is utilized.
Through the development of such projects on
an area basis, the benefit to any individual
municipality will be greater, since the cost
of the works will be amortized over a longer
number of years.
Furthermore, it will mean that earlier
problems experienced with respect to compro-
mises in the degree of necessary treatment
and type of construction will be eliminated.
The certainty that this system of financing
will give a new stimulus to the construction
of water supply and pollution control works
in the province, is evident from the fact that
almost 100 applications have already been
received from municipalities desirous of
entering into this arrangement. The pro-
gramme is now well under way and con-
struction on the first of the provincially
owned sewage projects is expected to start
in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker, having established the
general framework and stated the policies of
the commission, I shall now deal specifically
with the fresh water pipeline programmes
completed, under construction, and in various
stages of planning.
I shall restrict my remarks largely to south-
western Ontario, although it should be
clearly recognized that the Ontario water
resources commission programme concerns
the whole of this province and is in no sense
confined to western Ontario alone.
In 1956, the towns Leamington and Essex,,
four townships, Mersea, Gosfield North, Gos-
field South and Maidstone and the H. J.
Heinz Company, all in Essex county, signed
an agreement with the Ontario water re-
sources commission to construct a pipeline
and treatment plant, work began in 1958 and
the pipeline was completed in 1959 at a total
cost of $3,860,000.
This project was financed by the Ontario
water resources commission. The seven par-
ticipants are paying for the facility over a
30-year period. The commission is operating
the system, and provision has been made in
the agreement for the commission to continue
to operate the system after it is paid for, if
this is the wish of the participating munici-
palities.
In 1963, this pipeline, the union water
system, provided 1.3 billion gallons of fresh
water, and in 1965 this total increased to
almost 1.6 billion gallons. A proposal is
now receiving serious consideration which
involves the Ontario water resources com-
mission taking over the existing system and
undertaking a major expansion. If this pro-
posal is finalized the commission will assume
permanent ownership of the present system
and all future expansions to the system.
The proposed expansion indicates that the
union water system would be extended under
a stage programme, involving the immediate
construction of enlarged treatment facilities
and additional maintenance to extend the area
of service and reinforce the existing system.
The projected cost of taking over and extend-
ing this system is $6.5 million.
In 1957, the town of Dunnville approached
the Ontario water resources commission and
asked them to construct a pipeline and treat-
ment plant for that town.
In 1958, two major industries, the Sher-
brooke Metallurgical Company Limited and
the Electric Reduction Company of Canada
Limited, indicated they would enter into a
joint agreement with Dunnville and the com-
mission. Construction of the system began
in 1959 and was completed a year later, at
the cost of $2,586,000. This agreement carried
the same provisions as the union Essex
county scheme. The town of Dunnville and
the industries paid for the facility over a
period of years.
In 1963, this system supplied 3.7 billion
gallons of water and is continuing to operate
at about that rate.
About this time, the staff of the commis-
sion undertook to produce, based on their
own knowledge, a comprehensive, although
preliminary, chart of the total probable water
MARCH 8, 1966
1289
pipeline requirements throughout this prov-
ince. It was not practicable at that early
date to arrange detailed consulting engineer-
ing studies on which to base these plans.
The result of that study indicated the total
probable requirement of 19 new pipelines, 11
of which were likely to be required in south-
western Ontario.
Sufficient commentary on the quality of
those early and empirical proposals and on
the quality of the commission's staff con-
cerned, is the fact that of those 11 proposals,
nine are now either under construction or in
some state of active negotiation with the
municipalities concerned.
On May 21, 1964, the hon. Prime Minister
of this province (Mr. Robarts), announced
the offer to construct a water pipeline
between Lake Huron and the outskirts of
the city of London. This pipeline would
be designed to provide an assured source
of water to the city of London and to any
municipality in the vicinity of the line which
might require water. The financing of the
construction would be borne by the provincial
government through the Ontario water re-
sources commission, thus allowing construc-
tion to proceed with no delay. Water from
the pipeline would be supplied at the boun-
daries of London and the boundaries of any
other municipality lying between Lake Huron
and London which might require pipeline
service. Each municipality would make its
own arrangements for distribution to the
ultimate consumer. The capital cost of the
pipeline to the municipal boundaries and
to the pumping stations required to force
water to the end of the line would be financed
entirely with provincial funds; municipalities
would be supplied with water at a price
sufficient to meet the amortized construction
and operating expenses.
On September 4, 1964, the hon. Prime
Minister turned the first sod on this Lake
Huron water supply system. Some of his
remarks at that time were as follows:
The construction of the Lake Huron
water supply system is not a new under-
taking for the Ontario water resources
commission. It does, however, represent a
significant departure in concept. For the
first time, the Ontario water resources
commission will build and maintain a water
pipeline and will sell water at cost to
municipalities in the same way as Hydro
sells electricity to municipal public utility
commissions. In earlier projects, partici-
pating municipalities have contracted under
agreement whereby they would own the
facilities after 30 years. The Lake Huron
water supply system will remain the
property of the commission. This pipeline
and its method of financing and operation
will be a first in Canada.
There is every reason to expect that the
Lake Huron water supply system will go into
full operation early in 1967 at a final total
cost of more than $18 million.
On November 26, 1965, the hon. Prime
Minister made the following announcement
concerning the Lake Erie -St. Thomas pipe-
line:
The purpose of this pipeline is to meet
the water supply requirements of the city
of St. Thomas and the townships of Yar-
mouth and Southwold, and other munici-
palities which may be in a position to
utilize water from this installation. For a
number of years it has been anticipated
that if the demands for water in the city
of St. Thomas area would require such
action, in the opinion of the Ontario water
resources commission, in addition to
residential and other requirements, the con-
struction of an assembly plant in this area
recently announced by the Ford Motor
Company will also create a demand for
water beyond the capability of existing
local sources of supply. The commission
has been holding discussions over a long
period of time with representatives of the
area municipalities and the Ford Motor
Company, who have endorsed the proposal
for the construction of a pipeline to serve
the area.
The commission plans include the instal-
lation of an intake approximately two miles
east of the village of Port Stanley and the
construction of a filtration plant at this
location to deliver water by pipeline to the
St. Thomas area. The cost of this project
is estimated to be $11 million and will be
based on meeting initial short-term require-
ments of ten million gallons per day with
provision for oversizing to accommodate
anticipated developments.
Water from this system will be sold at
cost under similar terms to the arrange-
ments of the commission relating to the
Lake Huron water supply system, which
involves a supply of water from Lake
Huron to the city of London and interested
municipalities along the route of this line.
This project has progressed as scheduled, and
tenders for the initial stages of construction
will be called almost immediately.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, to further elabor-
ate this government's plans for an assured
supply of water to the cities, farms and in-
dustries of western Ontario, I am able to
1290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
submit progress reports on the following
pipeline projects.
The county of Lambton: As a result of a
hearing held in the city of Sarnia in Novem-
ber, 1964, the commission retained the firm
of M. M. Dillon and Co. Ltd., to prepare a
report on the water supply requirements on
the western portion of the county of Lamb-
ton. On January 21, 1966, a proposal was
presented to the municipalities. The total
cost of the waterworks facilities that are in-
cluded in this proposal is approximately $13
million. The municipalities involved include
the city of Sarnia, the village of Point Ed-
ward, the townships of Sarnia, Moore,
Sombra, Plympton and Enniskillen. Some
consideration has been given to the existing
Petrolia water supply system, and further im-
provements which may be necessary in ap-
proximately 1973 at an approximate cost of
$2.5 million.
At the present time, interest in further
development of the programme has been in-
dicated by the townships of Moore and
Sarnia, the village of Point Edward and the
city of Sarnia.
The county of Peel: In August, 1965, a
tentative proposal was submitted to munici-
palities in the southern portion of the county
of Peel. The municipalities concerned with
this proposal are the town of Brampton, the
town of Streetsville, the town of Port Credit,
the township of— I am afraid I cannot pro-
nounce this very well— Chinguacousy, the
township of Toronto. As a result of that pro-
posal, a committee consisting of representa-
tives of each of the municipalities and the
commission have met regularly on this pro-
posed water and sewage works scheme.
On January 7, a proposal, including sug-
gested rates, was presented to the committee
and subsequently, on February 17, the pro-
posal was outlined in detail to the heads of
the municipalities concerned. In addition, a
meeting with the municipal representatives
was held on February 25 and commission
representatives have reviewed the proposal
with the individual councils. A further meet-
ing is proposed for today. The cost of this
project is presently estimated to be about
$72.5 million.
Lake Huron water supply system secondary
facilities: In conjunction with the construc-
tion of the Lake Huron water supply system,
proposals have been submitted to the town of
Parkhill, the villages of Grand Bend, and
Ailsa Craig, the townships of London, Bosan-
quet, Stephen and McGillivray.
As a result of these proposals we have been
authorized to retain consulting engineers to
prepare functional designs on the system to
serve the towns of Parkhill and the village of
Ailsa Craig.
Further, the village of Grand Bend has
definitely indicated its interest in receiving
water from this source. The estimated costs
of the secondary supply facilities are:
The village of Grand Bend, including town-
ships of Bosanquet and Stephen— $541,620;
the town of Parkhill, including the township
of McGillivray-$405,000; the township of
London, Ilderton-$ 150,400; the township of
London, Arva-$ 110,200; the village of Ailsa
Craig, including the township of McGilliv-
ray-$234,000.
County of Kent— from December 14, 1965,
meetings were held with the municipalities
in the northern and southern areas of the
county of Kent relating to the proposed water
supply programme for the area.
Two proposals were presented. First, a
proposal to serve the city of Chatham, the
town of Blenheim, the villages of Erie Beach
and Erieau and the townships of Harwich
and Raleigh, utilizing Lake Erie as a source
of supply. Second, a proposal to serve the
towns of Wallaceburg and Dresden and the
townships of Chatham and Camden.
In the southern area, all but the village of
Erie Beach have responded favourably to this
proposal, with the exception of the city of
Chatham, which has advised that their con-
sulting engineers are in the process of pre-
paring a report to the city on the future
development of the municipal water system.
This report is due in approximately one
month, when the city has indicated it will
then meet with the commission to review this
proposal.
In the northern area, Wallaceburg has indi-
cated it is not interested in the proposal, and
the remaining municipalities have not replied.
The cost of the two proposals: first one—
$5,470,000, and the second one-$2,667,000.
The lower Grand Valley area: In the fall
of 1964, the commission held a meeting in
the city of Brantford to receive presentations
from municipalities in the area regarding the
need for improved water supply. Subse-
quently, in March, 1965, the commission ap-
pointed James F. McLaren Ltd., to prepare
a report on the regional water supply require-
ments of the lower Grand Valley, including
the city of Brantford, town of Caledonia, the
villages of Jarvis, Hagersville, and Cayuga
and the township of Brantford.
The final report by the consulting engineers
has now been submitted and is under review
by the various divisions of the commission.
MARCH 8, 1966
1291
Subsequently, a proposal will be prepared
and a meeting arranged with the municipali-
ties involved.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest
that it must now be abundantly clear to the
hon. member for Grey South, that not only
has this government and the Ontario water
resources commission reported on the feasi-
bility of piping water to the drought areas
of this province, but has in fact made sub-
stantial and remarkable progress towards
fulfilling its purpose and obligations.
Our future policies are clear. The rapid
expansion which continues to characterize the
development of this great province necessi-
tates the planning and carrying out of a vig-
orous programme for the future, both in the
field of water supply and water pollution
abatement.
To ensure an adequate supply of water to
meet the needs of this province, we propose
to continue studying the sources of supply
and the feasibility of additional pipeline con-
struction. The rapid growth of many of On-
tario's towns and cities demands an increased
supply of potable water for municipal uses.
Tremendous quantities of water are re-
quired also to meet the needs of industry.
Farm crops which depended in the past to a
large measure upon precipitation, now draw
huge quantities of water through irrigation
systems in various parts of the province.
The necessity of regional water needs
studies has already been established and
there is every indication that this type of
activity, already under way, will engage the
attention of this government and of the On-
tario water resources commission in an
increasing way in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the
attention of the members that as both these
resolutions will be debated again jointly on
Thursday, there will be ample time, I hope,
for all the members who wish to speak to
the resolutions to speak at that time. I would
ask the member for York South to adjourn
the debate.
Mr. MacDonald moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
1292 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
APPENDIX 1
(See page 1259)
TABLE "A"
Tire Size
(Nominal)
Inches
Phi
Ratine.
A/easunng
Rim(T<bRA)
Inches
Tire
Load
Lbs.
Inflation
Lhs./Sq. In.
Cross Section Breaking Energy
(Minimum) (Minimum)
Inches Inches-Lbs.
6.00-13
4
4J
730
24
5.70
1000
6.50-13
4
4VzJ
840
24
6.25
1000
7.00-13
4
5J
920
24
6.70
1100
6.00-14
4
4J
800
24
5.75
1000
6.50-14
4
4M>K
890
24
6.25
1000
7.00-14
4
5K
980
24
6.70
1100
7.50-14
4
5V2K
1090
24
7.20
1200
8.00-14
4
6K
1180
24
7.70
1300
8.50-14
4
6K
1270
24
7.85
1300
9.00-14
4
6V2K
1360
24
8.25
1300
9.50-14
4
6%K
1470
24
8.55
1300
6.00-15
4
4J
900
26
5.75
1000
6.50-15
4
4V2K
1000
26
6.25
1000
6.70-15
4
4^K
1120
26
6.55
1100
7.10-15
4
5K
1210
26
6.95
1100
7.60-15
4
5%K
1320
26
7.45
1200
8.00-15
4
6L
1400
26
7.85
1300
8.20-15
4
6L
1420
24
8.00
1300
8.90-15
6
6%L
1790
28
8.80
1500
6.15-14
4
4J
730
24
5.70
1000
6.45-14
4
4%J
840
24
6.25
1000
6.95-14
4
5J
920
24
6.65
1000
7.35-14
4
5J
1020
24
6.95
1100
7.75-14
4
5V2JK
1120
24
7.35
1200
8.25-14
4
6JK
1210
24
7.80
1300
8.55-14
4
6JK
1320
24
8.10
1300
8.85-14
4
6%JK
1390
24
8.50
1300
6.35-15
4
4% J
800
24
5.95
1000
6.85-15
4
5J
900
24
6.45
1000
7.35-15
4
5%JK
1035
24
7.05
1000
7.75-15
4
5%JK
1100
24
7.15
1100
8.15-15
4
6JK
1180
24
7.65
1100
8.45-15
4
6JK
1280
24
7.85
1200
8.85-15
4
6^JK
1370
24
8.25
1300
9.15-15
4
6%JK
1470
24
8.50
1300
9.00-15 4 6JK 1420 24 8.00 1300
No. 43
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
Bebates
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE .QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1295
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 1322
1295
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The twelfth order.
House in committee of supply: Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 807:
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
at five of the clock I was bringing to the
attention of the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. MacNaughton), a problem of certain
constituents of mine. He knows the area
and the location and has had this brought to
his attention several times by several hon.
members of this House.
I am speaking particularly of people whose
property flanks on to the highway. Many
people who owned property along the high-
way and the back of whose lots abutted the
highway, were bought out by The Depart-
ment of Highways or by The Department of
Economics and Development. But often,
property which came closer to the highway,
and flanked on it, was not touched because it
was just beyond the 50-foot line.
I also bring to his attention the people on
Lome Bruce drive, where a street allowance
comes between their front line and the line
of the highway. They, in effect, are much
closer than many of the other people who
have been bought out. Yet, because of the
freak of the way the line is drawn, these
people are still there and they are worried
about their situation. I hope that the hon.
Minister has this in mind, that some relief
may be accorded to these people in due
course and I would hope that as the other
settlements are finally made, a reassessment
of the total situation will occur at that time.
I will raise this at the proper time with the
hon. Minister of Economics and Develop-
ment (Mr. Randall) when his estimates are
up, but depending on the answers we receive
from him, we may ask other questions of the
hon. Minister at the appropriate moment.
Tuesday, March 8, 1966
Mr. E. G. Freeman (Fort William): Mr.
Chairman, earlier today we heard the hon.
Minister of Mines (Mr. Wardrope) extolling
the virtues of this government and also
speaking about—
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Just what de-
partment was that?
Mr. Freeman: —The Department of High-
ways, but I am sure that he will extol the
good features of the other departments too,
but just to set the record straight I thought
that it would probably be just as well if, at
this time— and it may be, mind you, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Mines
has not had an opportunity to see all of the
outlying roads around his constituency and
it could be possible that he has seen few, if
any, of the roads in the Fort William area
which adjoins his riding.
For the matter of the record, I should like
to bring to the attention of the House,
through you, Mr. Chairman, certain problems
that were discussed here not too long ago
and the hon. Minister of Highways is well
aware of these things and I know that he
has every sympathy for the people in the
Thunder Bay area and in the Kenora, Rainy
River, Sioux Lookout and Dryden areas—
those vast areas of northwestern Ontario-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): But
you cannot drive a car on sympathy.
Mr. Freeman: Not very well; it takes
other things. I should like to call your at-
tention, Mr. Chairman, to some of the things
that people are worried about in northwestern
Ontario. May I quickly go over a resolution
which was recently submitted to the Cabinet:
Whereas excellent progress has been
made on Highway 17, primarily in the
English river to Ignace area and The
Ontario Department of Highways is to be
commended for its efforts—
Now I think this is very fine and I am sure
the hon. Minister deserves these words of
commendation. We believe it to be ex-
tremely important that the unfinished sec-
tions of Highway 17, including the area
1296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
around Kenora, be completed as promptly
as possible, and you should see it, it is hor-
rible, just plain horrible.
Any unfinished portions of Highway 17,
still act as a definite detriment to tourists
and truckers, thereby creating a loss of rev-
enue and adverse publicity to the area.
Highway 17 between the Lakehead and
the Ontario-Manitoba border is the only
Canadian connecting highway between east-
ern and western Canada, and it is essential
that this highway be brought to standard as
promptly as possible. This is a federally
subsidized highway and it is urged that The
Ontario Department of Highways do all
possible to complete the Ontario section of
Highway 17, between the Lakehead and the
Manitoba border at the earliest possible date,
Mr. Chairman.
Now I am sure the hon. Minister knows
full well the length of time that is going to
be consumed in the construction of this
major portion of the trans-Canada highway
and how many interruptions there will be
along the way, each and every year. As the
year comes, there are stretches of highway
under construction, and they are not only a
threat to the happiness of the tourists and
the residents of the area, but are a very real
threat to the motor vehicles they are driving.
A thing that has always, Mr. Chairman,
confused the people in our part of the coun-
try, and perhaps down in this part of On-
tario, too, the same conditions exist, but we
wonder what the explanation is as to the
cause of the tremendous delays in the con-
struction of highways. They go on for such
a long period of time. They can work in the
winter there, too. And the fact that the hon.
Minister of Mines mentioned particularly in
today's talk, that one portion of the highway
between Fort William and Pigeon river, com-
monly referred to years ago as the Scott
highway, has been, I must say this to the hurt
of my friends on my right: Since the days
their government was in power, it has been
rebuilt practically every year. Now it is in
fairly good condition, but I intend, as a
matter of fact, to drive over it as soon as
the weather breaks in our part of the country,
and see just how much deterioration has
come about during the last fall and winter
period.
But to go on briefly again, Mr. Chairman,
with regard to the highway situation, par-
ticularly with development of access roads-
Mr. Chairman: May I ask if this work is in
connection with maintenance or new con-
struction?
Mr. Freeman: Yes, this has to do with
those very features— rebuilding the trans-Can-
ada northern route, Long Lac to Nipigon. I
am sure that comes under the heading, main-
tenance, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Before us now, under vote
807, is new construction.
Mr. Freeman: All new construction?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, under 807. I am not
trying to restrict the—
Mr. Freeman: This has been set up for, I
think, a programme of new construction on
Highway 17.
Mr. Chairman: We would like to hear it.
Mr. Freeman: If it is not new construction,
I am sure that is what the people in that area
feel is imperative. It ought to be done.
Mr. MacDonald: They have been led to
believe that it was new construction.
Mr. Freeman: They were told it was going
to be new construction, put it that way. As
for the rebuilding of the trans-Canada north-
ern route, Long Lac to Nipigon, I do not
know, Mr. Chairman, whether in your experi-
ence you have had the opportunity to travel
over this beautiful highway. It is a beautiful
location and a beautiful area, but the high-
way itself needs rebuilding. This section of
road, officially called by The Ontario Depart-
ment of Highways the trans-Canada highway
northern route, and thus named on their offi-
cial maps up to and including 1965, has never
been brought up to trans-Canada highway
standards. The planning department of The
Department of Highways has indicated that
contracts would be let to rebuild Highway 11
between Highway 17 and Long Lac, but it
cannot stand rebuilding; it is a new construc-
tion job, to a very great extent, with widen-
ing, curves, and all this sort of thing.
The present pulpwood and mining indus-
tries are major contributors to the economy
of the district and require roads designed to
allow greater truck loads. This route is heav-
ily travelled. The increased tourist traffic in
northwestern Ontario is creating a demand
for better highway conditions. This resolu-
tion has been presented previously, and no
action has been taken in the past 14 years to
have any major improvements made. That
does not speak too well for reconstruction of
highways or repair of highways or mainten-
ance of highways, or whatever heading you
care to put it under.
MARCH 8, 1966
1297
The Ontario Minister of Highways has
promised consistently over the past years
that action would be taken in the near future.
The government has been urged, and the
Minister of Highways has been urged, to
name an early starting date for a rebuilding
programme, to be completed within the short-
est possible period of time. When I mention
these things, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
call your attention also to the fact that in
new construction, maintenance work and any
other development work— this is particularly
true of development roads, which come under
the heading, in many cases, of access roads,
development roads and new construction—
these problems have been brought before the
government by people who, I am sure, support
in very large measure this government or the
official Opposition. I would think that this
would be an excellent time for this govern-
ment and the official Opposition to get shoul-
der to shoulder on this thing and see if
something cannot be done for the people in
northwestern Ontario.
I could go on for quite some time, but I
know that there are many things to be taken
up during the estimates of this department,
but I would like at this time to remind you,
Mr. Chairman, and through you, the hon.
Minister of Highways and the hon. members
of this government, that we in northwestern
Ontario are not going to be satisfied with the
highway construction work that has been
carried out over the past years and we feel
now that we are entitled to major considera-
tion when the problem of new highways, re-
construction and maintenance is brought to
the attention of this government.
We hope it will not be necessary to press
consistently for these things, that the govern-
ment in its wisdom and magnanimous spirit
at all times, as exemplified by the hon. Min-
ister of Highways himself, will carry out the
promises that he has made to northwestern
Ontario and give us something to carry on
with up there, to take care of the tourist
traffic and the resources that we have in our
part of the country and the resources which
are contributing so greatly to the well-being
of the southern part of the province and the
balance of Ontario.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Well, of course, the interest of
the hon. member is quite a natural one— it
is the part of the province that he represents.
I simply say to him that none of these
things are being ignored to the extent that
he would have the House believe.
Certainly with respect to the trans-Canada
highway there are some sections which are
under construction now. The number of
miles of any part of the trans-Canada high-
way that can be considered substandard is
quite small; the number of miles is very
minimal. I would say as a matter of informa-
tion to the House that the entire route of the
official trans-Canada highway in the province
is 1,458 miles. It is the longest mileage of
trans-Canada highway in any province in
Canada.
To December 31, 1965, 1,212 miles had
been paved to trans-Canada standards and
some 1,300 miles had been graded; 246 miles
are paved and considered satisfactory al-
though they may be somewhat below trans-
Canada standards. But of this 246 miles
that may be somewhat substandard, a good
portion of that mileage is under construction
at the moment. I am quite aware of the fact
that there are a few sections of trans-Canada
left that are not as adequate as we would
like them to be, but I would point out to
the hon. member that in that part of Ontario
—and he made reference to some commit-
ments—I can honestly say to you, sir, I can
say to him and I can say to the House,
and I have said to the representatives who
come down from that great part of the
province of Ontario, that there has not been
one commitment made to anybody in the
north that has not been kept.
Mr. MacDonald: It took 30 years to fulfil
that, though.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would suggest
to the hon. member for York South through
you, Mr. Chairman, that this govenment has
not been around that long and neither has
this Minister. I repeat, not one commitment
has been made that has not been kept and
I am frank to tell you, sir, that people up
there know it.
An hon. member: That is a lot of garbage.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is not a lot of
garbage. We will tick some of them off. If
the hon. member pursues that line there will
be nothing but garbage from him. He would
not know really. I might point out to him
that he is never around here—
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Minister
to speak to the chair, please.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I want to put
something on the record, if I may.
Mr. Chairman: Through the chair, if you
will, Mr. Minister.
1298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacNaughton: We have, Mr. Chair-
man, accelerated the construction programme
on Highway 105 in keeping with a commit-
ment to have it finished by July 1, 1967,
and it will be done. We have committed
ourselves to build a road in the Sioux Lookout
area; 28 miles of it are under construction.
We have committed ourselves to make a start
on 71, southerly; the second contract will be
under way this year and the commitment was
made about a year ago.
We have committed ourselves to complete
Highway 11 between Atikokan and Fort
Frances and every hon. member in this
House knows that that is finished. The pav-
ing will be completed by the end of this
construction season.
Mr. Freeman: We hope!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You have my
word for it and I have not made one com-
mitment yet that has not been kept.
I could recite a lot of things like this.
I am here to tell you that the people know
it; they recognize it and they tell me that.
The programme is not too bad; it is not quite
as bad as the hon. member would have the
House believe.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the hon. Minister;
I have looked over the highway construction
programme and I do not see any paving
slated for any Indian reservation in the prov-
ince of Ontario. Would the hon. Minister
tell me if there is any paving slated for any
Indian reservation in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
you will not find this in the capital construc-
tion vote: They are, as I pointed out to
the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon), mu-
nicipal roads by and large. They do not
appear in here.
Mr. Spence: A supplementary question,
Mr. Chairman. Is there any paving slated for
any Indian reservation in the province?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has suggested
that they provide grants to the municipalities
and the municipalities pay for them.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question;
there are five miles going through a reserve
in my riding.
Mr. Spence: I want to say, Mr. Chairman,
that I have a reservation in my riding. These
people pay licence fees and gasoline tax, but
there is no paving slated there. I would like
the hon. Minister to give us some paving in
Moraviantown Indian reservation in the
county of Kent.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
may I ask the hon. member if he has refer-
ence to a King's highway?
Mr. Spence: No, an Indian highway.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister
about the status of the Cariboo Falls-Warner
Lake road in northwestern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think that
would be an appropriate question for the
hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Gibson), but
I see he has left— oh, here he is back again—
he should hear about this —
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The Minister of
Highways has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say to
the hon. member, the Warner Lake-Cariboo
Falls road has no status at the moment at all.
This matter was considered by the mining
and access roads committee— actually it does
not come again in this vote, because the pro-
position was for a three-way cost-shared road.
It takes three parties to share the cost of the
road that was proposed— the provincial gov-
ernment, the federal government and the
company. The company were not interested
in it-
Mr. Bryden: So they determine policy.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: They would not
use it; they did not want it.
As I said, it takes three to qualify in terms
of this federal-provincial cost-sharing plan
and the third party was not interested, so
really the road has no status at all at the
moment.
Mr. Newman: I would like to pursue this.
Mr. Chairman, earlier in the evening the hon.
Minister said that every commitment ever
made by this government has been kept. On
Thursday, June 7, 1962 in the Kenora Daily
Miner and News, is the following:
In a telegram sent to His Worship,
Mayor C. A. Bergman of Kenora, The De-
partment of Highways advises that work
on Warner Lake road will be starting next
Monday, June 11, and a work camp will
be set up by June 15. Best regards.
It is signed by John P. Robarts, Prime Min-
ister of Ontario.
MARCH 8, 1966
1299
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): What year is
that?
Mr. Newman: 1962.
Mr. Sopha: That was the day of the
nomination.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have no knowl-
edge of those dates and I simply repeat what
I said, and I say it categorically, the road has
no status. This was the question you asked
Mr. Bryden: You should tell the hon.
Prime Minister.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: At that point
there was no awareness that the third party
to the agreement was not going to go along
with it. Mr. Chairman, we do not set all
the rules on these cost-shared roads. The
federal authority has something to say about
them.
Mr. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you
do not set all the rules, then surely the hon.
Prime Minister must set the rules. After all,
he is the one who said they were going to
start working on Monday, June 11. He was
even specific as to the date on which this
was going to start. You are not going to go
back on the hon. Prime Minister's word,
surely you are going to follow through then.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have said all I
have to say.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Could I, through you, Mr.
Chairman, ask a short trenchant, pungent
question of the hon. Minister? The question
is, when will the Sudbury-Timmins road be
completed?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think I will
probably pursue this in the same manner that
I did last year. It will not be quite as satis-
factory as the hon. member would wish, but
nevertheless, let me say for a moment to the
House where we stand at the moment.
Work on the new alignment commences
at Benny on Highway 144. It is now 144
instead of as formerly Highway 544. We have
given a little status to the road there, I
should point out.
Total mileage is 133 miles. We hope to
make access available to Gogama this fall.
Mr. Sopha: Half way.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, that is about
half way. We hope to do some work
northerly from Benny. I cannot project the
date of completion at this time, other than to
say it will be a succession of contracts, clear-
ing and grading, until it is finished. But I
cannot tell you the exact year. I do not
propose to stick my neck out to that extent,
because these things have a happy way of
coming back to haunt you, I would say to
the hon. member. We want to finish it as
quickly as it is possible to do so.
Mr. Sopha: I have two things that I wish
to say, both of which can be brief. I have
my historical experience; I wish the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs would not go
away, because I am going to say something
about him in a minute—
Hon. J. W. Spooner (Minister of Municipal
Affairs): Something nice, I hope.
Mr. Sopha: —and I do not want to say it
to his desk. I had an experience with the
Killarney road that revealed the technique
in regard to that one before; you get the
council to pass a resolution and send it to
the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minis-
ter of Highways, asking the department to
get on with the job of completion. It worked
miracles. After that resolution was passed,
which I must say I drafted for the council,
I remained anonymous. Only the most com-
pelling reason could make me reveal my—
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Sopha: They started from both ends,
then they completed from the Burwash end
to the Killarney end,. They had the foolish
notion, when they started that road, that they
would provide employment to the village
of Killarney by constructing five miles a
year.
Mr. Chairman: Through the chair, please.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister apparently does not quite appreciate
the intensity of feeling in the Sudbury
basin for the completion of this road and the
linking-up of the two great metropolitan
centres in northern Ontario.
To that end I can reveal that a couple
of weeks ago a band of hearty voyageurs
started out by snowmobile from the Sudbury
end to travel through to Timmins along the
Hydro line, and along the route of this road
in anticipation of seeing the country that
the road will go through.
1300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Apart from that, and the romance of such
a journey, it is a matter of deep economic
interest to the people of Sudbury, because,
as I related last night, and as I have said
before at the risk of boring hon. members,
here we have Sudbury, which has been
balanced on an east-west axis up to Highway
17, North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie and
beyond, with most of its contacts and its
economic and social intercourse with southern
Ontario, rather than with the northern part
of the province. Sudbury is entitled to
expect that its area of influence economically
will extend into the hinterland above it.
Perhaps the most compelling reason that
excites such organizations in our community
as the chamber of commerce— and I see
tonight one of the representatives of that
worthy body from my constituency in the
gallery, so he will be able to report that I
said things on behalf of the body-
Mr. Chairman: On vote 807, please.
Mr. Sopha: I like the gentleman very
much, but I must report he does not vote
for me.
All right, that completes the first item I
wanted to say in reference to it.
Number two is that one really wonders
about the interest of the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs, who represents the riding
at the other end of this road, Timmins, and
how eager he is on behalf of the townfolk
of Timmins to see this road completed. One
would like to know the nature of the repre-
sentations that he makes to the Cabinet to get
on with the job of getting it finished. A man,
it is true, of considerable influence in the
Cabinet.
After all, he is on the Treasury board,
he occupies one of the most important port-
folios in the government, a worthy son of the
north, a man who has been in the House for
a good number of years, and yet what is the
extent of his influence with his Cabinet
colleagues? One begins to wonder what it is,
that he cannot on behalf of this important
part of the province, persuade the hon.
Minister of Highways, the hon. Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. Allan), and the hon. Prime
Minister, to name perhaps the two most
senior and important people in the govern-
ment—
An hon. member: And the hon. Minister
of Health.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no. The hon. Minister of
Health is a lightweight in matters of this
kind. I am talking about the important people
in the government.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please, we cannot
hear the member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only thing I am interested in, sir, is
that you hear me. If you hear me, then I am
content that my message is getting across.
We are at a point where, in so many areas
of our activities and our interests, we do not
appear to have a voice in the Cabinet to
speak out for us, a voice that will put for-
ward what we consider to be our just rights.
An hon. member: What about the hon.
Minister of Mines?
Mr. MacDonald: If he does not speak up
in the Cabinet, it is the only place he does
not speak up.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed. But the hon. Min-
ister of Mines seldom bothers himself with
serious matters—
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
The hon. member will be sorry.
Mr. Sopha: Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, I
have a cold and I cannot hear what the hon.
Minister is saying.
I mention these things on behalf of the
people I represent in that important area.
One wonders, for example, what influence
toward getting the road finished the hon.
member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Demers) is
exerting. Much of this road, three-quarters
perhaps, goes through his riding, and one is
entitled to ask on the floor of the House
whether he is interested in getting it finished
as speedily as possible. The people in Sud-
bury, the basin in that intervening hinterland
between the two centres, are not very keen
about dates such as 1969 or 1970 or beyond
that.
I believe I calculated last year that at the
rate of progress the hon. Minister is presently
making, 1972 is the earliest time that the road
will be finished. It is not right, and as I said
this afternoon, "it ain't fair," it "just ain't
fair," to speak in the vernacular. It is not
fair when one goes down here to the lake-
shore— and no one wants to derogate from
what they get at $14 million a mile down
there. But all haste and speed goes on in the
construction of the great concrete highway
down there to get it finished, to carry that
great amount of vehicular traffic in this
metropolitan, megalopolitan complex. To ask
for similar treatment in our area, to ask for
haste in getting a road finished to open up
the great hinterland is perfectly reasonable,
MARCH 8, 1966
1301
equitable, fair and just. And to delay it, I
say to the hon. Minister, "It ain't fair."
Mr. T. L. Wells (Scarborough North): Mr.
Chairman, I cannot let this occasion go by on
vote 807 without remarking that this vote on
capital construction costs marks the begin-
ning of the widening of the Macdonald-
Cartier freeway through the great riding of
Scarborough North.
With the indulgence of this House, Mr.
Chairman, and your indulgence, I particularly
want to say this tonight because there are 50
of the good constituents of Scarborough North
sitting in the gallery. They are not only good
constituents, but good Conservatives.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I know the
member wants to speak on vote 807.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, after all the
various remarks of our friends down here on
these highways estimates, I would like to
compliment the hon. Minister and his staff on
the helpfulness and courtesy which they have
shown in the planning of this road.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Wells: They have demonstrated to this
local member a great degree of courtesy, and
have kept me informed as this highway pro-
gressed into this area in Scarborough.
I would like to make one comment to the
hon. Minister. I would like to know particu-
larly if in the construction of the highway
they follow exactly to the inch the plans and
surveys that are drawn up? I say this because
as has already been mentioned there is this
provision whereby homes within 50 feet of
the highway, or the pavement of the new
road, are offered the opportunity to have
their homes bought by the Ontario housing
corporation. There are five homes along the
north side of the highway which are 18
inches over the 50-foot limit and which will
not receive offers.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I am going to ask
the members to direct their questions through
the chair.
Mr. Wells: The only thing I would like
to ask the hon. Minister, Mr. Chairman, is
that if these gentlemen, after the highway is
constructed in a couple of years, get out with
a tape measure and find that they are one
inch within the 50-foot limit, will the depart-
ment still honour its obligation to make them
an offer on their homes?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If this situation
develops we will not only rely on tape
measures, we will send a surveyor out there
if it takes any survey equipment to establish
measurements. If they comply, of course,
the terms of reference will be honoured, I
think I can assure the hon. member of that.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for
Algoma-Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin):
Mr. Chairman, earlier today the hon. member
for Windsor- Walkerville referred to Highway
17 between the Soo and Sudbury. Of course,
I recognize, after some perusal of the capital
construction accounts here, that some ten
miles east of Espanola is scheduled for new
construction. This represents some ten out of
200 miles of very congested highway, and a
combination of expanded trucking to and
from Sault Ste. Marie and expanded tourist
traffic involving cars with trailers and boats.
The many consecutive miles of solid lines
on the highway because of crooks and hills
is certainly a cause of extreme worry to me.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister if we
can expect an accelerated rate of new con-
struction over this section in forthcoming
years, and if this new construction involves
another lane? The main reason for the re-
quest, of course, is related to the high acci-
dent rate— I might even say, slaughter rate-
that in turn is directly related to the need for
a truck or heavy-traffic or slow-moving lane.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say to
the hon. member that this section of Highway
17 is programmed for reconstruction. I do
not think I can assure him that we can re-
build at once the entire section that he
makes reference to. I simply would not be
telling the truth if I told him that. But we
have a continuing programme on it; there is
some evidence that there is going to be some
work done this year. There will be a suc-
cession of contracts on the highway because,
as I say, the whole reconstruction of this
thing is programmed.
That can be said about many roads. It can
be said about Highway 11 in the area the
hon. member for Fort William spoke about.
There is a programme of work allotted to
these sections of our highways.
I have to leave it to the reasonable char-
acter of the hon. members who mention these
1302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
things, to consider whether we really think
we can build every road in the province at
once. It has to be staged and programmed.
Mr. Freeman: So we wait for the pro-
gramme to evolve.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, that is the
point, and we do. I recall last year some-
body said we did things slowly but surely—
I think it was the hon. member for Wood-
bine. Maybe it is slowly, but we do it
surely, there can be no doubt about that.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wood-
bine.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to raise the matter that I suppose has been
before this House every year for the past 15
years. We have not obtained too much action
on it so far, as far as this department is
concerned. I am talking about the matter
of fair wages on government contracts.
Mr. Chairman: I think that I should point
out at this time to the member for Wood-
bine that he will recall we had ruled
out discussion on salaries and on wages
for those that were under arbitration and fair
wage contracts. We accept as being in order
at this time, those with contractors doing
business with the government outside of—
Mr. Bryden: That is correct, sir. Actually
these people are not directly employees in the
government at all; they are employed by
people who have contracts with the govern-
ment.
It is an old established policy in Canada,
except for this jurisdiction, that a condition
laid down in the letting of contracts is that
fair and reasonable wages shall be paid and
that fair and reasonable hours shall be worked
within the terms of the contract. After much
pressing over the years, the government
finally capitulated on this matter as far as
most departments were concerned, and on
January 14, 1965, it passed an order-in-coun-
cil providing that as far as the Ontario water
resources commission, the Ontario housing
corporation were concerned, and also, as far
as all government departments were con-
cerned other than The Department of High-
ways, a fair wage policy would be put into
effect. I believe the policy has been quite
successful.
The procedure, which I will just mention
to refresh the memories of the hon. members
who have not paid particular attention to this
matter, is that when a government depart-
ment wishes to let a contract, it notifies The
Department of Labour, and The Department
of Labour draws up a schedule of wages and
hours applicable to that contract. The prin-
ciple followed is that the wages shall be the
prevailing wages in the community, or if
there are not prevailing wages for the cate-
gories concerned, then they shall be fair and
reasonable rates.
The policy that The Department of Labour
has followed quite sensibly has been to adopt
the fair wage schedules of the federal De-
partment of Labour. The federal Department
of Labour has been in this business for about
60 years and has a lot of experience. Most
people accept its schedules as fair and reas-
onable.
The only trouble is that we have never
been able, up until now, to persuade the gov-
ernment that this policy should apply to the
largest contracting department of the govern-
ment by far, The Department of Highways.
I have been after whoever happened to be
the Minister of Highways at the time for as
long as I have been here. I remember that
Mr. Edwards, who used to be a member for
one of the Hamilton seats, I think Went-
worth, also used to get after the Minister of
Highways, whoever he happened to be at
the time. We bashed away at it. We finally
talked the Minister of Public Works into get-
ting into line. We never did get anywhere
with the Minister of Highways until last year.
I started in with my customary speech, and
the hon. Minister of Highways— the genial
gentleman opposite who is still the Min-
ister of Highways— shot me down in full
flight. He advised me that the whole matter
had been settled. I had hardly got about
more than three sentences of my speech out
and he stopped me cold.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I think the
House should consider this statement in the
light of the hon. Minister's earlier statement
of this evening that he always keeps his
promises and that his commitments are al-
ways honoured. He said:
I would say that in a matter of about
two or three weeks a fair wage schedule
which would embrace the operations of
The Department of Highways will be
implemented— four weeks— or somewhere in
that vicinity.
Admittedly the hon. Minister worked himself
up from two weeks to four weeks in a matter
of two sentences, but still I think the impli-
cation was that it was going to be done soon.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatever
that the hon. Minister honestly meant what
he said at that time. This was a fair state-
MARCH 8, 1966
1303
ment of what he believed to be true at the
time. The only trouble is that he apparently
misjudged the situation totally— I do not
know why.
I have no doubt that the roadbuilders asso-
ciation has been giving him a lot of trouble
because one thing they hate is fair wages;
they like starvation wages— they prefer that
type— anyway.
Whatever his troubles, this statement was
made on Monday, May 3, 1965, with an out-
side limit of four weeks. We have now
reached the year of our Lord 1966, and pre-
cisely March 8— a little more than ten months
later— and there is still no fair wage schedule
in The Department of Highways in the prov-
ince of Ontario.
I should say in fairness that I talked to the
hon. Minister about this a few days ago and
he led me to believe that there would be a
fair wage schedule for highways contracts in
this province very soon. Of course, as he
knows— and as all hon. members of the House
know— I am a very naive young man who
accepts implicitly everything that Ministers
tell me, except, as is usually the case, when
there is overwhelming evidence to the con-
trary.
I am not going to say that I am now
accepting the statement of the hon. Minister.
I will say, though, that I think he could ap-
preciate my situation when I say that I am
taking his statement with a grain of salt; I
am taking a wait-and-see attitude this year.
Last year I accepted his statement in toto.
This year, I am taking a wait-and-see atti-
tude. Perhaps in the few days since I talked
to him on the telephone, there have been
some new developments. If so, I would be
very grateful to hear about them, but I do
think that it is time that in this budget of
$224 million— nearly $225 million— something
can be done to ensure that the men who work
in building the highways and the structures
connected with them receive fair and reason-
able wages, in line with those set in union
contracts for the various trades in which
they are working.
I would like to hear from the hon. Minister
exactly what the status of this case is, at the
moment.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
must confess to the hon. member and to the
House that I was optimistic a year ago. But
I can assure him now, and my assurance
stems from the fact that there have been
a series of meetings as recently as yesterday
and again today, with the Deputy Minister
and certain officials of The Department of
Highways and certain officials of The Depart-
ment of Labour. I can assure the hon. mem-
ber that a fair wage clause will become
part of our contract document for contracts in
the next construction season.
Now, to explain why that has not happened
—and I confess I do this with some embar-
rassment. When we moved into this field
we discovered that we would have a mixture
of contracts— the hon. member made reference
to the fact, of course, that I made this state-
ment on May 3. Our estimates were rather
late coming before the Legislature last year,
so if we add four weeks to that, it would have
been in June. Now whether this is a valid
explanation or not, I do not know. I felt then
it was. If we had a number of contracts
all over the province with a fair wage
schedule in some of them and not in the
others of men working side by side, I think
we would have had a bit of chaos.
Notwithstanding that, we have hammered
at this thing— and I say hammered and
pounded. Part of our contract document
will be a fair wage schedule on contracts in
the 1966 construction season.
I regret as much as the hon. member does,
that we were not able to implement it earlier
and I apologize for the extent to which I may
have misled the House at that time. But I can
give the assurance that this will be the case
after April 1— that will be the first of next
month.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Four
weeks then.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think I am safe
with four weeks, this year— I think I am.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, following up
on this matter, may I ask the hon. Minister
two questions with regard to the proposed
schedules, which I hope— as he does— will be
included in all contracts for the coming year?
First, will these schedules make any
provision with relation to hours of work?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: May I ask what provision?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: As precisely as I
can remember, I think it will relate to 44
hours per week for construction involving
the so-called "building" trades— this is on
interchanges and forming where carpenters
and that type of tradesmen are employed;
on straight construction work it will be 55
hours.
Mr. Bryden: On the paving of the high-
ways?
1304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, grading,
paving and that type of work. I would point
out to the hon. member, and I hope that he
will go along with this, that because of the
seasonal character of the work, if we are
going to get anywhere with the type of pro-
gramme that hon. members of the House
would like us to, we have to take advantage
of the days and the weather that permits
us to do the work. I think, from the informa-
tion that reaches me, Mr. Chairman, I would
say to the hon. member that this would
appear to be acceptable.
This was in the course of discussion and
consideration as recently as this morning.
I would like to comment on one other
thing here, if I may, and again this probably
is not a good valid excuse— if that is the
way to put it— for the delay that has taken
place. But the hon. member will be aware
of the fact that while the federal fair wage
schedule has been applicable throughout the
construction industry, it simply stems from
the fact that the counterpart of what the
federal government does in terms of the
construction industry was not available here.
The federal government, as such, has no road
building department, no road building au-
thority whatsoever and this occasioned part
of the delay because we had to work
something out that had never existed before.
I must say that I was not as completely
aware of some of these problems a year ago
—or last May when we talked about them—
as I am today. But this is the basis of hours
-44 and 55.
Mr. Bryden: I will say, Mr. Chairman, that
appears to me to be a reasonable start. Let
us see how it works. I think the hon. Min-
ister is right in making a distinction between
structures— or whatever you want to call them,
the work on the right of way— whether it is
grading or paving.
There is one other matter I would like to
ask him about in this connection, and that is
the classifications that are being worked out
governing this kind of work. The reason
I am asking is that last year when this matter
was under consideration, the Ontario road-
builders association submitted a brief to the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree),
setting forth, shall we say, a very truncated
system of classifications. They provided for
labourers, truck drivers and certain licensed
mechanics, and then they had all the rest of
the people in two broad categories— engineer-
ing constructor, class 1; engineering con-
structor, class 2. I do not know if they had in
mind people playing with meccano sets or
something like that when they talked about
engineering constructors, but it is obviously
a phony type of classification. There are a
great many different kinds of tradesmen,
especially on structures, and I think they
should be properly classified according to
their trades, and they should receive the
prevailing rates for their trades.
What type of schedule? I do not want to
go into it in complete detail, but what type
of schedule is in mind? Would it be one
that would recognize the different types of
trades in the industry?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, as far as
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, and again these
are some of the points that we have been
hammering out. I understand that the cate-
gories are broad. They will cover, for in-
stance, the type of trades that are involved
in structures; all the trade categories that
are involved in structures will be defined in
the schedule.
But again I point out, this was an area
where there was nothing to go by previously.
These things had to be worked out. There
were elements of trades in the construction
of the roads themselves, but there was no
reference material available at federal gov-
ernment level. The federal fair wage scale
did not help us too much there. These had
to be developed. But the categories are broad,
and I am quite confident the hon. member
will be satisfied with them. As a matter of
fact, I say to the House that when we
talked to him on the phone, I promised to
make a schedule available to him, once it
becomes available to me. And this of course,
either myself or the hon. Minister of Labour
I think will be happy to do.
Mr. Bryden: Perhaps one of the hon.
Ministers concerned would table it so that
all the hon. members can see it. These are
public, are they not? In fact they have to
be posted around about where the people
are working.
One final point, Mr. Chairman, relates to
order-in-council 166 of 1965. Is it the
intention that this order-in-council will be
amended, or some complementary order-in-
council will be passed, governing this type
of work?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
I think we will probably do this as a matter
of policy. I do not think an order-in-council
is required. This will be a contractual re-
quirement on the part of The Department of
Highways. The schedule will be inserted in
our contract documents, and upon execution
of the documents the contractor will engage
MARCH 8, 1966
1305
himself to see that this schedule is lived up
to.
Mr. Bryden: Well, I would just point out
to the hon. Minister in that connection, Mr.
Chairman, that all the operations to which
order-in-council 166 applies are also con-
tractual operations, but this order-in-council,
without going into all the detail of it, in sub-
stance authorizes the Minister of Labour to
draw up schedules of wages and hours of
work in respect of contracts let by the On-
tario housing corporation, the Ontario water
resources commission and all departments of
the government of Ontario, except The De-
partment of Highways. It would seem to me
that if the hon. Minister or The Department
of Labour is now going to draw up
schedules with respect to The Department
of Highways, it would be desirable to amend
this order-in-council, because as it now stands
The Department of Highways is specifically
excluded from the policy set forth in it.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Mr. Chairman, might
I ask the hon. member for Woodbine a ques-
tion? Am I right in assuming that you said
that all road contractors preferred to pay
their men starvation wages?
Mr. Bryden: If I said that, I was exagger-
ating. A great many of them prefer—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I want his statement
for the record.
Mr. Bryden: I will tell the hon. Minister
of Mines, since he seems to be interested,
some of the things that have happened quite
recently in this province. As a matter of
fact, I could give him quotations from many
eminent authorities, including Catholic bishops
and so on, who said such things, or things
along that line. I will say to the hon.
Minister that there have been some con-
tractors in this province who have been pay-
ing recognized wages, working their people
40 and 44-hour weeks. They have been at
a tremendous disadvantage because there
have been others who have been paying
starvation wages. But I will say, in relation
to this, that the idea of the Ontario road-
builders association as to what constitutes
adequate wages, as submitted to the gov-
ernment less than a year ago, is, in my
opinion, getting pretty close to starvation
wages. It is really on the basis of the sub-
mission of their association, rather than of
the practices of individual members, that I
made my statement. The submission of their
association was a complete disgrace, in my
opinion. I judge from the hon. Minister that
that is by no means the determining factor
in the schedules that are being drawn up,
and I am happy to know that.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Would you give us
the names of the ones that are paying starva-
tion wages?
Mr. Bryden: I will give you the name of
the association that made a submission that
asked for what I would consider close to—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: We know that. Give
us the names of the companies.
Mr. Bryden: I really do not know if I
should bother going into this detail, but
here is a case in point that was brought to
the attention of the government less than a
year ago; I will quote it. It is from a brief
submitted to the government by the Ontario
provincial council of the united brotherhood
of carpenters and joiners of America. I am
quoting now:
A case in point was found with two
overpass projects constructed side by side
on Highway 401 over the period 1964-
1965. We shall refer to these overpasses
for the benefit of explanation as project
number one and project number two.
Project number two was let to a contractor
who operates rather big in the industry
from the standpoint of dollar value of
contracts, but from the standpoint of treat-
ment of his employees, he operates on an
appreciably lower scale.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): What is his
name?
Mr. Bryden: To continue:
The successful bidder on this overpass
located at Rodney intersection and High-
way 401 is a member of a select group
known as the millionaire club— work in
excess of $1 million each year. He had
16 prime contracts for public, heavy and
highway construction work over the period
from June 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964.
Total cost of his contracts was $2,347,900.
In looking into the smaller side of the
operation, we find that two classifications of
carpenters— they referred to themselves as
carpenters but they performed all types of
work in jack-of-all-trades fashion— were em-
ployed on that project and they were re-
ferred to as constructor number one and
constructor number two. Constructor num-
ber one was being paid an hourly rate
of $1.85, while constructor number two
was being paid $1.70 an hour. They had
1306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
never heard of the provincial institute of
trades for training apprentices and they
worked ten and a half hours every day for
six days per week, summer and fall, five
days, winter and spring. The constructors
received no overtime premium. Project
number two, a few short miles distant at
the intersection, is being constructed by a
reputable contractor who was performing
his work—
this is a few miles away—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Tell us the name of
that contractor?
Mr. Bryden:
—was performing his work with quali-
fied journeymen carpenters who worked
normal hours and were paid a normal
hourly rate of $3.27.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: What is the name of
that contractor?
Mr. Bryden: I think the description of them
is quite adequate for the hon. Minister to be
able to identify them.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That is what we want
to know; I am interested in that. That is a
blanket statement and I do not think it is
fair to road contractors.
Mr. Bryden: I would suggest to the hon.
Minister of Mines that he simmer down be-
fore he gets shot down completely in flames.
He does not know what he is talking about.
We have been hammering at this government
on this matter—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: I would say until you
tell me the names, that is a He.
Mr. Bryden: I do not care whether you
say that is a lie or not, because you do not
know the difference between truth and false-
hood.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: You have no right to
make those statements which are far from
the truth.
Mr. S. Lewis: With friends like you, the
hon. Minister of Highways—
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: That is all right; carry
Mr. Bryden: The hon. Minister of High-
ways and I were getting along fine. I was
just on the point of commending him, if I
may belatedly, for implementing a policy for
which we over here have been agitating for
some years. I will look forward to seeing the
schedules that he and the hon. Minister of
Labour are working out. I do not wish to
thresh over old straws; as a matter of fact, I
am sorry I got diverted into dealing with
some old straws. But as long as we are going
to have reasonably satisfactory schedules for
the forthcoming construction season, I am
satisfied. I will say to the hon. Minister that
I am satisfied with his statement with regard
to hours of work. From as much as he has
told me up until now, I think I will probably
also be satisfied with the wage arrangements
that will be made in the schedules. Not hav-
ing seen them, I will not say definitely, but
I have no doubt the hon. Minister is now
moving in the right direction. I am sure that
over the years we will develop a good policy
on this matter.
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: Half-truths will not
go with me.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, on this fair wage pattern that was being
discussed, the hon. Minister was saying that
there is substantial difficulty in getting a fed-
eral pattern because there is no federal de-
partment. But is there not a history of fair
wage provisions in the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto, and in the city of Toronto?
And a fair wage officer? Roads contracts and
highway contracts over many years have been
let along these lines. Is not the advice of the
fair wage officer, both for Metro and for the
city, of substantial assistance to the hon. Min-
ister in this regard?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, of course it
is, Mr. Chairman. I simply made that refer-
ence which previously had been made to the
fact that the federal government had had
fair wage schedules for a long period of time,
and that some departments of the govern-
ment of the province of Ontario had virtually
adopted them. But I went on to further point
out that that did not characterize The De-
partment of Highways, as far as the federal
authority is concerned.
Of course, we know these other fair wage
schedules exist in Metro and so on, and of
course that is as far as the Metro area is
concerned. Their schedule is probably not
applicable elsewhere. This is a matter of fact;
I do not think there is any doubt about this.
But we are aware of it and I am sure these
things have been taken into consideration.
MARCH 8, 1966
1307
I was simply commenting on the fact that
we did not have the help and direction that
was available from the federal authorities,
because—
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I know there
is a history of fair wages, fair wage officers
and fair wage schedules opinions going back
at least 12 years in this area. I would have
hoped the hon. Minister could get on with
his job a little more quickly. However, we
will have it soon and we will wait and see
what it produces.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point I
wanted to discuss. There is available a board
called the highways appeal board which is
set up under the Minister in order to
accommodate contractors who protest about
interpretations of contracts. I am advised—
and I am not too sure of my facts on this,
so if I am wrong I hope the hon. Minister
will correct me— that in order for a contractor
who is concerned about the interpretations
of his contract to be heard by this board,
he must post a deposit of some $500 to be
heard. Then, as the hearing goes on, if it
lasts a day, two days or three days, he is
assessed at the rate of $100 a day for the
time that hearing takes up. If he has not run
out of his $500 at the end of the hearing
he gets back whatever overpayment there is.
I would like to know the basis on which the
hon. Minister sets up this procedure of the
paying in of a deposit, because when I have
to go to court against my hon. friend and
take him into the county court I do not
have to put up this kind of security for
costs. It would seem to me that there should
be a system evolved of paying costs similar
to our courts system.
I would like to hear the hon. Minister
briefly review this whole question of assessing
a substantial deposit against a contractor and
just how it works.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, the deposit
and the fees, whatever they may be, are a
matter of agreement between the appropriate
representatives of the roadbuilding industry
and the department. This is not an imposed
thing, they agree to it. The claims com-
mittee the hon. member refers to is an
adjudicating body, and this board of course
takes over if the claims branch or claims
section of the department, headed by the
claims engineer, cannot properly effect a
settlement. Then they have the right of
appeal to this claims board. That is quite
correct.
But everything in connection with what-
ever the deposit and fees are has been devel-
oped by a process of agreement with the
industry, through their representatives. It has
not been imposed on them. They do not
seem to complain about it too much.
I might add, while we are on this subject,
Mr. Chairman, the claims board is at present
only adjudicating claims that arose from
contracts entered into prior to the proclama-
tion of The Proceedings Against the Crown
Act. So now anybody with a claim can
proceed against the Crown unless the contract
was entered into prior to the proclamation
of the Act, and these are still being adjudi-
cated. There are not too many left.
Mr. Singer: Well, is there not still a system
'going on whereby you have a private
arbitration, with recourse still being available
to the courts?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Not at the
moment, although I can assure the hon.
member that an alternative process of arbitra-
tion is being considered. But this claims
board was set up when you could not proceed
against the Crown except by fiat, and this was
a tribunal set up in order to deal with these
claims. Now, with the introduction of the
proclamation of The Proceedings Against the
Crown Act, which goes back, I believe, to
1963, it makes it possible for a contractor
who fails to negotiate a proper claim settle-
ment with the claims engineer, to proceed
through the courts.
Mr. Singer: Yes, while it is possible, there
still is, as I understand it, some sort of com-
mittee or board or something within the
department to appeal to, and it is these
people who have to get the costs, whether
or not there is a civil claim available. Am I
not correct in this?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, we have
always had a claims procedure, this is true,
yes. A section of the department headed by
a claims engineer and two assistants. All
claims are processed there in the first in-
stance, and the great majority of them are
settled in that manner. This claims board
exists to deal with claims when settlement
cannot be reached in the first instance with
the claims engineer. As I say, this was a
method of adjudicating claims when there was
no straightforward provision for taking your
claim to the courts.
Mr. Singer: But does not that board still
exist?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It still exists, but
it is only existing to adjudicate claims that
arose prior to the proclamation of The Pro-
ceedings Against the Crown Act.
1308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: What happens to a contractor
who says, "I am not happy with the opinion
of the engineer"? Has he not recourse to a
board at the present time without going to
court?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: He would proceed
in the manner that I have just described. He
would take his claim to the claims engineer or
a member of the claims engineer's staff. First
of all, he would file notice of his intention to
claim, and when that is properly documented,
he proceeds to go through the procedures
with the claims engineer. That would be on
contracts entered into after the proclamation
of The Proceedings Against the Crown Act.
He has access to the Deputy Minister in pur-
suance of his claim. If he cannot effect a
satisfactory settlement there, he goes to
court.
Mr. Singer: Does he have to pay any costs
then when he goes before the Deputy Min-
ister and his cohorts?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, none.
Mr. Singer: All right. Now, let us go back
to the people who had a claim that arose be-
fore 1963. Why should they have to pay
$500 or anything to get an adjudication?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would suppose
it could be best characterized as an informal
arbitration. I am not a lawyer, I do not
know exactly the terms, but this is what
takes place. It is a process of arbitration. I
would say to the hon. member that it costs
money to go before a board of arbitration,
of course it does.
Mr. Singer: It costs money to set up courts.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Exactly. And it
costs money to operate a claims board. So
notwithstanding the fact that these fees are
assessed, they are a matter of agreement by
appropriate representatives in the industry
and the department.
Mr. Singer: It is a pretty unilateral sort of
an agreement.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no.
Mr. Singer: What you are able to say to
the industry is, "You can't take us to court
because we won't give you a fiat. Now, we
will do something for you, but you are going
to have to pay for it. Now do you agree to
that or not?"
What choice do they have? If they wanted
any type of adjudication they had to pay a
fee of $500. I was not aware, as I am now,
when I started off on this that this necessity
for a deposit has gone, and the rights as to
costs are determined by the courts. But I still
think this $500 is a pretty unilateral type of
decision and is unfair. How many claims
would there be now existing that arose before
January 1, 1963?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I could get that
information for the hon. member. There
would not be too many.
Mr. Singer: I would think that a number
of contractors feel that they are somewhat
aggrieved are being perhaps unnecessarily
penalized by the necessity of having to put
up this kind of a deposit.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. member
may be right. That has never been said to me
by a contractor who has wanted an arbitra-
tion before this claims committee. It does
not cost them anything to proceed through
the claims engineer and his staff. I am sure
the Deputy Minister does not charge them
anything. This then is the counterpart of a
formal board of arbitration and the hon. mem-
ber knows very well this costs money, he
knows very well it does. So again I say, it is
by a process of mutual agreement— it is a
bilateral thing, not unilateral— this has been
done. I say that the great saving to them is
that they can be heard without the services
of a counsel. I think the $500 could be very
cheap because they do not have to be repre-
sented by counsel. The hearings are quite
informal, and a lot of them have been settled
in this manner. Now I recall this question
was asked of me a year ago, I think by the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, and I
may have misinterpreted his remarks then,
because I think I said there was no great
continuing amount of fees. There certainly
is this $500 deposit. They get it back if it
is not all used.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister says no
complaints have come to him. I suspect he
has divined by now that the industry is not
completely happy with the payment of the
$500 fee, or else the matter would not be
coming forward at this time. The complaints
have come to me and to my colleagues
about this, and this is why the matter is
being raised, and without belabouring this
point unduly, since the contractor who felt
he was aggrieved, has little or no remedy,
other than the gratuitous offering of a board
of arbitration. What other choice did the in-
dustry have then to say, all right we will take
it on your terms, it is better than nothing?
MARCH 8, 1966
1309
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would hope the
hon. member will agree with me that while
that may be so, it is history now. We went
along with, and very much supported, the
introduction and eventual proclamation of
the proceedings against the Crown, because
we feel that is what the courts are for.
Mr. Singer: It took a long time to get
around to that.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It did not take
us a long time to get around to it. It was—
Mr. Singer: Well, your predecessor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Let us say that
has been done, and if the former procedure
looks to be a little unsatisfactory to the hon.
member, let us say we have moved to correct
this, three years ago.
Mr. Singer: But you are still taking the
$500.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We are. These
were the contractual arrangements at that
time. This is right.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walker ville.
Mr. Newman: What does a sub-contractor
do who claims he has not received his full
remuneration from the prime contractor?
Does he have any recourse to the depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, we certainly
do everything we can to protect sub-contrac-
tors and suppliers if they file their claims
with the department.
Mr. Newman: Does he have to leave a
deposit with the department?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, no.
Mr. Newman: He does not?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No. The only
people who go through the procedure that
has been discussed here over the last few
minutes are the prime contractors. They are
the only people. We do make very ample
provision for payment of sub-contractors' ac-
counts. We hold back a percentage of the
amount that is owing to a prime contractor
until he can satisfy us that his accounts have
been paid.
Mr. Newman: Yes, but, Mr. Minister, you
may not know that the sub-contractor has
not received full remuneration. The prime
contractor says he has paid, but the sub-
contractor says he has not been paid for his
work. What does the sub-contractor do in
that case?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: He comes to us.
That occasion seldom arises, I can assure the
hon. member, for another reason. One of
the really important considerations with re-
spect to payment of prime contractors' ac-
counts to sub-contractors is the fact that if
they are not paid they are subjected to a
very severe prequalification penalty. Their
rating is reduced. I can assure the hon.
member that this is a procedure that any road-
builder does not want to become involved in.
If his prequalification rating is reduced, then
of course, the amount of work he can have in
hand or bid on is substantially reduced.
I can assure you that this consideration is
the best protection for creditors of prime
contractors that we have. The cases where
they are not paid, I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, through you to the hon. member, are
isolated indeed.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Minister, I happen to
have heard from a fellow who claimed he
was not being paid by a prime contractor.
I think he did bring the case up with the
department, but had a lot of difficulty getting
satisfaction.
But I can see where the fact that the
contractor may have a claim levied, or held
against him, may lower his standing when it
comes to prequalification, and as a result, he
may not want to lose the prequalification
level that he does have with the depart-
ment.
I have noticed in your annual report, on
page 32, that there have been some changes
in procedures on capital contracts. What are
these changes that have taken place, on pre-
qualifying of contracts?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will have to
get that information for the hon. member.
We make changes in our prequalification
rating procedures from time to time. There
is not any doubt about that, I would say,
Mr. Chairman. The specific changes the hon.
member makes reference to, I will have to
look up myself.
But we have a prequalification committee
in the department. The Ontario roadbuilders
association has a prequalification committee
and from time to time our committee and
theirs meet. They meet with the appropriate
officials of the department and matters relat-
ing to prequalification are dealt with from
time to time, so these changes do take place.
1310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, I know exactly what the
hon. member has reference to. Prior to these
changes, prequalification only applied to con-
struction contracts. Prequalification applies
now to almost every type of work done by
the department, including maintenance con-
tracts. In fact, I think all contracts with a
value down to $10,000 require to be pre-
qualified. These are the changes that the
hon. member has reference to. It is just an
extending of the prequalification procedures.
Mr. Newman: Very good, Mr. Minister.
Continuing with that, why has the depart-
ment not insisted on prequalification of con-
tractors in all of their works? I notice only
78.3 per cent of the 326 capital projects for
the last year required prequalification— on
the same page, Mr. Minister.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I see that
here. This was a rather broad move in a new
direction. We were moving to encompass
a much broader range of contracts and types
of contracts than ' previously. I think it is
fair to suggest to the hon. member that we
hoped to get a little experience in the period
of time since this was introduced.
There are some types of contracts that are
very difficult to prequalify. As a matter of
fact, there are some types of contracts that it
is very difficult to get contracts for— bridge
painting, for instance. It is very difficult to
get people to undertake to paint our bridges
by contract.
We have left some of these small amounts,
because to formalize them to that extent,
would make it difficult for us to get some of
our small jobs done. I think that is as good
an explanation as I can give.
Mr. Newman: That is understandable, Mr.
Minister, but you are working toward a 100
per cent prequalification, if possible?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is certainly
under consideration.
Mr. Newman: May I then ask the hon.
Minister if the department has ever consid-
ered—I am not recommending this— the use
of a median bid in contract bidding?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Not any government contract.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, Mr. Chair-
man, we stick strictly to the policy of the
low bid and with these modest exceptions,
the bidder must be prequalified.
Mr. Newman: Has the department car-
ried out any research on the effect of a
median bid in the department? I have re-
ports here that many instances have come
to light where maintenance costs of low-bid
materials have far exceeded the cost of
higher bid materials, which require less care.
Then, for the illumination of the hon.
members, the idea of the median bid was to
eliminate the distorting effect of excessively
high or low bids. All quotations 15 per cent
above or below the predetermined estimate
are rejected, the average is taken on the re-
maining bids and the bidder closest to and
below this average is declared to be suc-
cessful tender. Is this what the hon. Minis-
ter also had in mind when I mentioned
median bid; is this the same policy that may
have been researched by the department?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, this is what we understood it to be.
I would say we have proved to our
satisfaction that this procedure is not neces-
sary. Those are materials contracts the hon.
member is referring to; they are not con-
struction contracts, they are materials con-
tracts. We do not have to adopt a policy of
that kind because all the materials that are
used on our jobs are pretested by the de-
partment. We know that the quality is satis-
factory before the contract is awarded.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister.
In the tender price, does the hon. Minister
have an estimate for the coming year as to
what his tender index will be on road con-
tracts?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. Reference
was made to this before, Mr. Chairman. We
use the best current up-to-date information
we can get from the Dominion bureau of
statistics. It proves to be somewhat more
satisfactory, because trying to project these
cost indices over a protracted period of
time just has not worked. We have had to
do this on a very frequent basis so we work
closely. The financial comptroller's office is
in touch with the Dominion bureau of statis-
tics and we get these updated costs as
frequently as they are required. We think
we are even probably ahead of the game to
some extent in this manner.
Mr. Newman: Well, does the hon. Minis-
ter foresee an increase in expenses as a re-
sult of the increase in wages that has been
prevalent throughout? How far higher will
his tender index price go above 151, as it
was in 1964-65?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wish I had a
crystal ball, Mr. Chairman, I—
MARCH 8, 1966
1311
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister must be
able to forecast the thing, can he not, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If I were to
produce for the hon. member the graph of
the various indices for granular material,
steel, structures, paving materials and so on,
he would find that over a period of years
the graph has gone up and down fairly
frequently.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister has the graph right in the book here;
all I am asking him is to tell me what he
anticipates his index price will be for the
coming year.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We would antici-
pate that it will be not less than it is now;
that would be good sound practice. We prob-
ably projected some increase, but to tell the
hon. member exactly what that will be, Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister bases his
costs on his index price.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, but I tell the
hon. member those index prices can change.
We protect ourselves in our estimates, of
course. If the cost indices do decline, I assure
the hon. member we will have a little more
money to build roads with. If they go up,
we will have a little less than we have
budgeted for, but this is an impossible thing
to determine. I will say, though, that the
costs have steadily risen over the past few
years and it is obvious that the wage in-
creases that are contemplated are going to
add very materially to the cost of our con-
tracts.
Mr. Newman: Then may I ask if the hon.
Minister would explain the price of concrete
in structures in the 1963-64 construction
year? It was $31.85 a cubic yard. Why has it
gone up to $37.74, an increase of 20 per cent
over the past construction year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I think the hon.
member put his finger on it not too long ago,
when he said that heavy labour content is
the thing that puts these costs up. The actual
material content does not vary that much,
but the cost of labour has and there is a
tremendous amount of labour in the type of
material the hon. member makes reference to.
This is where the great amount of cost
accrues.
Mr. Newman: That is exactly why, Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister should be able
to anticipate a tender index price. He has
to work on some type of figures when he
decides what his contract is going to be.
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, on the
volume of claims and investigations, I notice
that the number of accidents involved with
the department has risen substantially over
the past construction season. Can the hon.
Minister explain the reason for the great in-
crease in the number of claims?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
do not mind trying to answer these ques-
tions, but the question has no relationship to
vote 807.
Mr. Newman: Why would it not have any
relationship to vote 807? Under capital con-
struction?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Really, this is
capital construction. I have some difficulty
relating the matter of claims to motorists
to construction of highways. There may be
a vague one that escapes me—
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, these involve
government vehicles, the department's
vehicles, page 42.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We have very
few vehicles on construction. These vehicles
are the property of the contractors. We use
our vehicles for maintenance purposes.
Mr. Newman: All right then, Mr. Chair-
man, will the hon. Minister turn to the book
at page 42 and explain why—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It is not appropri-
ate, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this matter
under this vote. I have no objection to dis-
cussing it, but let us keep in order.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, when I
attempted to bring up some of these points
under vote 801 I was told to wait until
807. This is why I waited-
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: This was not one
of them.
Mr. Newman: Should I have spoken on
vote 801, Mr. Chairman? I will save them for
next year then, that is all. But tell me where
I should bring them up so I can straighten
it out this year and not worry about it next
year.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will let the hon.
member know. At the moment, I would have
to go back. I am not trying to restrict the
debate, but we are making an attempt to
keep in order. We have broken these esti-
mates down into 11 votes instead of three;
we have allocated the sections that used to
1312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be strung out under each of the three votes;
we have provided— albeit the hon. member
says we did it accidentally; this was not
true— hon. members with the estimates book
for some time. He has had the capital con-
struction programme, as well, in advance of
the estimates as I could make it available,
and I tabled the annual report several weeks
ago. I simply say, Mr. Chairman, we have
allowed a great deal of latitude, but let us
try to keep in order. This is out of order
on this vote-
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I will accept
the ruling of the chair as to this being out of
order, but I had asked the previous Chair-
man under which vote I could discuss this.
He had mentioned under 807; I wrote the
figures 807 on each one of these questions
that I had to ask. But it is all right, I will
ask them under 807 next year.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): Mr. Chair-
man, there is a great disadvantage in being
the only Liberal in all of eastern Ontario. I
had a lot of questions to ask about The De-
partment of Highways. I was hoping some
of the hon. members on the other side who
represent this great area of the province—
certainly not through any fault of mine; I
cannot really understand why our people
should have voted that way, but 11 out of
12 are Tories— I thought at least two or three
of them would say a few words, or ask a few
questions about eastern Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: They have all made their
announcements.
An hon. member: None of them are here;
they are all away.
Mr. Racine: I quite understand that the
hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yaka-
buski) did make an announcement that the
hon. member for Sudbury quoted yesterday
in the House. I notice he was here this after-
noon; he did not say anything about it.
Mr. Chairman, I do not like to have to
make that kind of remark, but I would like
to join the speeches of the hon. member for
Sudbury, the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for Fort
William and others, who have complained
about the highway conditions in their areas.
I say that the conditions in eastern Ontario
are identical to the other areas that have
been mentioned before. I would have
thought that those hon. members on the
other side of the House should have asked
some questions at some point or other on
these estimates. I suppose, Mr. Chairman,
that they are quite satisfied with the condi-
tions. I am not satisfied, and I do not think
the people of eastern Ontario should be satis-
fied.
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa): Does the hon.
member mean there are no good highways in
Ontario anywhere?
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, I am referring
to eastern Ontario.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston): Is the hon. mem-
ber referring to Kingston, too?
Mr. Racine: I am talking about eastern
Ontario. I am not talking about—
An hon. member: Be more specific when
you talk about eastern Ontario. What are
you talking about?
Hon. Mr. Wardrope: The hon. member is
talking to a lot of members.
Mr. Racine: That is right. I would be glad
to see them come up and say something,
even if they only said that everything that is
being done by the government is good. I
would be glad if they got up anyway. I
know in all those areas, in all those constitu-
encies, there is something wrong. I would
refer to the speech made by the hon. mem-
ber for Russell (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence) some
years ago when he referred to the trip he had
made with the hon. Prime Minister during
the election campaign of 1963 through the
country of Russell. He referred to the roads
in the county of Russell as being the worst
in Ontario. I am not inventing that; you
can go to Hansard and read these remarks
by the hon. member for Russell.
When the hon. Minister of Mines was
making his wonderful speech about northern
Ontario this afternoon, I referred to a speech
that was made by a Tory candidate during
the last federal election in the county of
Renfrew South when he talked about high-
ways. Of course, we know that the highways
are not the responsibility of the federal gov-
ernment, but still this member thought
he would win some votes by referring to the
goat trail— he was referring to Highway 17—
and particularly to that part of Highway 17
between Pembroke and Ottawa. Some parts
of it are pretty good, but they have been at
it for years and years and years.
I do not think that eastern Ontario should
be satisfied with that and I think in the
reports of the economic council, it was men-
tioned that eastern Ontario is an area which
suffers from poverty. There are pockets of
poverty in eastern Ontario, and I think the
MARCH 8, 1966
1313
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve)
has read those reports and he will agree with
me that this happens.
I think this economic council has said that
in order to bring prosperity to that part of
the province there should be highways. I
think this is fundamental. I am not against
highways for Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor or
Niagara Falls. I am in favour of them, but I
say that we should think of the other parts
of Ontario. I think possibly one of the
reasons why eastern Ontario at this time is
underdeveloped is because of the fact that
the highways in that area have been
neglected.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to make my
point to show you the necessity of doing
something in that area.
Mr. Chairman, may I quote an article
from the Windsor Star, dated October 5,
1965, which says that:
Ontario plans a 67-mile, $40-million
freeway between the city of Ottawa and
Pointe Fortune, about 30 miles northwest
of Montreal, within 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat that
"within 20 years." That is a long time, when
you consider that in the province of Quebec
the continuation of the trans-Canada high-
way, now almost completed, will be com-
pleted to the borders of Ontario possibly
within the next 12 months. We will get this
freeway in 20 years from now. I would like
to continue this quotation:
The four-lane freeway has priority in the
$100-million plan for eastern Ontario, a
gathering of about 160 community repre-
sentatives from the region was told. An-
other freeway would be built by 1985
between Ottawa and Brockville to channel
Toronto traffic from the Macdonald-Cartier
freeway to the capital.
I am not a mathematician, but it seems to
me that this is 19 years hence—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to save the hon. member some
embarrassment because what he is quoting
here is absolutely incorrect. If the hon. mem-
ber had been at the meeting that was in his
own capital city, to which we invited every-
body, I think he would know that that article
is incorrect.
If the hon. member would like to pursue
the reading of the article, fine, but I can
point out to him that it is completely inac-
curate.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could
ask the hon. Minister, through you, when he
expects a good highway. I do not think we
should have a freeway, but when does he
expect a good highway to run from the
Macdonald-Cartier freeway to the capital
city? Is this not a fair question, Mr. Chair-
man? I think this is something that should be
done and now. I say that this highway should
be built now, and we should have this high-
way go from the Macdonald-Cartier freeway
to the capital city for 1967.
I know that the hon. Minister will prob-
ably tell me that it cannot be done, and I
say that it is bad planning. I know, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. members for Stor-
mont (Mr. Guindon), Glengarry, and Prescott
(Mr. Cecile) have said that there was going to
be a good highway from the Macdonald-
Cartier freeway to Ottawa shortly, but I say
that good planning would have given us
that highway to the capital city for the
Centennial year.
Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to get
into this debate for a long time because I feel
that this is bad for this province. We should
have a superhighway leading from the Mac-
donald-Cartier, coming in from Montreal
where a lot of people will be travelling to and
from in 1967; we should have a highway
that should lead to the capital, because the
people coming in from the western part of
the province driving toward Montreal might
be induced to take a left turn and go down
to the capital, and I think this is what we
need.
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is not too
much, when we can expect that kind of a
highway to go through the capital city?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, to
get back to the earlier comments of the hon.
member when he was reading from the
Windsor Star, making reference, of course, to
a highway from Ottawa to Pointe Fortune in
20 years, let me suggest to the hon. member
that if he had attended the presentation of
the area transportation study in Ottawa, I
think last October 8 or 12— and he was quite
at liberty to attend it; as a matter of fact, I
would be surprised if he did not get an invi-
tation-
Mr. Racine: May I just say a word, Mr.
Chairman? At that date, I was taken up with
the committee on aging.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Very well, that is
satisfactory. If the hon. member had been
there, he would have witnessed the traffic
and transportation study engineers from the
department disclose a projection of the high-
way needs in the eastern or Ottawa study
1314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
area over a 20-year period. He would also
have seen a graphic presentation and an oral
presentation of the extent to which these
20-year projections were to be staged.
In the first priority stage was the road
that he made reference to, from Ottawa to
Montreal. I certainly am not going to say
that this road will be built in 1967, because it
will not be and cannot be, but I will go back
to emphasize the extent to which we are
covering the province with these studies, to
determine where these roads should be most
effectively built to develop these areas and
deal with the transportation problems there.
The projections go right through to 1985.
I am convinced that the hon. member would
have been impressed if he had seen the man-
ner in which these projections were devel-
oped.
Stage 1 of the projected 20-year period calls
for an expressway, and it does call for an
expressway from Pointe Fortune to Ottawa.
It may very well be that two lanes will be
built in the early stages because the projec-
tions indicate that this is all the traffic de-
mands, but I can assure the hon. member that
sufficient right of way will be acquired to
add another two lanes and make it a fully
controlled access highway in due course.
Coupled with that, we propose to build in
the same priority stage, a road which will go
northerly from just west of Cornwall, I be-
lieve approximately to the community of
Casselman. There it will connect with the
east-west freeway that I have spoken about,
from Ottawa to Montreal, again in the first
stage. It may very well be that in advance
of the actual reconstruction of a road just
west of Cornwall to Casselman, we may
assume some existing county roads into the
King's highway system. We may do this very
shortly, and then of course subsequently
reconstruct them to the extent that is neces-
sary to effect this connection.
The hon. member made reference to a
road that would probably take off, if you
like, from Highway 401, the Macdonald-
Cartier freeway, just east of Brockville. This
has been planned, because actually the pro-
jections in the study indicate a very, very
respectable volume of the vehicular traffic
moving from Toronto easterly as going
directly to Ottawa. They do not want to go
down any further before they turn north
to Ottawa, and so they use Highway 16. At
the same time, we hope and propose to
improve Highway 16 during this priority
stage.
Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting to
tell the hon. member that we will build these
highways in 1967 or any precise year, but the
projections are divided into three stages. The
first would be in a five- to seven-year period.
Planning of the eventual freeway from Ottawa
to the Quebec border is now in the planning
stages. We will be on with some functional
planning very shortly. In due course we will
get on with property acquisition. It takes a
fair amount of time, from the time we decide
to build a road of these dimensions, or these
characteristics or proportions, before it be-
comes an accomplished fact.
I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and
the hon. members of the House, that im-
plementation of the priority stages of the
recommendations in the Ottawa area trans-
portation study plan, are well advanced and
under way.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, now that the
hon. member for Ottawa East has asked
for some comments from members from
eastern Ontario, I think that I can consider
myself as a member from eastern Ontario,
representing the riding of Kingston and
the Islands. I think he should have been a
little bit more specific in saying what part
of eastern Ontario he was talking about,
because as far as Kingston is concerned,
I have heard nothing but kind words and
comments on the highway system, particularly
as it goes from Kingston through to To-
ronto. I would like to assure the House
here, that the people of Kingston are very
appreciative of this highway, that enables
us to go from Kingston to Toronto in not
more than iVz or 2% hours.
Mr. Bryden: What about those who want to
go to Ottawa?
Mr. Apps: In addition to that, I would like
to point out that there are about five different
routes you can take from Toronto to Ottawa.
You can go up Highway 35, to Peterborough,
through to Ottawa on No. 7. You can go
up from Belleville, through Tweed to 7 to go
to Ottawa. You can go to Kingston, up 15,
through Smiths Falls to Ottawa. You can go
from Prescott to Ottawa and from Morris-
burgh to Ottawa. The problem is not in
getting to Ottawa, it is when you get into
Ottawa that you have problems in driving.
I hesitate to get up in connection with
The Department of Highways, because as
far as I am concerned, I can say nothing
but good things about the department, and
every time you say that, of course, the hon.
members on the opposing side get up and
say, ha ha, you are looking for something
more when you do that.
Well, that may be true. Maybe I am look-
MARCH 8, 1966
1315
ing for something more. I would like to see
them improve the highway between Kingston
and Ottawa a little bit more, because they did
not do a very good job. However, that is
beside the point. Of all the departments in
this government, I do not know of any that
give you more co-operation and help than
The Department of Highways.
I have sat here all afternoon and all even-
ing, listening to the Opposition try to pick
up little things here and there. They criticize
The Department of Highways and it really
means very little, because I think they all
realize that The Department of Highways is
doing an exceptionally fine job. I, for one,
representing Kingston and the Islands, would
like to congratulate them on the way they
are looking after our problems. They are
doing an exceptionally good job.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, I wonder could
I ask the hon. member for Kingston just
one question? I would like him to comment
on the roads leading to Ottawa from King-
ston. Are you satisfied with that kind of
highway?
Mr. Apps: I would be very happy to
comment on those, because I travel them
often and the one I like best is the one from
Kingston to Morrisburg to Ottawa, because it
is a little more direct, it is not quite as
winding. If I am looking for a nice drive in
the summertime, I go No. 15, because
it is a beautiful drive up there through the
vacation area. I would say that those high-
ways—they are not the four-lane highways-
can be improved. I am sure, as the hon.
Minister has indicated tonight, that in the
overall planning those highways will be im-
proved. I dislike hearing people criticize a
department which I feel is doing an excellent
job, and as far as I am concerned in
Kingston, they are doing an excellent job and
we are very happy with them.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Russell): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to speak if I might,
on a point of privilege. When I was out of
the House a few minutes ago, if I am correct,
I understand that the hon. member for
Ottawa East reported that I said that the
roads in my area were the worst in Ontario.
I have just drawn Hansard and had a look
at the speech I made at that time, and
there is no such remark in it whatsoever.
Now, if I might finish my comment, having
sat in the House as many of us have, this
strikes me as being typical of the Liberal
attitude to these estimates. They stand up,
wave their arms, use a loud voice and do no
research, and in this regard I would like to
compliment the NDP. At least they speak
more softly and do some research.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, I would have
liked the hon. member for Russell to quote
some of the things that he said in that speech.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: Very well, sir:
Next on the subject of highways it is
difficult, sir, for a resident of the Ottawa
area to view the superhighway connecting
Toronto with Crown Hill, Ontario, and
comprehend why there is no such road be-
tween Ottawa and Canada's largest city,
and between Ottawa and the greatest
sources of commerce and tourist dollars in
the world, the United States.
Is that a statement that we have the worst
roads in Ontario? Now, another interesting
thing out of this:
How much money does the Liberal gov-
ernment put into the highways that give
access to the national capital, apart from
their grants to the trans-Canada?
Now, the second paragraph, for my hon.
friend's edification, is a short one, and reads
like this:
For example, sir, there is not a single
paved road running north to south in my
riding, and on this point I want to assure
the hon. Prime Minister that it was purely
coincidental and without malice afore-
thought that his visit to my riding last
summer included the bouncing, dust and
zig-zagging of a route from north to south
in Russell.
Does that suggest that we have the worst
roads in Ontario, or that I said that we
had the worst roads in Ontario? I think the
hon. member should retract his statement.
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): He does not need to. You retracted
them by reading your statement.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, I am very
pleased that the hon. member for Russell has
read this quotation and possibly he accuses
us of not making any research. Well, I do
not know—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If the Windsor
Star is read as research, I am prepared to
agree with him.
Mr. Racine: Some of the hon. members
know how much research we have done on
the subject. Anyway that is beside the point.
1316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like at this time to comment on an-
other thing, and this is an area where I would
like to compliment the hon. Minister and The
Department of Highways.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am over-
whelmed, I can tell you.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, if I may be
allowed, I mean every word of this. I would
like to compliment The Department of High-
ways of Ontario, in conjunction with the
federal authorities and the Quebec authori-
ties, for this wonderful realization that has
been accomplished in the Ottawa area in the
past year.
Now, this new Macdonald-Cartier bridge,
I think, is a wonderful bridge. I think it
serves the purpose, and there is one thing I
would like to point out to the hon. members
of this House— this bridge was opened on
exactly the date that the engineers and the
other people interested said it would be
opened, on the very day. I think this is some-
thing that perhaps the hon. Minister of High-
ways and some of his men could do, where
they could pinpoint that a certain highway
will be constructed or a certain bridge will
be constructed and finished on a certain date.
I think this very good.
Mr. Chairman, I am just bringing this in
here to call the attention of the House to this
little dialogue that took place at the time this
bridge was being completed. There was a
very unfortunate incident regarding the signs
that were to be put going on the bridge or
on the access roads to the bridge.
Because of the fact that many of the
people using these commodities come from
the province of Quebec or the people who
live near the bridge are mostly French-
speaking, there was the question of bilingual
signs to be installed.
Apparently there was a lot of correspond-
ence, a lot of phone calls and, if you would
permit me I will read this statement that was
made at the time, and I am quoting from
the Ottawa Journal. By the way, this is a
paper that is more often supporting the
people on the other side of the House than
it is supporting people on this side. I will
read what is marked here regarding a state-
ment by the hon. Minister of Highways:
He said that there were statutory limi-
tations to the erection of such signs—
and I am referring to bilingual signs:
But we are not prepared to let tech-
nicalities stand in the way if the other two
parties to the agreement are in favour of
such signs.
It would seem that one of the reasons was
that the statutes of the province did not per-
mit the use of bilingual signs.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at
this time that in many jurisdictions— even
in the United States; in the state of New
York for instance— there are many bilingual
signs all along the highways-
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: Mr. Chairman,
might I point out that this comes under the
estimates of The Department of Transport
and has nothing to do with The Department
of Highways at all?
Mr. Chairman: Under those conditions,
I declare the member completely out of
order.
Mr. Racine: Under what conditions, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: The fact that the matter
of signs should come under The Department
of Transport and not—
Mr. Racine: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The matter of signs— at
least I see nothing pertaining to signs in
vote 807.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If I may say for
the satisfaction of the hon. member, the stat-
utory reference that I made in the article
from which he has just quoted had reference
to The Highway Traffic Act. There is noth-
ing about The Highway Traffic Act associ-
ated with the estimates that are before the
House tonight.
Mr. Singer: He is talking about signs.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: These are regu-
latory signs.
Mr. Singer: He is talking about all kinds
of signs.
Mr. Thompson: Who puts them up?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We put them
up. But the reference to the matter of the
statute is completely out of order.
Mr. Singer: But the hon. Minister said
he was not going to pay any attention to the
statutes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: While I am on
my feet I will tell the hon. member why, if
the hon. member will concede the floor for
MARCH 8, 1966
1317
one minute. He could have followed up be-
cause I think that article says why.
The point is that the bridge was built by
the federal government, the government of
the province of Quebec and the government
of the province of Ontario. Upon completion,
it passed to the control of the city of
Ottawa, which has no such restrictions. For
the sake of a day or two or three, it seems
silly to let this particular statutory consider-
ation hold it up. This is the purpose of the
decision that was made and we thought it
was quite sensible.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question with regard to
Highway 18 construction. I note in the esti-
mates that the proposed structure that was
to be built at Amherstburg over a railway
has been deleted from the book this year.
Since the estimates of last year I have had
the pleasure of working with some of the
hon. Minister's highway officials in acquiring
lands for the widening of Highway 18 in
my riding, and I just wonder if the hon.
Minister will be doing work in this area
at a later date in this year.
Further, in the matter of the riding of the
hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr.
Thrasher), the Turkey Creek bridge I notice
is under way according to the estimates. The
people in my riding utilize this road a great
deal and have had correspondence with the
department's district engineer complaining
about the condition of the road in this par-
ticular riding. Apparently from the corre-
spondence there is an indication from the
department that nothing will be done on this
route until late next year, and I just wonder
if this work could be speeded up?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, the hon.
member is quite right, there is nothing
shown in the capital construction vote. I
will make the complete information available
about the programme on Highway 18, both
for the hon. member for Essex South and
the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman,
under this vote I have three or four ques-
tions.
The first one is regarding the reconstruc-
tion of Highway 63, including the construc-
tion of an overpass at the ONR crossing.
Would the hon. Minister inform the House
whether they have obtained the necessary
properties to go ahead with construction
this year, if the engineering drawings are
completed and if construction will begin and
be completed in this year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Does the hon.
member, Mr. Chairman, have reference to
the area from the North Bay city limits
easterly, including the Ontario Northland rail-
road overhead, half a mile east of the city
limits? Is that the matter?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If the hon. mem-
ber will look at page 73 in the programme,
he will find this is programmed for con-
struction. I think I could safely assure the
hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that it would
not be programmed unless we had these
matters resolved and could see our way
clear to get on with it. If there were any
difficulties such as the hon. member suggests,
we would have been reluctant to programme
it and put it in the printed programme. It is
at the top of page 73.
Mr. Smith: I know it is in the programme,
but would the hon. Minister guarantee or
would he say that this will be completed this
year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: We certainly
propose to start it and complete it if at all
possible. It is going to be the subject of an
early tender call and award so we would
hope this would be finished during the up-
coming construction season; yes, that is
correct.
Mr. Smith: I have another question, Mr.
Chairman. It is in regard to the Huntsville
district construction projects under Highway
11. I note that there is a paving and grading
and drainage of 4.4 miles north of Severn
bridge to the Cache Lake road. I would ask
whether this is construction of a four-lane
highway or is it two-lane. I would say that
at the rate of 4.4 miles, if it is a four-lane, it
will take another 25 years to reach North
Bay. Since it has taken 15 years to get from
Toronto to Orillia, it will take 40 years then
tto construct 220 miles of highway.
I think the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville pointed out earlier that 401 was
being built at the rate of 27 miles per year.
I would like to know if we could have the
construction of Highways 400 and 11 to four-
lane status brought to the same extent of
construction as Highway 401.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The hon. mem-
ber is making reference to Highway 11, of
course. It has been stated a number of
times, and publicly— I think in the North
Bay press— that we certainly propose to
widen Highway 11 as rapidly as the traffic
demands warrant it.
1318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Whether the House agrees with it, or not,
we do have certain rules that dictate to us
the extent to which highways require four
lanes rather than two lanes, and we are
keeping pace with this. As the average
annual daily traffic approaches the figures
that warrant four lanes, we are building four
lanes and we are right on schedule with it,
but there are sections of Highway 11 as you
proceed northerly, where the volume of
traffic simply does not warrant four lanes.
We have assured the people of North Bay
that this is a continuing programme and that
as the traffic volume increases, the extra-lane
programme will take place.
Mr. Smith: I would suggest to the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, that traffic volumes
will not increase if traffic is stopped at the
end of the four-lane highway, which is at
present past Orillia at Severn bridge. If he
would experience the congestion that is
caused there during the summer months, I
think he would understand why traffic does
not go any farther. I would suggest that The
Department of Highways should look for-
ward to opening up areas rather than wait-
ing until the need exists for some time.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, I did ask a
question of the hon. Minister concerning the
Queensway and I understood that he was to
make a statement on it. Am I right?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I told the hon.
member that I would get the information for
him and either give it to him during the
course of the estimates or submit it to him
in writing, which is a practice we have fol-
lowed with some success over the years and
which is quite acceptable and satisfactory to
many hon. members. I will undertake to do
it, if I have the information made available
to me, to present it to the hon. member be-
fore the estimates are completed. If not,
I will submit it to him in writing.
Mr. Racine: Mr. Chairman, just before we
leave this point, I have a quotation from the
Ottawa Journal. I always seem to have a
quotation from a Tory paper, I do not know
why. There is a statement by Mr. Fogarty,
who is a member of the board of control at
Ottawa, saying that the board of control
should have some kind of authority to keep
the Queensway free of obstacles. I quote
from the article:
The controller, Mr. Fogarty, pointed out
that Highway 401 in Toronto is super-
vised by the provincial highways depart-
ment, while here the city is responsible
for Queensway supervision.
I do not ask the hon. Minister to give me an
answer on this right away, but perhaps when
he is giving an answer on the entire Queens-
way he could think of this statement here.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will be glad to.
Mr. Paterson: Are we ready to move on
to subsection 2, Mr. Chairman? Is subsection
1 completed?
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, my question
deals with subsection 1 and that is on the
subject of overruns. Has the department
been involved in many contracts in which
there were overruns in the past year?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Would the hon.
member like to explain what he means by
overruns?
Mr. Newman: I am using a term that I get
from the department itself where the con-
tract was for x number of dollars, but would
ultimately cost more than they originally
tendered for and, as a result, were given an
extension on their contract.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Perhaps I should
explain it this way to the hon. member, Mr.
Chairman. The contract procedures that the
department employs now are largely based
on unit prices; they are not lump sum con-
tracts. The quantities are laid out in terms
of estimates in the contract documents-
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. Minister explain this unit price?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Let me say that
a unit is a kind of gravel— a granular material,
if you wish-
Mr. Newman: The hon. Minister has illus-
trated it; I understand now and I did not
before.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: All right. Now
these are the component parts of the road.
In 1964, the increase or decrease in quan-
tities—the overruns or underruns, and I would
have to look at them both— amounted to 2.4
per cent. This is because of the practical
impossibility of being exact— road building
is not an exact science. You cannot posi-
tively determine what is below the surface of
the ground where a road is going to be built.
We would characterize this as very accurate
estimating and forecasting. As a matter of
fact, going back to 1960, it was 2.8 per cent;
in 1961 it was 1.5 per cent; in 1962 it was 1.3
per cent, in 1963 it was 1.8, and in 1964 it
was 2.4 per cent— either below the estimate or
MARCH 8, 1966
1319
above it by those amounts. That is the dif-
ference in the total amounts of the actual
finished work versus the amount of the con-
tract awards. This is regarded as very close.
Mr. Newman: I am satisfied with the
answer, Mr. Chairman.
An hon. member: I am glad you are satis-
fied with the answer.
Mr. Newman: If I do not ask the questions,
Mr. Chairman, I will not know. I am willing
to ask questions at all times; that is why I
was sent here. I am very pleased that the
hon. Minister is just as co-operative in
answering the questions. It may hurt some
of the hon. members who are disinterested,
but the hon. Minister and I are still inter-
ested.
What is the status, Mr. Chairman, of the
Highbury avenue link from St. Thomas to
Highway 401?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The status of
the Highbury link is simply this, Mr. Chair-
man. First of all, I will say that this was also
categorized as high priority in the London
area transportation study presentation. It is a
matter that we have regarded with some pri-
ority for quite a long period of time. I would
point out that the matter of finding an align-
ment from Highway 401 southerly is, at pres-
ent, a bit of a problem. There are two
tentative alignments which we are examining
very carefully to determine the extent of
property damage that may be involved if we
pursue one rather than the other.
The city of St. Thomas presently has a
transportation study under way that we hope
will be completed some time in the current
year. It is very important to us to know what
that transportation study recommends, be-
cause it will have a material bearing on the
precise point at which the Highbury extension
should connect with the St. Thomas bypass.
I think the hon. member will be quite
aware of the fact that the transportation pat-
terns that the St. Thomas transportation study
recommends could be quite seriously affected
if the junction point of the Highbury exten-
sion with the St. Thomas bypass was not
done properly.
These are matters that we hope to resolve
in the not-too-distant future. When they are
resolved, we will not only get on with the
Highbury extension but we will get on with
the St. Thomas bypass.
There is another matter affecting this
whole area and the decisions involved and
that, of course, is the impending location of
the Ford plant complex in that area. It is
going to generate a tremendous amount of
traffic and I think the hon. member will be
quite aware of that.
So all these things, I think he will agree,
will have to be reviewed carefully and thor-
oughly so that the job is done to the best ad-
vantage of the area and the travelling public
that will use it. These are matters that are
under close consideration at the moment, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, has the fact
that the Ford plant will go into Talbotville
changed the studies substantially?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I cannot answer
the hon. member as to the extent that it has
changed the St. Thomas transportation study,
but it is bound to have changed it to some
extent. Access to the plant at Talbotville is
an important matter. I think the street pat-
terns in the city of St. Thomas that will affect
easy access to the Ford plant for those
workers who will be moving between the
city and the plant itself are very important.
I think it is bound to be affecting it. It cer-
tainly is going to have a bearing on our loca-
tions and alignments and connections in the
area because the plant has to be serviced. It
is expected that there will be a very tre-
mendous volume of people from London and
the entire surrounding community, moving to
and from this plant in the course of their
employment, so that when you contemplate
a traffic-generating complex like this, I would
hope that the hon. member will agree that it
is important to review this in some detail and
be sure, rather than sorry a little later on.
Mr. Newman: I am glad to hear the re-
marks of the hon. Minister, because the
people in the St. Thomas area are quite con-
cerned and have, in fact, contacted me con-
cerning Highbury avenue itself. I really do
not understand why they asked me to ask the
question, but they did.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the hon. Minister— he has been very co-oper-
ative with me— as to the status of the St. Clair
parkway or the Bluewater highway that had
originally been proposed back in 1930 by the
Hon. Paul Poisson, the Conservative member
of Parliament for Essex North? What is
the status today, 35 years later?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Never mind the
references to the 35 years previous. I do not
think that these are too important because we
have moved into this brand-new field. I will
1320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tell the hon. member that the status is simply
this: In the matter of the next few days— or
weeks, at the most— I hope to introduce a bill
into this House that will be entitled, An
Act to establish the St. Clair parks com-
mission. This will give authority to a com-
mission established for that purpose to do all
those things that are necessary to acquire
land, control development, control construc-
tion and build and maintain roads — all
those things that go toward the development
of the kind of parkway that we hope that will
be. I frankly think that this is going to be a
piece of model legislation, Mr. Chairman, and
I am very glad that the hon. member made
mention of it. It is not only going to enable
the department, in partnership with the
municipalities and the people of Lambton,
Sarnia, Kent and all the townships in between
—the city of Chatham— to jointly undertake
the development of what might well turn out
to be one of the best park areas, not only in
Canada, but on this continent.
There is nothing to compare with the
beauty of the St. Clair river. We hope to
develop this parkway to preserve it and to
make it possible, Mr. Chairman, I will say
to the hon. member that we will build High-
way 40 on a new alignment east of the park-
way to carry the rapidly increasing volume
of industrial and commercial traffic between
Wallaceburg and Sarnia, Chatham and Wal-
laceburg and Sarnia. In this manner we will
be able to preserve the existing facilities
for parks purposes.
I suggest that with the tremendous co-
operation, and the great amount of interest
shown by the people of the counties of
Lambton and Kent, the city of Sarnia, the
village of Point Edward, the town of Wallace-
burg and all those communities; the tremen-
dous enthusiasm and complete co-operation
we have had from all those people from the
time the concept was first proposed has made
this all possible.
I point out further to the hon. member,
that I regard this as a piece of model legis-
lation. We have been working on it for quite
some time with the representative people
from that area— the committee that was estab-
lished when the matter was first considered.
I will be surprised if this piece of legislation
does not make it possible to do this very
same thing elsewhere in the province as a
partnership venture, Mr. Chairman.
I say to the hon. member this involves
the interest of everybody in the community
and this is the way we are going to get
these things done. We can do so much more
when we work together, when the local
people are prepared and interested and
enthusiastic enough to work with us for that
purpose.
I am very glad that this question was asked
because it is something that I have my heart
in, and I am very enthusiastic about it. I
think it presages a great future for that area
of the province and many other areas of the
province.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newman: I thank the hon. Minister
for his complete outline of the proposed St.
Clair parkway. I had requests from people
in both Wallaceburg and Sarnia to ask these
questions so that they would get it firsthand
from the horse's mouth.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister
does not very often exaggerate, but I am
afraid in his last remarks he exaggerated
a little bit when he said that there was
nothing more beautiful than the St. Clair
river. I would like to point out to him
that when he comes down to Kingston and
goes over the bridge we are going to build
down there and looks down the wide expanse
of the St. Lawrence river to the Thousand
Islands, he will realize that that is the most
beautiful area in the world.
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): Mr.
Chairman, I am very interested in the remarks
that have taken place with respect to the
St. Clair parkway areas, and I agree heartily
with everything that the hon. Minister of
Highways has said, in spite of the remarks
of my good friend from Kingston and the
Islands. I was so pleased to hear the way
this whole thing was expressed by the hon.
Minister of Highways; he did it much better
than I could possibly do it and I have no
intention of repeating what he said.
But I might suggest to the hon. member
for Windsor-Walkerville that if he would ask
the people from the Wallaceburg area and
the people from Sarnia, who, he suggests,
asked him to ask these questions, if they
would just try to keep up with the local
press, they would find that it has been filled
with parkway for the last few years. Had
they done anything at all in an effort to get
this into their own minds, they could have
done it right at home without having to take
such a weak method of finding out anything
through the hon. member.
I may say that this hon. member could
have found all this out-
Mr. Chairman: On vote 807, please.
Mr. Knox: I want to say that prior to 807,
I had already given this information in the
MARCH 8, 1966
1321
motion to adopt the Speech from the Throne
to such an extent that the hon. member
for Muskoka (Mr. Boyer) said that he sup-
posed we were going to hear this ad nauseum.
It is there, although not as well put as
the hon. Minister said it— and I am happy
that he did say it— but it is there if the hon.
member wants to do a little research.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I have been
involved in this St. Clair parkway system for
some eight years through the southwestern
Ontario chambers of commerce, and I am
quite shocked the hon. Minister did not
make any reference to Essex county in his
remarks. Essex county has been one of the
prime movers in this concept with the thought
that the parkway extend around Lake St.
Clair, through Windsor, along the Detroit
river and end up following the shores of
Lake Erie at Rondeau park. I hope that the
hon. Minister has not ceased his thinking
on this matter, and that the road will ter-
minate at the city of Chatham. I am sure that
it would be a disappointment to a great
number of area officials.
The hon. member for Kingston has spoken
a great deal on highways, and I have before
me a brief concerning the proposed Quinte
parkway. I had thought this would be in-
troduced under "Planning and Design" and
other matters, and I wonder if that should be
discussed at this point.
Now I want to say something on develop-
ment roads, if I may.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say, Mr.
Chairman, that we should stay strictly in
order. If you are going to be out of order
now, the hon. member for Windsor- Walker-
ville, myself and the hon. member for
Lambton West have also been out of order,
so you might as well pursue it.
Mr. Paterson: Well, briefly, I have two
or three quick questions regarding develop-
ment roads. At this late hour I would like
to toss a bouquet to the hon. Minister and
thank him on behalf of the residents of
Essex South for the development road be-
tween the counties of Essex and Kent. I
might say our other exit roads are in such
bad condition. This is the only passable one
at the present time.
A letter crossed my desk this past weekend
in regard to a meeting with the township of
Colchester North who were seeking a devel-
opment road in that area and as yet they
have not had a reply from your office, sir. I
hope your people will make a note of this.
You will recall the discussions in that regard.
The other point is in regard to Point Pelee
national park. Now there are some 800,000
people utilize this service every year, and
I just wonder in your planning, in conjunc-
tion with, say, Highway 77, if there has been
any thought of a development road to help
the access into this national park. Has there
been any consideration given to this?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
I think I have to be frank enough to say
no, there has not. With respect to Colchester
North, I think maybe the answer I should
give to the hon. member is that when he was
visiting in the office about this, we indicated
we would undertake the customary appraisal.
It is a little difficult to do these appraisals
during the wintertime,
Mr. Paterson: Not in Essex County.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, in any
case, I can only assume that the work of
appraisal has not been completed, and when
this is done we will see if the warrants are
met and certainly let the hon. member know.
Mr. W. D. McKeough (Kent West): Mr.
Chairman, could I just revert for a minute?
I did not realize we were on the subject of
the St. Clair parkway and I think it would
be in order if we tried to finish that subject
before we proceed.
Mr. Chairman: Is this member finished?
Mr. Paterson: If it is agreeable, I would
like to speak on the Quinte parkway, if I
might, at a later date.
Mr. McKeough: I wanted to revert to that
subject. I was interested to hear the hon.
member for Windsor- Walkerville and he
seemed to be introducing a lot of places out-
side of Windsor-Walkerville tonight. He was
saying that there were people from St.
Thomas in Elgin county who were consulting
him and asking him questions. There is an
Ontario hospital there and I suppose perhaps
some of the people in the hospital might
have been writing him. Then he mentioned
Wallaceburg—
Mr. Singer: Oh, you are funny tonight.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. McKeough: I really find it very hard
to believe that any of the good people of
Wallaceburg were writing to the hon. mem-
ber for Windsor-Walkerville on this subject.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
1322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. McKeough: But the hon. member for
Essex South did make a point that I want to
follow up on. He always makes good points,
but I do want to follow up on one point
that he made. He said that he had been
working on this in conjunction with the
southwestern Ontario chamber of commerce
for some eight years. I think probably this
is true and I think it has been talked about,
really, for 20 or 25 years.
There was at one time talk about a road of
roses and the late mayor of Wallaceburg had
something to do with it, along with others,
and many people from Sarnia. But I just
want to put this on the record, Mr. Chair-
man, and that is that about a year and a
half ago this idea was taken up again, in
particular by the hon. member for Lambton
West and with the full support of the hon.
Minister of Highways. This project has
moved right ahead and if there are two
people in this province who deserve the sup-
port and gratitude of the people of south-
western Ontario for what they are doing as
far as the St. Clair parkway is concerned,
they are the hon. member for Lambton
West and the hon. Minister of Highways,
and that should go on the record of this
House.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee rise and report progress and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report progress and
asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Wednesday, we will
proceed with the Throne debate and on
Thursday we will continue with estimates.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.30 o'clock, p.m.
No. 44
ONTARIO
Hegtstfature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Wednesday, March 9, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 1966
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Bukator, Mr. Root,
Mr. Spence, Mr. S. Lewis 1325
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Eagleson, agreed to 1354
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 1354
1325
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
welcome guests to the Legislature and today
we welcome in the west gallery, a group of
new Canadians from the adult training
centre, Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have one question for the hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), but in his
absence I presume I had better hold it until
tomorrow.
My second question is to the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development (Mr.
Randall), who is also absent, so I find myself
speechless.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member could
read his questions and then the Ministers
could take them as notice and give the
answers tomorrow or the next day when
they are in the House.
Mr. MacDonald: I am glad to note on
what unsubstantive issues I can get applause
in this House, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the hon. Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development was as follows:
Would the hon. Minister explain how
spiralling construction costs alone warrant
an increase of a million dollars in the con-
struction of Ontario's pavilion for Expo '67?
And my question to the hon. Prime Min-
ister was, in view of the statement made yes-
terday by Mr. Albert Shepherd, QC, counsel
for the Hughes Royal commission, that loans
and other matters related to British Mortgage
and Trust Company would be dealt with
separately from evidence related to the
Atlantic Acceptance, would the hon. Prime
Minister consider at this point establishing a
separate inquiry into the operation of British
Mortgage and Trust which led to last year's
crisis and the takeover by Victoria and Grey?
Wednesday, March 9, 1966
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Mines has
a short statement.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day,
I have an optimistic item that the hon. mem-
bers will be pleased with. Mr. James Parlee,
vice-president in charge of Canadian opera-
tions for the International Nickel Company,
has advised me that they are going to start
immediately to sink a shaft 1,050 feet deep
on their property at Lake Shebandowan in
the Fort William-Port Arthur area. This
shaft will be for the purpose of further ex-
ploration underground.
If indications prove satisfactory it will
mean a new nickel mine in that area. How-
ever, no decision regarding this can be made
until further exploration has been carried out
underground. It is my hope, naturally, along
with the rest of the hon. members of this
House, that it will prove successful.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order. Re-
suming the adjourned debate on the amend-
ment to the amendment to the motion for an
address in reply to the speech from the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, when I adjourned the Throne de-
bate last Friday afternoon, I was speaking on
the problems of the Niagara parks commis-
sion employees. I said then that I had a
bit more to say on the subject, so I would
like to start where I left off.
I believe this newspaper clipping of the
city of Niagara Falls sums up the picture
much better than I can, so I am going to
read some portions of this account to you,
by one Louis Gregoroff:
Park Employees Seek Better Deal
The nation's second largest union has
thrown its support behind 250 employees
of the Niagara parks commission in a
campaign aimed at getting full collective
bargaining rights for the parks system
1326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
personnel. The national president of the
Canadian union of public employees,
Stanley Little, made the disclosure in an
interview following a mass meeting of
Niagara parks commission employees
Friday night. CUPE's 94,000 members
rank second in the country behind the
steelworkers' union. These were the de-
velopments of last night's meeting held at
the Canadian corps unit 104 club house.
CUPE has offered full-time support to the
Niagara parks commission employees in a
full bid to have them removed from the
anti-bargaining provisions of the present
Crown agents legislation.
Two CUPE-sponsored demonstrations
backing that position are being staged to-
day at the Ontario Legislature at Queen's
Park.
I would like to interject at this time, on behalf
of these people who have come here to make
their feelings known to the legislators of this
province, who have come here in such a
large number to let you know that they are
not satisfied with the conditions under which
these people have to work. I commend them
for their action. I will continue to read from
this account:
A large number of the Niagara parks
commission employees have resigned from
the Ontario civil service association in
protest over the lack of assistance from the
organization. The park employees indicated
they will not negotiate any contract terms
amounting to less than the labour rates
comparable to that paid to civil employees.
The park systems labour rate currently
is 65 cents an hour behind the latter. Mr.
Little, who appeared before the meeting
held, with Arthur Ridley, St. Catharines
CUPE representative, told the Review the
session had been intended to explore the
possibility of collective bargaining. The
meeting however went into all aspects of
working conditions for the Niagara parks
commission employees.
Park systems employees had joined the
Ontario civil service association because
they could not form a union. However
they were dealing under legislative pro-
visions which are stacked on the employers'
side of the books. The CUPE president
said the biggest problem is that they are
employees of a Crown agency which ex-
cludes them from the terms of The On-
tario Labour Relations Act. The fault lay
in the wording of the statute which classi-
fied them as Crown agents.
Mr. Little explained it this way: "They
are technically in the service of the Queen,
just like the army. So again technically
speaking they cannot bargain with the
Queen for a decent contract and working
conditions."
These people, through the study inter-
pretation, are therefore neither fish nor
fowl when it comes to collective bargain-
ing, he added. They belong to the Ontario
civil service association but the parks com-
mission does not recognize them on the
basis of their being Crown agents. An
undetermined number of Niagara parks
commission employees have withdrawn
from the Niagara parks commission branch
of the civil service group in protest.
"We belonged to this association for
eight years but we are paying for some-
thing and not getting the service," one
Niagara parks commission employee stated.
"So we have promised our full support
in this campaign to get them full bar-
gaining rights," Mr. Little said.
"It is criminal that any civil servant
should not have full rights to collective
bargaining in this country."
The Niagara parks pay scale and other
benefits were low in comparison to similar
jobs in Niagara Falls outside of the parks
system, Mr. Little continued. There is 65
cents an hour difference between them and
civil employees, and the parks' $1.60 labour
rate is 81 cents an hour behind that of the
St. Catharines civic employees.
I think that is almost enough, except the last
two paragraphs, which I think are most
fitting. They read:
One Niagara parks commission employee
said local school janitors can earn $5,400
a year, but there is nobody in the parks
system who is paid that much.
Another man said, high ranking officers
on the Niagara parks police force were not
being paid as much as the city police or
OPP constables.
Both men, as in the case of the com-
ments made by a third NPC employee,
requested that they not be identified for
fear of reprisals.
For many years, employees of the parks
system have come to me and asked me to
speak on their behalf and they have said on
occasion that they do not want to identify
themselves for fear that they might lose
their jobs— and they are good jobs, steady for
the 250, except for summertime employees—
but they would like better conditions under
which to work.
As I mentioned here last week they pile
up overtime credits for which they do not
MARCH 9, 1966
1327
get paid. They work holidays; they work
evenings and they take the time off at the
convenience of the commission or of the
administrator.
I have before me a note from the president
of that group. He addressed it to me, and it
reads as follows:
Enclosed you will find a list of some of
the wages and conditions that prevail in
the Niagara parks commission. I hope that
this information will be of some value
to you. I am sure that the employees of
the Niagara parks commission will appreci-
ate anything that you can do.
It is signed Cliff Anderson. I will read the
enclosure to hon. members:
The Niagara parks police department is
the lowest paid department in Welland
county. Members of the force are subject
to the same qualifying restrictions of the
Ontario provincial police; they must pass
the same exams, attend the same training
course; but receive far lower salaries. The
pay differential between ranks is also much
lower. Other departments receive a monthly
service pay and dry cleaning, but park
police do not.
Permanent employees of the service de-
partment cannot have any vacation from
the month of May until Labour Day unless
they get permission from the general
manager. Lunch time is set at one-half
hour and sometimes the help have to take
less if the building is busy.
I can understand that as they have quarters
where a lot of tourists come in and they
take a little less time because they want to
help their fellow workers:
Labourers' and truck drivers' wages are
lower than in other cities in Welland and
Lincoln counties. Overtime that is worked
is not paid for, but the employees have
to take the time off when it suits the
commission. No extra time is given if the
employee works on a holiday. Parks em-
ployees do not get time and one-half
for working overtime as other workers in
Ontario get.
In general, wages and working condi-
tions in the Niagara parks commission are
not as good as they could be. The labour
rate again is $1.60, and the truck drivers
get $2.35.
I mentioned to this House last Friday that
this is an obsolete method of paying em-
ployees. There was a time, Mr. Speaker,
when perhaps the employees of the parks
wanted the time off in the winter months when
they were not too busy and they piled up
their hours and took them off then. I have
since checked about the police department
and I find that three of their best officers
have quit in the last couple of months be-
cause they did not care to work for the low
pay and other jobs paid them better. They
liked their work in the parks; they were good
public relations men doing an excellent job.
They have many millions of people to con-
tend with, they assist that area and they do
an exceptionally good job.
I am proud of the day I sat in the park in
my car when an officer stepped out before
me. There was a lot of traffic and I was a
little upset, wondering why he would stop
me— of all people. I thought that he knew
me better than that, and knowing I was al-
ways busy working for the public of that
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Bukator: The man stopped me and I
was a little upset. Then I noticed an elderly
couple who had to get across in that traffic
and this officer helped them across. This is
one of the many services rendered to the
people of that area with which I happen to be
very pleased.
They have not been treated the way they
ought to be; they are not being paid the
amount of money they ought to get and
therefore they are leaving that particular
service.
I am very sorry that the hon. member for
Welland (Mr. Morningstar) is not here, be-
cause he has been appointed to a vacancy on
the Niagara parks commission. I do be-
lieve that the gentleman is a man who looks
out for the working people— I have always
had him branded as' such— and I know he
understands their problems and I am sure
that of all commissioners this man will bring
it to the attention of the commission, hoping
that they will treat their employees the way
they ought to be treated, except that it seems
that there is a difference of opinion and the
hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree) could
very simply clear this situation up. These
men have no right to bargain for their rights;
they have no right to bargain for their wages;
they cannot speak for themselves and there
is no particular agency that can do that for
them.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Bukator: I do not know whether the
hon. member is making reference to the
breeze from this side of the House or not, but
if that is what is bothering him he had better
1328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
get himself a woollen hat because he is going
to hear it often, that breeze will be blowing
continuously.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, this is a prob-
lem that is most serious; I have known these
men for many years and this is the first time
that I have ever had any official request from
them asking me to speak on their behalf.
The hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) is
in his seat at the moment and I am told that
these men have to take all of their exams and
conduct themselves and pass their exams as
any other officer of the province. I believe
under The Niagara Parks Commission Act,
hon. members will find they are called
"guards and caretakers" and not official
policemen of that particular department.
Hon. members will find that on the side of
their cars they have "Niagara Parks Police."
On this particular matter I stand to be
corrected, but I think hon. members will find
they are not called policemen, they are called
guards and caretakers. And it is about time
that particular problem was remedied.
I think when I finished last Friday I had
only one other subject that I wanted to touch
on. I have from time to time covered the
waterfront and tried to take on as many de-
partments of the government as I could, per-
taining to the many problems of Niagara
Falls, of that riding. Now I am going to
branch out into the province after these
many years and touch on a subject that I
touched on lightly last year.
There seems to be a section of The Labour
Relations Act, section 89, that civic em-
ployees are not too happy with. I might say
that an hon. member of the New Demo-
cratic Party had a bill last year pertaining to
that which our party supported. I under-
stand the bill is coming up in another day
or two from the same hon. member, dealing
with this very serious problem that affects
the employees of municipalities, and my hon.
leader (Mr. Thompson) informs me that we
have had a bill as well. Now, sir, we as
members of the Opposition did not get any
more attention to this bill than we have up
to the moment, with the hon. Minister of
Labour carrying on his bit of a conversation
there with the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr.
Wardrope) who drove his shaft down 1,000
feet— and who knows, this time he might
strike his diamonds.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Is the hon. member objecting to me speaking
to the hon. Minister of Mines?
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, this is a good
point that the hon. Minister of Labour
brought to our attention. He asked do I
object.
I believe a member in this House,
whether he be a member of the Opposition,
a backbencher, or whatever he might be,
should get some courtesy and a little bit of
attention from the front benches. I do believe
these hon. men should listen to our pleas,
our problems and perhaps do something
about it instead of reading their papers and
carrying on their friendly little conversations
among themselves.
Yes, I do object.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Just so the record
will be straight, he says "front benches"—
Mr. Bukator: And the backbenchers.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not know that
he is speaking for the front benches in his
party, but I was not reading any newspaper
and I go over Hansard, paragraph and sen-
tence by sentence to look at what people on
the other side say. I am very much inter-
ested in what the hon. members say, but I
do not think the hon. member's oblique re-
marks make any headway or do him any
credit.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, I stand cen-
sored or corrected and I do not feel that
I am out of order at all. I said it before and
I say it again.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member is
speaking entirely against the conduct of his
hon. leader who interrupts regularly and
reads newspapers all day long, including
the hon. member for Grey North (Mr.
Sargent).
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Please be seated.
There are going to be no more interruptions
while the member for Niagara Falls has the
floor. The member is making a Throne de-
bate speech and it is not a time for inter-
jections and a debate among interjectionists.
The member for Niagara Falls will con-
tinue with his speech.
Mr. Thompson: Well, I hope you are re-
ferring to the House leader and his erroneous
interjections.
Mr. Speaker: I am referring to all hon.
members who are interjecting at this stage.
MARCH 9, 1966
1329
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): In-
cluding the House leader.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this
very much. I was trying to get the attention
of the hon. Minister of Labour and if I have
done nothing else I have done that. He is
now talking to me and since he said that he
reads Hansard very thoroughly, I would
like to refer him to some sections of Hansard
of last year that I read, pertaining to this
very section, that he might look at again.
I would like to read from my comments of
a year ago.
I am reminded of the opportunity which
the government has wasted of not remov-
ing the prejudicial section of The Labour
Relations Act only last year when the
hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer)—
and that was my hon. colleague:
criticized the government for failing to
remove section—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: He is not here today.
Mr. Thompson: He is looking after his
constituents. I notice some of the people
opposite are not here.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Bukator: This is a comment from
Hansard that I was reading to the hon. Min-
ister that I may refresh his memory if he
skipped over this lightly and did not do a
thing about it. So I come back to that par-
ticular section of Hansard, I made the state-
ment last year, and I am quite pleased with
it as a matter of fact. It did not get to
first base then, I hope perhaps we can do
a little better with it this year:
When the hon. member for Downsview
(Mr. Singer) criticized the government for
failing to remove section 89.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member
should put his sentences just a little
differently about what he has thought and
the way he puts his verbs and so on, be-
cause he does not know yet what is going
to be in the legislation.
And that was a year ago. Let me tell you,
Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet what is
going to be in the legislation. And this
comes from the hon. Minister himself.
I would think that with the pressure that
has been put on him— not pressure, no; the
reasoning and the sense that has been made
by the civic employees up to this day-
he would have done something about this
section. Here are a group of people, many
thousands of them, being discriminated
against simply because the hon. Minister is
too busy doing other things.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member
does not know what the section means.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, surely the
hon. member for Niagara Falls can continue
his speech without so many interjections.
Mr. Bukator: Let me tell the hon. Minis-
ter that I do know what that section means,
let me tell him that municipal and civic
employees-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member will
speak to the chair.
Mr. Bukator: Through the chair to the
hon. Minister, I know all about that section,
Mr. Speaker. Through the chair, this hon.
Minister has come short of the mark. Civic
employees who have a right to bargain
cannot bargain for themselves through their
local councils because this section deprives
them of that privilege. It is as simple as
that.
Mr. MacDonald: How about that Liberal
mayor down in St. Thomas? He did the same
thing two years ago.
Mr. Bukator: Thank God that we have
the odd Liberal that is wrong too, because I
would be so proud of the fact that I am a
Liberal that you could not put up with me.
We make mistakes from time to time and we
come short of the mark, but I can assure
hon. members that on this issue we do not
come quite as short of the mark as the hon.
Minister of Labour does. Thousands of
people have been walking up and down here
in front of this Parliament building, and I
might say in a very orderly manner, to tell
this government that they are not satisfied
with the treatment— not that they are getting,
but the treament they are not getting.
Mr. J. R. Knox (Lambton West): Thous-
ands?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, thousands, that is right,
you count them daily. As a matter of fact I
might read a little bit more of the local
paper which does not kid anybody. We have
a Review that when they print something it
is really printed and it is accurate. I will
come to that a little later, I thought I would
wind up with that particular section.
1330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
By the way, if the hon. Minister does not
know where I found that, that is in Hansard,
February 13, 1964. When he reads this very
thoroughly he can go back to that again.
We have now seen what the government
has in mind. Sixteen months later I arise
to speak again on the same section, section
89-
This was from my colleague, the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview who apparently is not
here.
The argument is still the same as my
colleague commented a year ago, and now
this is two years ago.
I would have hoped that this govern-
ment would have been sufficiently inter-
ested to allow municipal employees to
bargain the same as any other employee.
This is not a new problem of a new law
but perhaps a practical illustration of its
effects might highlight the need for re-
forms.
In the January, 1965, issue of the Ontario
Hydro Employees Union News, which is pub-
lished by the Ontario Hydro employees union,
local 1000, Canadian union of public em-
ployees, CLC, there is a lead story under
the banner headline: "Kirk family compact
use labour Act to banish the CUPE." I
should not have said CUPE. I think I should
let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I do know
what I am talking about. It is the Canadian
union of public employees.
The article tells the story of ten Hydro
water utilities workers who lost their struggle
for the mere right to join a union. The
incident began in the spring of 1964 and I
need not read this to the House. I am sure
the hon. Minister will get that Hansard and
read the rest of it. And this has happened
several times since.
Just recently a school board has had the
same problem. Not too long ago, the village
of Crystal Beach sat down and bargained for
their employees. They have very few em-
ployees in that particular village, but they
sat down and bargained with them and it
was a three to two vote in favour of forming
a union in that village. By the next meeting
one of the councillors thought that he was
not quite doing the right thing, the village
could not afford to pay more, they could not
allow these people to bargain for themselves
and he made an about-face. So that par-
ticular council did not sit down and bargain
with their particular employees under The
Labour Relations Act, section 89, with which
I am not acquainted.
The hon. Minister gave me an opportunity
to let him know that I happen to know some
of the things that go on. No one sits here
for six or seven consecutive years, Mr.
Speaker, without learning something about
this government, and on this issue they have
not moved. They are condemned—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member is
informing me by his own words that he does
not know anything about The Labour Rela-
tions Act.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Now once again, I am going to ask the
members not to interrupt a member who is
making a speech. We are not in committee
of the whole House and I do not like the
House to get into the same sort of question-
and-answer type of debate as goes on in
committee of the whole. So whenever a
member is speaking, if one wishes to inter-
rupt I would ask the member to rise and ask
the member speaking if he would permit a
question— or a correction. Then if it is al-
lowed he may make whatever remarks he
wishes to make.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask through you, of the hon. member, may I
ask a question?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, by all means.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Did I hear the hon.
member right when he said a moment ago
that he did not know anything about The
Labour Relations Act?
Mr. Bukator: I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker,
that this was not an isolated incident. The
government has seen fit to remove from em-
ployees arbitrary rights to prevent the crea-
tion of unions. They have allowed the
workers to organize in their own self-interests.
Yet here, with municipal governments and the
municipal board, they leave a huge loophole
for the law which is unjustified and which
discriminates against a particular class of em-
ployee. I said then, I proudly say it now,
this was a year ago, and I am still quoting a
bit from Hansard:
We-
and I meant the Liberal Party:
—heartily concur with the bill put forward
by the hon. member for York South and
urge its acceptance by this House.
The point that I am trying to make is we in
the Opposition on this issue stand whole-
heartedly together, both parties, simply be-
MARCH 9, 1966
1331
cause this government has not fulfilled its
obligations to the civic employees.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr.
Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate,
my first words are to commend you, sir, on
the way you preside over the proceedings of
this House. Your sense of judgment and fair
play has made it possible for us to carry on
business with dispatch, and while, at times,
your task has not been easy, you have always
endeavoured to maintain the dignity of this
Parliament.
I would like to thank you, sir, and your
competent staff, for the many kindnesses and
courtesies they have shown to me and to the
people I have the honour to represent. May
I offer my congratulations to the hon. mem-
ber for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) on his appoint-
ment as Deputy Speaker, or chairman of the
committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker, I would want want to com-
mend the mover and seconder on the contri-
bution they have made to the debates of this
House as they moved and seconded the mo-
tion to adopt the speech from the Honour-
able, the Lieutenant-Governor. New hon.
members have taken their place in this House,
and I am sure they will find the proceedings
interesting, and I am sure they will try to
make a contribution to provincial affairs.
Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to some of
the debates, and read some of the speeches
of hon. members who sit to your left, mem-
bers of the Opposition parties, I find it hard
to understand what they are trying to prove
by some of their critical remarks. I realize
that fair criticism can be helpful in carrying
out constructive policies, but sometimes I
have a feeling that some of the hon. members
are not trying to be constructive. There
seems to be some indication that they are
criticizing just for the sake of criticizing.
Perhaps the lack of constructive criticism is
the reason they are to your left, and the
government and its supporters fill all of the
seats to your right and overflow on to the
other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes during the debates,
you would think that hon. members felt noth-
ing was happening in the province of Ontario
under the sound policies that have been pur-
sued by this government and by other Pro-
gressive-Conservative governments that have
had the responsibility of administering On-
tario's affairs since 1943. I would suggest to
this House that it might be useful if
some of the hon. members, instead of just
trying to criticize for the sake of criticizing,
were to take a fair look at what has happened
in the province of Ontario under sound
policies.
We can look at the tremendous growth
and development in all areas of Ontario's
economy. Our population has grown from
around 4 million at the end of World War II,
until today it is approaching the 7-million
mark. No other province in Canada, under
any government of any political stripe, has
come anywhere near to equalling the great
influx of people and of industry that has
come to Ontario. I would suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition members,
who no doubt would like to secure power, are
not right when they suggest that Ontario
is not developing under Conservative policies,
that the nearly 3 million people who have
decided to make Ontario their home are all
wrong.
When people establish a new home they
assess all the factors, and try to establish
their home in the best possible circumstances.
I suggest to you, sir, and to this House,
the fact that a vast majority— yes, over half
of the new Canadians who have come to
Canada since the end of World War II— did
not come to Ontario by accident. They came
here because they knew that the policies
that were pursued by this government and
by previous Conservative governments were
policies that created the climate for a good
life.
The same is true of industry. The vast bulk
of the industry that has come to Canada,
has come to Ontario. It was here they found
the favourable climate for industrial devel-
opment, the climate that was brought about
largely by the policies that had been pursued.
We think of the power development
policies that have been pursued, keeping
available an abundance of cheap power for
industry, for business, for farms, and for
homes; the constant highway-building pro-
gramme that has supplied the traffic arteries
that made it possible to move goods to and
fro in a speedy, efficient and orderly manner;
an educational programme that has provided
the training for a school population that
now numbers approximately 1,750,000.
During the time the general population
of the province increased by about 61 per
cent, the elementary school enrolment in-
creased by 137 per cent, and the secondary
enrolment by 218 per cent. University facili-
ties continue to expand at a rapid rate with
government's support. This will enable the
universities to cope with an increase of
approximately 10,000 students each year
through to 1970-71, when the total enrol-
ment is expected to reach 100,000.
1332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Today, employment is at an all-time high
in Ontario and unemployment in Ontario is
at the lowest figure in Canada— Canada, a
land of opportunity.
Under the policies pursued by this govern-
ment, great benefits have come to the farm
people. The power development programme
and rural electrification where rural lines were
subsidized by the province has made it
possible for practically all of our farm people
to enjoy the benefits that come from having
an abundance of cheap power in their homes
and in their farming operations.
Better township roads, county roads, and
King's highways, make it easier for farmers to
get their products to the greatly expanded
markets that have been created by our popu-
lation growth, as well as by export markets
that have been developed through the efforts
of the government and the various marketing
boards. Ontario has the most advanced
marketing legislation in Canada.
To give you some idea of what the overall
policies of the government mean to agricul-
ture, Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that
the Canadian people consume approximately
80 pounds of beef per capita per year. Our
population has grown by close to 3 million
new people under the sound policies of the
government. Three million new people would
create an expanded market for an additional
240 million pounds of beef per year.
What is true regarding beef, is equally
true regarding pork, chicken, poultry, eggs,
milk, butter, cheese, potatoes, tomatoes,
vegetables, fruits, honey, flour and cereals of
all kinds. I think we would all agree that the
home market, where people use the same
kind of currency, where there are no tariff
barriers or changes in the value of foreign
currency, is the most stable market.
The policies of this government, in addition
to making a good way of life for people who
live in urban areas, has had a tremendous
stabilizing effect on the markets for farm
products. Indeed, in some areas agriculture
finds it difficult to keep up with expanding
consumption of the products we produce.
Mr. Speaker, lest I leave the impression
that all is sunshine for the farm people, let
me remind you that agriculture is always
confronted with problems. For example,
and this was particularly true in the past,
many farmers found it difficult to secure
sufficient amounts of long-term financing,
which makes it possible for farmers to carry
on through a period when unpredictable
things happen.
For example, during 1965, weather condi-
tions were not average. In some parts of my
own riding, because of cool weather and
slower rates of evaporation, seeding opera-
tions were later than normal. We all re-
member the cool summer months in 1965.
While this weather produced good crops, it
delayed the ripening of the crops and many
of the farm people found their harvesting
operations were under way after the boys
on the farm had returned to school.
All of these things slowed down harvesting
operations. Indeed, as time went by, the
hours in the day when you could harvest
became shorter, and then the fall rains came
on, and with above-normal precipitation some
of the farm people in the area I have the
honour to represent were not able to harvest
all of their crops. Indeed, some harvested
very little.
This has created a serious problem for
these farmers, and I can sympathize with
them. In my years of farming, my brother
and I were hailed out on two occasions, and
found that we had gone to all the expense
of growing a crop, and then had to turn
around and buy grain to feed the livestock
because the grain crop had been ruined by
this adverse freak of nature.
These are problems that confront our farm
people. I know that some farmers feel that
the government should compensate for this
loss, and I have placed questions and re-
quests before the responsible authorities.
However, I must add that the government
has and is endeavouring to create conditions
that will be helpful under the circumstances
I have mentioned. Farm loans have been
greatly increased, and the policies of this
government have been followed by the
federal government. In many cases the two
governments work in unison. Today, farmers
can borrow more money than farmers
dreamed would be available just a few years
ago.
In the Throne speech, there was an an-
nouncement that a crop insurance scheme is
to be worked out predicated on an arrange-
ment being effected with the government of
Canada for the amendment of federal crop
insurance legislation. The availability of
crop insurance in future years should help to
solve the problem that was created for many
farmers during the past season.
In the northern part of my riding, and in
the southern part of the riding of the hon.
member for Grey South (Mr. Oliver), there
is a flat plateau where quite often seeding
is delayed due to poor drainage. Again,
assistance can be provided for the farmers
under The Municipal Drainage Act, where
the government subsidizes in a very sub-
MARCH 9, 1966
1333
stantial way the cost of constructing these
drainage systems.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the
farm people in that area might organize and
try to develop a system under the ARDA
programme, which would bring the federal
government into the picture so that even
more assistance might be given. These are
some of the programmes that are available
to help agriculture through difficult periods.
Advancing labour costs, with shorter work-
ing weeks create a serious problem in
agriculture, since:
1. No one has developed cows that will
stop milking over the weekend.
2. Hens will persist in laying eggs regard-
less of the long or short weekend.
3. The humane society would take action
if farmers did not feed their livestock from
Friday to Monday morning.
Livestock, dairy and poultry farmers are
faced with a seven-day week, not 40 or 48
hours. This is a problem that is making it
very difficult for the small farmer, in that his
operation is not large enough to stagger his
working force.
Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I want to
leave matters that are close to my own
riding, and refer to a trip that was arranged
by The Department of Lands and Forests
for members who were interested in seeing
the northwestern and northern parts of our
province.
I want to commend the hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Roberts) and the offi-
cials of his department, for the efficient
manner in which that trip was carried out.
We were given the opportunity to see a part
of Ontario that is waiting for development
in the days and years that lie ahead.
I think that one of the evidences of the
development that is taking place in the
northern and northwestern part of the prov-
ince was the official opening of the highway
between Fort Frances, Atikokan and the
head of the lakes. I remember being present
the day Premier Frost opened that part of
the highway between the head of the lakes
and Atikokan, and the minute the axe
dropped on the ribbon, signs went up say-
ing, "On to Fort Frances."
I am sure the people of the Fort Frances-
Rainy River area are very proud and appre-
ciative of the efforts that have been made
through the years by the hon. member for
Rainy River (Mr. Noden). The building of
the causeway across Rainy Lake and the
opening of that highway are but an indica-
tion of the way we in Ontario are rolling
back the frontiers and opening up the
northern part of our province.
On the trip that we took by air up into
the more remote parts of the province we
had the opportunity to see the development
of tourist operations. We saw mines, pulp
and paper operations, mills, and power de-
velopments. We saw the end of roads that
were pushing north, and then flew farther
north into the more remote trading posts and
areas.
The afternoon that we stood on the shore
of Big Trout lake and looked out over that
expanse of water, I could not help but feel
that the days would come, and perhaps come
much sooner than we expect, when we would
see developments coming in that part of our
province.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should all pay
tribute to what has already been accomplished
in those far northern areas by The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, by the Hudson's
Bay Company, through health services pro-
vided by the government, by the guidance
and leadership that has been given by the
churches that have sent their missions to these
more remote areas.
When we look at an area like Metropolitan
Toronto, it is hard to realize that just about
300 years ago the first white men stood on
the shores of what later became "Muddy
York." Perhaps they had a vision of the day
when they would take enough mud out of
the basin to make a harbour, when they would
drive down piles and build tall buildings.
Men had vision in those days, we have seen
the tremendous developments that have taken
place in this part of Ontario. I am sure that
men of vision will see to it that developments
take place in that part of Ontario that we
members had the privilege of looking at, on
that well-arranged trip planned and carried
out by The Department of Lands and
Forests.
Dr. Vance, the chairman of the Ontario
water resources commission, and I were very
happy to be able to take that trip and have
a preliminary look at the water resources
that lie in that part of the province, resources
that no doubt will play a very important part
in the future development of Ontario's
economy.
When I returned from that trip I hung a
map of Canada on the wall and looked at it,
and I realized that the most northerly settle-
ment that we visited at Fort Severn is just
about in line with Dawson Creek— the start-
ing point for a 1,500-mile highway north
that was built by the Americans, known as
1334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Alaska highway, to serve that part of
the United States.
The most northerly tip of Ontario is
approximately 700 miles south of the Arctic
Circle. I understand the Russians have over
800,000 people living north of the Arctic
Circle. The 49th parallel, or the inter-
national boundary line, is just a few miles
south of Cochrane. When we keep these
facts in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think we can
realize the importance of turning our eyes
northward and endeavouring to develop that
part of our province, as well as the more
southerly parts.
I realize that there are people who will
say that the weather is cold in the winters
farther north, and that is true. But it would
be equally fair to say that when you go to
the southern states, they have tremendous
hurricanes that do great damage and cause
great loss of life in a few hours. Nature has
its way of compensating for things that are
not too attractive. In the northern areas we
are out of that hurricane belt, and with
perhaps a different type of construction,
people are able to have a good life.
I want to return to some matters that
are causing concern in my own riding. I
want to bring these matters to the attention
of the House, because I have found through
the years that this government is receptive
to constructive suggestions. For example, I
remember the first speech I made in the
House. On that occasion, the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) moved the motion to
adopt the Speech from the Throne, and I had
the honour of seconding the motion.
In the course of my remarks I made a
number of suggestions. I suggested that I
thought the time had come when in On-
tario we should have a pioneer village to
preserve for future generations the story of
the development of our province. I felt that
this would no doubt be of great value in the
education of our young people to the fact
that this province was developed without
some of the modern facilities that we take
for granted today. I felt that the history of
this country was of such a nature that it
would become a great tourist attraction.
Since that time, many pioneer villages
have come into being, museums have been
built, and there has been a great upsurge
in the restoration of historical sites. I think
everyone in this House will agree that these
museums, villages and sites have been a
great attraction to tourists and a benefit to
people who cater to that trade. I am told
the tourist trade is estimated to be worth
over $1 billion per year to Ontario's economy.
These developments have given us pride
in our own province and country that per-
haps we did not have before.
Another suggestion that I made in that
speech was that we should be thinking of
constructing more farm ponds and water
reservoirs. Today almost everyone is talking
about water. We, who work on the water
resources commission, have fought an uphill
battle for ten years to bring pollution under
control. When the water resources commis-
sion was established, it was suggested that
over a 20-year period it would take something
like $2.4 billion to catch up with the backlog
of work that needed to be done to provide
our growing population with suitable, safe,
clean water. We have reached the half-way
mark, and we are over the peak.
Today we should spend more time drawing
attention to where we have clean water, and
in most parts of this province we have just
that. I am not suggesting that there are not
areas where there is pollution to bring under
control, but the programme is well established
and well founded, and we can speak of On-
tario today as a province that believes in
and promotes clean water.
This programme is carried out not only by
the water resources commission, but the con-
servation authorities are establishing many
reservoirs to provide clean water for our
people. In addition to the reservoirs, we are
now on a programme to bring water from
the Great Lakes into the dry parts of the
province— clean water.
Mr. Speaker, in one of the early speeches
I made in the House, I drew to the attention
of the government and the House, the fact
that the government that was dismissed from
office in 1943 had brought five or six high-
ways to the borders of Wellington-Dufferin,
and terminated the highways there, spilling
the traffic onto the county and municipal road
system.
I felt that this was an injustice to the
people I had the honour to represent, and I
have devoted my efforts to promoting better
roads, and more roads, to serve that part of
Ontario and to put in the connecting links
that would tie these loose ends together and
carry the heavy traffic through the area on
provincial highways rather than on roads sup-
ported by the municipal taxpayer. I must say
that much has been done, and I would be
remiss in my duty as a member if I did not
express to the government my appreciation
for what has been accomplished.
At the time I entered the Legislature there
were many miles of King's highway on the
borders and in my riding that were simple
MARCH 9, 1966
1335
gravel roads. All of these highways have
been built to high standards, and hard sur-
faced. Practically all of the highways that
had a surface have been rebuilt and resur-
faced, with the exception of one short piece
from Guelph township through Eramosa and
the village of Rockwood, and part of that has
been rebuilt and resurfaced.
Some 98.45 miles of municipal road has
been built or has been designated for pre-
engineering for future construction under the
development road programme. Connecting
links that were left out of the highway system
by the government that was turned out in
1943 have been taken into the system in most
parts of the riding. This was done by extend-
ing Highway 89 from Primrose through Shel-
burne, Mount Forest and Harriston, down to
23 west of Palmerston, and by extending
Highway 25 north from 7 at Acton to 24 at
Ospringe.
It is the hope of everyone in the area that
Highway 25 can be extended on north
through the Orton-Grand Valley area to join
Highway 89 between Mount Forest and Shel-
burne. This would give a shorter, more direct
route into the Georgian Bay area for people
who may be travelling north from certain
parts of southwestern Ontario, and tourists
coming in at Fort Erie, Niagara and the
Hamilton and Burlington areas.
Mr. Speaker, if this extension of Highway
25 is considered it would not only benefit the
tourists from the areas I have mentioned
travelling into the Georgian Bay area, but it
would be a great stimulus to development
through that part of Wellington and Dufferin
counties. If you look at a map you will find
it would be located approximately halfway
between Highways 10 and 6. In other words,
a provincial highway would be carrying the
heavy traffic that, at the present time, has to
travel north and south on the municipal road
system. I should point out that there is a
distance of some 22 or 23 miles between
Highway 10 and Highway 6 at Orangeville
and Arthur; that gap widens to approximately
30 miles between Mount Forest and Prim-
rose. I think all hon. members can appreciate
that this wide gap should have a provincial
highway to relieve the pressure on the muni-
cipal road system.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter to the
attention of the House because many people
in Wellington and Dufferin, particularly in
Wellington, were concerned when the county
carried out a needs survey. Some years ago,
in a speech in the House, I pointed out that
in the area I had the honour to represent,
the percentage of miles that were designated
as King's highways was below the average
across the county system in Ontario. The per-
centage of county roads was above the aver-
age, and I suggested that the province should
take these factors into consideration and try
to make a fair adjustment. These problems
have been approached in many ways. In cer-
tain townships where the assessment is low
and there is a high mileage of township road,
provincial grants have been increased by in-
creasing the percentage of grants. Some of
the main county roads have been built under
the development road programme.
All of these methods of assisting have been
greatly appreciated by the municipal tax-
payer, but I would be remiss if I did not
say that when I came home from the opening
of the highway between Atikokan and Fort
Frances and found that the engineer had
recommended dropping 100 miles of Wel-
lington county's roads, I was most con-
cerned. Within a short time I had received
some six petitions from areas in the county
that were particularly upset, and one from
the county of Dufferin. Mr. Speaker, since
the survey had been made by an engineer
appointed by the county and the decision
was to be made by the county, I had to de-
cide what to do with these petitions, so I
had them photo-copied and sent copies to
the reeve of the municipality where the
petitions originated, to the respective coun-
ties, and to The Department of Highways,
since all were involved in a financial way
to some degree. The county of Dufferin did
not drop the road for which the petition
was signed. In the county of Wellington,
the recommendation of the engineer was
accepted and many miles of county road
were dropped, and some other roads were
taken into the system.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to com-
ment on the decision of the county councils.
They are properly elected people, elected
to deal with these matters. But I must say
that I was concerned about one or two
matters, and I want to bring these matters
to the attention of the House.
At the present time, the railways are
closing their stations in many parts of rural
Ontario. Since my riding is rural, a great
many stations have been closed as the people
have turned to motor transport. Through the
years that I have served as a representative
of Wellington-Dufferin, I have tried to pro-
mote the development of better roads, and
indeed more roads of higher standard to
carry the traffic that has been diverted from
the railways to the road system. One matter
that has caused me concern is to see county
1336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
roads reverting to the townships when there
is an increasing load of traffic to be carried.
This is particularly true in the southern part
of the county, since the industrial develop-
ment that is taking place north of Lake
Ontario is starting to spill over into the
southern part of Wellington county. For
example, in the township of Erin in 1945,
there were some 2,235 people on the munici-
pal roll. In 1965, that had grown to 3,421,
or a gain of over 50 per cent. In the town-
ship of Eramosa, in 1945 there were some
2,210 people on the roll and in 1965 3,187.
Many of these people have established
homes in Erin and Eramosa township and
commute north and south to work in the
industries that have been established. In
that area, the engineer who advised the
county recommended dropping two main
county roads and substituting these roads
with one new road in between that termi-
nates at Highway 24.
This recommendation of the engineer,
which was adopted by the county, has cre-
ated a situation where you have two main
roads running north from Highway 401 to
Highway 24 terminating at the highway,
one main road coming south to Highway 24,
terminating at the highway between the two
roads that run south from Highway 24 to
Highway 401, with the result you have three
main roads turning traffic into a high-speed
highway instead of going directly across.
Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to serve
on the committee on highway safety. I do
not think that by turning traffic into a high-
speed highway, travelling for two or 2Vz
miles, and then slowing down while the
traffic turns across the same high-speed
highway, lends itself to highway safety.
However, this was the recommendation of
the engineer, and I am not sure whether
highway safety was one of the factors that
he considered when he made his recom-
mendation. The same was true where High-
way 19 coming up from the Stratford area
intersects Highway 86. Instead of carrying
the traffic straight across Highway 86 onto
the county road, as it did previously, the
county road was moved down a mile or
so and again we have the situation where
the traffic from main roads does not cross
directly over the highway but turns into the
high-speed traffic, travels for a mile or two,
and then turns across through the high-speed
traffic again. These are factors that I think
should be considered in any future road
needs survey in the interests of highway
safety. If this type of construction is to be
recommended, then I think the Department
of Highways should consider building accel-
erating and decelerating lanes to avoid
slowing down the traffic on a high-speed
highway or highways.
Another factor caused me concern in the
way the county needs survey was handled,
and this may not have occurred in other
parts of the province. As I mentioned be-
fore, I received, in total, seven petitions.
Why they came to me I do not know, since
this was a decision that was being made
by the county councils, and I was placed in
the embarrassing position of having to for-
ward these petitions to the people who were
making the decision.
Many people were concerned that they
had bought property on a county road, and
had perhaps paid a higher assessment for
years for the privilege of living on a county
road. Perhaps they had paid more for their
property for that privilege. Some people had
established service stations and had pur-
chased stores and places of business and
mills, and suddenly they found that without
any place for a hearing, their property values
had changed because they were no longer
on a county road system, but were back on
a township road system. In Wellington
county, four new area schools that were built
on the county roads are no longer on the
county roads system due to the changes that
were made.
The suggestion that I would like to make
is that perhaps in the interest of the rights
of people, there should be some system
developed whereby a person could have a
chance for a hearing before the status of
the road was changed, if this could affect
the property values or the value of a busi-
ness that had been established or purchased.
Mr. Speaker, I make these suggestions in
the hope that in line with the progressive
policies of this government some method
can be worked out whereby people who
feel their rights or properties have been
interfered with, can have a chance to state
their views before final decisions are made.
There is another factor that I think should
be kept in mind when we are developing
plans for the future traffic arteries through-
out rural Ontario. There is a growing feeling
among many people that there is not enough
emphasis by planners on decentralizing in-
dustry to smaller centres of population. The
tendency, in fact, seems to be the other
way.
I sometimes ask myself, if we are going to
continue concentrating great numbers of
people in a small area, are we not working
MARCH 9, 1966
1337
at cross purposes with the policies of the
emergency measures organization? This came
home to me in my own area, when I saw
that the main roads dropped through a num-
ber of small trading centres where there
were several places of business. I think
we should always keep in mind that the
day may come when people would be very
happy to know that there were some smaller
centres to which people could be evacuated
in case of an emergency.
When I drive in and out of Metro Toronto
along some of the superhighways, and I see
that lineup of factories, I ask myself, wouldn't
it really help a lot of the small centres if two
or three of these small factories were estab-
lished in smaller areas, so that people could
find employment without driving down into
the traffic jams that are created every morn-
ing and night getting in and out of a metro-
politan area such as Toronto? I ask myself,
would it not be better if some of our industry
were scattered throughout the province rather
than having it concentrated in congested
areas?
The time may come when we have to fight
to defend this nation. I think people who are
in the planning area, and people who are in
the emergency measures area should get to-
gether. As we work out plans for the future
development of the province, it would be my
hope that very careful thought should be
given to the desirability of decentralizing our
industry and our population as much as pos-
sible—not just here in southern Ontario, but
up through northern Ontario and into the
more rural parts of the province. These
thoughts I would leave with you, Mr.
Speaker, and with the hon. members of this
House.
In conclusion, let me sum up my remarks
by saying that Ontario has gone through a
period of development and expansion under
the policies of this government and previous
Conservative governments that has never
been equalled at any time in the history of
this province— a period of expansion and de-
velopment that has not been equalled by any
other province, under any form of govern-
ment. We are proud of what has been ac-
complished, and I would suggest to hon.
members opposite that when they try to say
that this government is tired and lacks initia-
tive, that they should take a look around On-
tario and see what is happening and they
will realize that that is just wishful thinking
on their part. This province is moving as no
other part of Canada is moving.
Mr. Speaker, to give you, and the hon.
members of this House some conception of
what has happened in Ontario since the Pro-
gressive-Conservative Party assumed office
and following World War II, our population
has grown by nearly three million people.
What do I mean by three million people?
Well, some day start at the eastern boun-
dary of Metropolitan Toronto and drive
through to the western boundary.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is that
the hon. member's doing?
Mr. Root: This is the result of sound,
progressive policies that created a climate
that attracted people and industry and gave
prosperity and more employment in this
province than anywhere in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. G. Rukator (Niagara Falls): Thanks to
the federal government.
Mr. Root: The hon. member's party is
sometimes like a man on a roof; they are on
a slide; sometimes his party slides off or out
and we get caught with people coming off the
edge of the roof and we have to pick them up
and develop policies to rebuild the economy
of the country. We are caught with the
result of unsound policies.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon.
members apparently still have not been able
to grasp what I have been saying, that we
have had Progressive-Conservative policies
in Ontario longer than in any part of Canada.
We have had more prosperity; we have had
more development; we have attracted more
people and more industries and provided
more jobs than any province with any political
party of any political stripe. The answer is
there and I suggest that the few hon. mem-
bers sitting opposite who would like to be in
power surely are not conceited enough to
think that they are right, and the three
million new people wrong.
Mr. Speaker, to give you and the hon.
members of this House some conception of
what has happened— and I am going to repeat
since I was interrupted— since the Progressive-
Conservative Party assumed office, and follow-
ing World War II, our population has grown
by nearly three million people. What do I
mean by three million people? Well, some
day start at the eastern boundary of Metro-
politan Toronto and drive through to the
western boundary.
Start at the lake, and go north to the
northern boundary and in that area with all
of its industry, business, homes, hospitals,
churches and schools, you will find at least a
1338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
million less people than the increase in
population in the province. If you want to
get a grasp of what has happened in On-
tario, you'd have to add to the 13 municipali-
ties in Metro the population of Brampton,
Georgetown, Acton, Orangeville, Shelburne,
Owen Sound, Fergus, Elora, Guelph,
Kitchener, Waterloo, Gait, Hespeler, Preston,
Windsor, Hamilton and Brantford, and you
would still be almost a quarter of a million
short of what has happened in the province.
You would have to go into the north and
add to that the population of North Bay,
Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and some of the
new towns such as Elliot Lake, Manitou-
wadge, Marathon, Terrace Bay, and Atikokan,
Fort Frances, Kenora, Red Lake, Kapuskasing
and Timmins. The population of these cities,
towns and villages is the equivalent of the
population growth in Ontario since the Con-
servative Party was charged with the responsi-
bility of government in 1943.
This is what has happened to Ontario
under the sound policies of this government.
Expansion in all parts of the province. New
highways, new power developments, new
schools, new hospitals, great new markets
for agriculture, employment and a good life
for our people.
Mr. Speaker, when hon. members try to
say to the people of Ontario that this govern-
ment is not doing a good job, the people
of Ontario say to them what is quite evident
in this House— the Opposition parties are
weighed in the balance and are found want-
ing, and that is why they sit to your left in
Opposition. The Progressive-Conservative
Party sits on the right charged with the
responsibility of carrying on the administra-
tion of the affairs of this province. Mr.
Speaker, for your patience and that of the
hon. members in listening to my remarks,
may I thank you.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent East): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to take part in the Throne debate.
I first wish to congratulate you on the way
you are carrying out your duties as Speaker
of this House.
A few days ago the hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. Trotter) was critical of your
cloak, your tricorn hat was hiding some of
your charm. Mr. Speaker, if it does that, I am
for changing it.
I want to congratulate the hon. member
for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) who was appointed
chairman of the committee of the whole
House. I know he is fair, I know he is
impartial and, Mr. Speaker, I know he will
carry out his duties in a very able way. I
wish him well in this honourable position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since the session
opened, two new members took their seats
in this Legislature, the hon. member for
Bracondale (Mr. Ben) and the hon. member
for Nipissing (Mr. Smith). Since that time
they have given their maiden speeches, con-
tributed well to the debates of this House
and you will notice, Mr. Speaker, they were
seated on this side of the House. After listen-
ing to their maiden speeches, I would say
they will be members of this party for years
and years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I was also pleased the other
day that the hon. Prime Minister of this prov-
ince (Mr. Robarts), the hon. leader of
my party (Mr. Thompson) and the hon.
leader of the NDP (Mr. MacDonald) paid
tribute to the hon. member for Grey South
(Mr. Oliver). He is a man who has broken
records, a man highly respected and I must
say I did appreciate those remarks of the
three hon. leaders.
Now, I would like to dwell and say some
few words on regional development in this
province. The government of this province has
at the taxpayers' expense been engaged in
a publicity campaign aimed at convincing
the residents of this province that they are
truly fortunate to be sharing in this affluent
society, they have proclaimed this to be a
province of opportunity.
We see these brave slogans everywhere we
go, Mr. Speaker— on buildings, magazines,
newspapers— and this seems indeed to be the
province of opportunity. If one has the op-
portunity to drive down University avenue to
see all the magnificent new buildings going
up or visit the luxury shops in the great city,
it is true there is a tremendous feeling of
drive, of hustle and bustle, an atmosphere of
progress in this city. This is a feeling which
is recognized by all citizens and they all like
to take pride in being a part of this exciting
development.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are a
great many thinking people who certainly do
not deceive themselves into believing that
conditions like this prevail from one end to
the other end of the province. Even in a
magnificent city like Toronto there are areas
where despair is the order of the day, where
apathy takes the place of hope and where the
poor citizen is desperate for a respectable
home in which to raise his family. Those of
us who care are all well aware that alongside
the unbelievable wealth there is poverty,
there is misery, there is lack of opportunity.
The majority of the people of Ontario would
like to see a new slogan here in this province:
"The province of equal opportunity."
MARCH 9, 1966
1339
This problem applies all over but it most
concerns me when I travel in the rural areas
of this province, in areas where a goodly
portion of Ontario, close to five million
people, live and work in areas that do not
provide the service or opportunities that this
so-called province of opportunity could offer
its citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I spend a considerable
amount of time in small towns in southwest-
ern Ontario and here, Mr. Speaker, in some
of the forgotten areas of this province. The
thing that strikes me most, apart from the
fact that this government generally tends to
ignore their problems is the fact that when it
does decide to do something it does not go
far enough. The government's actions give
the impression of putting up a kind of a
smokescreen, doing a little bit of dazzling
everyone with footwork while by no means
going to the heart of the very problem. As
far as taking a long-range view, there is
something that does not enter the picture at
all. Quite often these halfhearted efforts are
only a stopgap solution at the best.
It is with these forgotten areas of the prov-
ince that my concern and sympathy lies. In
these areas you generally find a particular
pattern. The farms are disappearing as a
family unit because the youngsters head for
the higher wages of the city and the retired
farmers are forced to sell their farms and
spend their last years in a nearby town. Here,
because the people are already taxed to the
hilt, they cannot enjoy even the basic mu-
nicipal facilities that the great city of
Toronto does.
We are told, Mr. Speaker, that the people
could have better facilities if they wanted to.
Sure sewers could be built, public water
could be provided, this is quite true, Mr.
Speaker. But consider the taxes these people
have to pay, and the fact that the majority
of them are living on wages that are far below
the industrial average of a city like Toronto,
how can one criticize them for trying to man-
age with what they have? Even if it were
possible, Mr. Speaker, to set up normal util-
ity services, the cost in southern Ontario of
trying to purify the water taken from the
Great Lakes would be almost out of the
question.
Purifying waters, Mr. Speaker, that this
government has failed in its duty to keep
clean. Purifying waters, Mr. Speaker, that
this government shows and has shown little
concern about. Surely if this government
cannot arouse sufficient interest within its
ranks to purify the water of the Great Lakes
it could at least try to stop further pollution
so that any water purification plant attempted
by these small towns will not run away with
costs.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that many of
these towns do not have the money, the
know-how or the facilities to meet this com-
plicated problem that they are now facing in
competition with the industrialized areas of
this provincial society. It is up to the gov-
ernment of the province of Ontario to take
the initiative, to see that many of the prob-
lems are solved through a planned effort.
There must be co-operation, there must be
sincerity, there must be a true desire to see
that regional development is properly carried
out and to the benefits of all Canadians.
They are all entitled to pure water in this
generation and the following generations
which, God willing, will live to enjoy the
fruits of our endeavours.
It is time we realized that whatever we
are, whoever we are, whether we are wealthy
or poor, it is about time Ontario was made a
province of equal opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the government of this prov-
ince has for some time now paid lip service
to the principle that there must be minimum
standards of service and opportunity for all
its citizens, regardless of financial position or
the locality in which they live. I say lip
service, Mr. Speaker, because in spite of
the grave denials to the contrary things have
continued to get worse in these areas, rather
than better.
The government proudly points to the
Ontario development association as an ex-
ample of their attempts to solve some of the
problems in this province on the basis of
regional organization.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a laugh.
Unfortunately, it is not very amusing for
the thousands in this province who have
heard promises, who have been visited by
dignitaries telling them what a wonderful
thing is going to happen, who have read
about them in the papers, who are still as
badly off as ever, and in fact faced with a
future which is likely to get worse before
it gets better.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development (Mr.
Randall) has issued a very colourful little
pamphlet, entitled, "How regional develop-
ment works for the Ontario municipalities."
The hon. Minister's pamphlet is a very fine
piece of work, but, Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that the organization it outlines is
worth little more to the people it pretends
to help, than the paper it is printed on.
1340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The pamphlet goes into considerable de-
tails in an attempt to show how this generous
government is co-operating with the local
authorities, or so-called public spirited
groups, in work of regional development.
The hon. Minister seemingly has failed to
recognize the fact that the federal govern-
ment is playing a very significant role in the
business of regional development, particu-
larly in Ontario.
Take, for instance, the Ottawa group. One
has only to look at the great many jobs it
has produced and will produce for Ontario
workers to see that this is proving very effec-
tive. Why is this government not working
closely at hand with the federal government
in this field? Is it because, Mr. Speaker, that
this provincial government has no concrete
plans in the field of regional development?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Speaker, could I ask the hon. member what
efforts are being made by the Liberal Party
in Ontario to get the federal government to
lower car prices?
Mr. Spence: Yes, I am just trying to ex-
plain it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if he would outline to me what the
government is doing?
Mr. White: We are doing plenty.
Mr. Whicher: Do not wake up all the
Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, is it because the
provincial government is not really interested
in regional development? Is it because the
provincial government has not really and
honestly accepted the basic principle of
equal opportunities?
They say there should be a minimum
standard of service. They say there should
be opportunities for all the citizens, regard-
less of financial position, and of the locality
in which they live. We are all well aware
of these conditions that should not exist.
This government glibly agrees with all the
schemes for the benefit of our fellow men,
from the Bill of Rights down through the
war on poverty and another high-flown plan
that it has dreamed up, but there is too much
talk about them and not enough action, Mr.
Speaker. Poor Ontario residents cannot wait
another ten years for something to be done
for them. They need some sensible planning;
they need it now.
To return to the Ontario development
association, there are a number of important
flaws in the setup. First and perhaps fore-
most, it is taking for granted that each of
these ten regions has the technical know-
how to attack the problem in a proper
manner for presentation to the government.
Second, it expects that each region will take
it upon itself to take action on the problem.
Third is the failure of the government to
draw up plans to solve the problems that are
common to all or many of these regions.
Fourth is the failure on the part of the
government to bind these regional plans in a
meaningful whole.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the
policy of the government in this vital area of
regional development— as it is in pretty well
everything else it does— is not to act, but
simply to react to pressures that are put
upon it. When a government becomes old,
as this one has, like many elderly people it
needs a hand to get along. It seems, how-
ever, that what this government needs is
more than a hand.
It badly needs to get its ear to the ground,
it needs to listen to the people for a change,
it needs to change the dyed-in-the-wool be-
lief that anything this government does has
to be right. It needs to change the slogan
to "the province of equal opportunity."
Mr. Speaker, we can no longer close our
eyes, ignore the problems and hope they will
go away if the present provincial-municipal
relationship remains unchanged. The situa-
tion can only get worse. The government
must make an honest decision as to whether
or not it really believes in regional develop-
ment to get the minimum of services and
opportunities for all the citizens of the prov-
ince, and whether or not this is really the
direction it is heading in. Having once made
an honest and firm commitment, the govern-
ment should lay out a plan in the real sense
of the word, a plan to take a look at the
problems of the province as a whole and one
which is not merely a stopgap, a plan which
will benefit Canadians for many years to
come.
It is the responsibility of this government
to start thinking of all citizens and allow them
to be aware that the government is thinking
of them and of their needs. The little man
up in the designated area— in the riding of
my friend, the hon. member for Algoma-
Manitoulin (Mr. Farquhar)— must, if he is to
believe in equal opportunity, get a feeling
MARCH 9, 1966
1341
that he is not forgotten. We must all begin
to think and to act like a province of seven
million people, rather than like a little pocket
of people, according to the economic advan-
tages or the spot on the map in which they
live.
Plans for regional development, to be suc-
cessful, cannot amount to a hodge-podge of
different programmes not related to each
other. This government must set up a struc-
ture which has as its aim administrative units,
designed to give the public better service
and to permit the various departments of gov-
ernment to create a development on a long-
range scale.
If we do not run our province on a busi-
nesslike basis, we cannot expect to get any-
where except only by accident, and if the
government does not take action, we shall
never improve the lot of the little man in
the rural areas.
I have the honour to represent a rural area,
Mr. Speaker. I would like them to be quite
sure that this is a province of equal oppor-
tunity. At the moment, very few of them
believe that this is true and I hope that the
government will give consideration to it.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did
not say a few words about agriculture at this
time. The agriculture industry in this prov-
ince is in a state of near chaos, and the
reason it is is because of the lack of con-
structive programmes. The government is
trifling with the aims of our farmers. Let me
give you some examples, Mr. Speaker.
The government has done very little to
help the plight of the small farmer. The
province has approximately 121,000 farms
according to the census. Included in these
figures are some residential units and part-
time farmers, but here is the interesting part
—it is estimated that 30,000 farms in the
province sold less than $1,200 worth of prod-
ucts annually and another 30,000 sold less
than $2,500 annually. The government is not
doing enough about the cost-price squeeze.
From 1952 to 1964 farm income in this
province dipped from $431 million to $345
million. Operating costs— percentages of cash
farm receipts— rose 48 per cent in the period
from 1951 to 1954 to 66 per cent in 1962 to
1964. There are still problems with the milk
industry and the government has caused a
great deal of concern because of its sloppy
handling of changes in milk marketing.
This province has not taken enough ad-
vantage of some of the very helpful pro-
grammes established under ARDA. In the
past years, Quebec's spending on ARDA pro-
grammes has been twice as much as that of
the province of Ontario. The government's
budget for agriculture has been puny com-
pared with the need for action and compared
with those of other provinces in the Dominion
of Canada. Quebec's agriculture budget for
the current fiscal year is about four times
that of the province of Ontario. The govern-
ment lacks long-range plans for farm
marketing. It has been estimated that 80 per
cent of the food sales in Ontario are con-
trolled by supermarket chain stores engaged
in group buying. Economists say this trend
will continue. It simply means that the
farmers' choice of the market is constantly
narrowing.
The government has been guilty of dicta-
torial actions. Its take over of the Ontario
bean growers marketing board is a case I
would like to point out. I notice that 58,000
members of the Ontario hog producers
marketing board have asked for legislation
to deny the government the power to dis-
miss a board without first holding a hearing
and getting approval of a judge or some
other impartial authority.
This is a sound suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
In a democracy the government cannot
trample on the rights of the citizens. The
bean board was elected by the growers;
the government has no right to step in and
dismiss the board without as much as a warn-
ing. This high-handed sort of action is very
much resented and has caused great concern
in the minds of many farmers when they
ask themselves: Will the Minister of Agricul-
ture take over our board?
The government has done nothing to cre-
ate trust in the industry.
Take the bean board. The government's
action has left a cloud over every member
of the Ontario bean growers board that was
dismissed. Mr. Speaker, I say, an impartial
hearing into every aspect of the bean in-
dustry is needed to clear the air.
But what did the government do? The
hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart)
called a closed meeting to explain his actions
to the representatives of the farm community.
That is what this government seems to prefer,
closed meetings rather than impartial hear-
ings held in the open.
The government has been slow to imple-
ment the policies to help our farmers. We
are now going to have a sort of crop insur-
ance programme but it comes after long
delay. It comes only because the farmers
and the Ottawa government had to push
the hon. Minister to take action. The farmers
1342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in this province are in near revolt, they are
tired of promises, they are tired of being
treated like second-class citizens, they are
tired of government waffling.
About 300 farmers marched on the hon.
Minister of Agriculture's farm recently. They
were obliged to take action to make their
problems known. There is talk that they will
march on Queen's Park in the very near
future. The farmer has been forgotten by
this government but he will not be ignored.
I expect that unless drastic action is taken
the farmers will forget the government when
the next provincial election comes along.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I shall dispense with the normal
pleasantries and banalities. Without any
ambiguity in my remarks, I think the Chair
knows what I think of him and it need not
again be declared in this Legislature.
I have one subject I would like to pursue
at some length during the course of the
afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, I
would like to make one observation on the
conduct of the House thus far during this
session. Let me say that I, for one, feel
that the tentative semblance of rules and
orders and priorities and conduct of esti-
mates augurs well for the future business
of this House. I think it is a vast improve-
ment over last year and gives us consider-
able hope.
I have, however, Mr. Speaker, one single
strong reservation and I should like to put
it before this House and, indeed in the pres-
ence of the hon. Attorney General (Mr. Wis-
hart) while he is here, since he is directly
involved. Despite the fact that we are into
the seventh week of this session we have
only had one major piece of government leg-
islation before this House, and that was the
medical care bill. I do not demean the im-
port of other pieces of legislation, but I
would point out that the hon. Attorney Gen-
eral is sitting, however amiably, upon loan
and trust legislation, security legislation,
consumer credit legislation—
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): I
am not only sitting on it, I am holding it-
Mr. S. Lewis: —and legal aid legislation.
All of this again will be forced into the
latter half of the session for debate because
of the unconscionable delay on the part of
this government in putting it before the
House. I am perhaps unfair in singling out
merely the hon. Attorney General, but I
think it is none the less true that the Throne
speech suggested certain important areas
of legislation: we have seen only one major
bill. We are into the seventh week and on
this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we say
to the hon. gentlemen opposite: Do not put
us again into the position that prevailed last
year. Surely a government which spends six
months between sittings can prepare its leg-
islation sufficiently in advance and bring it
forward in the first two, three or four
weeks so it can have the thought and time
which it supposedly merits.
Several hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. S. Lewis: With that brief introduc-
tion, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to move
to the body of my remarks and deal with a
subject in broad generality, which will be
raised— I know that my hon. colleagues and
I intend to raise it again— in estimate after
estimate throughout this session where it is
particularly relevant. So what I am going to
do this afternoon is to try to strike the
highlights, explain the nature of the issue
involved and then we will pursue it, let me
assure the hon. members opposite, we will
pursue it indefatigably over the next several
months.
It is very hard, Mr. Speaker, to draw a
list of priorities in the province of Ontario.
We all, for a variety of reasons, mainly those
of political creed, are uncertain of the list-
ing and where the emphasis should lie. I
would like to have the temerity to suggest
this afternoon that one of the gravest crises
this province presently faces is the staffing
of social services across the entire population.
By staffing of social services, Mr. Speaker,
I not only refer to those professional group-
ings about which there is much talk in the
House— social workers, psychiatrists and psy-
chologists—but to all the ancillary groups; the
welfare workers, the child care workers, the
public health nurses— the technologists, as it
were, of the whole spectrum of social serv-
ices. I say that there is not a crisis facing this
government more grave than the appalling
absence of such people at critical points in
our social life.
A crisis so grave, Mr. Speaker— to put it in
general terms— that our family court system
is almost totally crippled; our reform in-
stitutions have, in some instances, been
rendered ineffectual; our blanket of welfare
services, both public and private, are in a
state of perpetual breakdown and in many
areas are fighting for survival; our mental
health apparatus is beaten, demoralized and
grinding to a halt in this province; and our
entire educational system is systematically
defeating its own declared purposes, because
MARCH 9, 1966
1343
it is bankrupt of personnel to handle the
vast percentage of children who are trapped
in the despair of emotional and social prob-
lems. This tremendous problem runs right
across the range of government services. To
put it in short, we simply perpetuate the
circle of hardship, turmoil and neglect for
literally tens of thousands of people, because
of our incredible manpower shortages.
I have often thought to myself, Mr.
Speaker, that it is perhaps a demonstration
of the height of indifference of this govern-
ment, the quintessence of all that is wrong
with this government, that it is content to
do nothing in the face of absolutely proven
fact. They are massive in their majority and
they are equally massive in their neglect!
Now the perplexing and inexplicable fact,
Mr. Speaker, is that everyone knows the
problem. It is surely indisputable in this
House. The Ministers themselves have
gnashed their teeth at public wailing walls
again and again, telling us that their depart-
ments cannot function adequately because
they cannot find the staff. Editorials and
informed opinion across the province have
corroborated this general point of view. I
would like to add, Mr. Speaker— and I stand
to be corrected— that the select committee
on youth, in its two years of travelling to
every corner of Ontario, found that countless
social agencies, public and private, were
stymied, frustrated, blocked and rendered
irrelevant by the absence of social service
personnel. One has a feeling of overwhelm-
ing depression about it, because every brief
that was submitted was another testament to
the futility of finding an answer, and every
brief was a search for people and policies that
seem to be non-existent.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this political
group in the House and, I suspect, on behalf
of the Opposition as a whole, I simply do
not believe that that has to prevail. I am
going to advance toward the end of my
remarks what I think to be concrete solutions
which can be undertaken both in the short
term and the long term. But before I do,
I want to take a look at some of the depart-
mental highlights to show the extremities of
this problem, to give some idea of the num-
bers and the nature.
As I say, I will choose only highlights,
because I do not want to speak for more
than an hour this afternoon.
First, Mr. Speaker, The Department of the
Attorney General. Let me, in relation-
ship to that department, choose as my
example, the family court here in Metro-
politan Toronto. Mr. Speaker, everyone
already knows that that court cannot provide
adequate diagnostic services because it does
not even have a court psychologist in the
diagnostic clinic. No matter how much the
court advertises and no matter how much the
public clamour, no one will serve because it is
a dead end; because in fact the diagnostic
clinic, in the context of our present attitude
toward the family court, cannot operate
effectively, except in a very limited way. It
often takes four to six weeks of assessment
for young people referred by the court to
the clinic— assessment for young people who
have desperate problems, who cannot wait the
four to six weeks, and who are confined in
the interim in a detention home, where we
premeditatedly incarcerate them for the
period of the delay.
The annual report of this family court,
Mr. Speaker— and I have a copy of the most
recent report— looks good on the surface.
The most interesting part of this report is its
analysis of the probation officers. On the sur-
face it says that there are 30 probation
officers. However, four of them are super-
visors, leaving 26; two, I learned in con-
versation with judges, do nothing but the
enforcement of reciprocal orders, leaving 24;
four have left in the past few months and are
unreplaced, leaving 20. We have 20 probation
officers in the family court in Metropolitan
Toronto to handle a caseload of 652 boys,
118 girls and 5,952 matrimonial counselling
services— a total of 6,722 cases, making a
caseload of one to 336 cases. That is in-
defensible, and the government sits idly and
indifferently watching the situation.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in one of the
judge's chambers, it was found that in two
instances the probation officer had not seen
the case for eight months, so great is the
pressure on the workload. Obviously, one
cannot conduct adequate probation services
in that fashion.
In addition to this caseload of one to 336,
there were 10,000 counselling interviews con-
ducted by the same people during the course
of last year, which, if you work it out, is
500 per person on top of the 336 individual
cases. I simply want to point out, Mr. Speaker,
that it is generally accepted in all the
material that I have read on the family
courts and all the material that has been
put into the hands of the hon. Attorney
General, that a ratio of one to 40 is the
desirable ratio, not one to 336, and that we
should, in fact, have attached to the family
court in Metropolitan Toronto 100 to 130
probation officers and members of the
diagnostic clinic, rather than the present
complement of 30 or 35.
1344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This example of family court, Mr. Speaker,
simply highlights one of the areas of man-
power shortage.
Let me move to a second department,
The Department of Reform Institutions. In
this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, we have already
discussed— or perhaps I should say that we
have exposed — the effect of inadequate
salaries on staff positions. We did that a week
or two ago, and the hon. Minister (Mr.
Grossman) has indicated his needs and has
admitted that his services are woefully
understaffed.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, everyone recog-
nizes there is no possibility for the more
than 1,000 youngsters in training school to
receive any kind of adequate treatment
in this staff shortage situation. They have
47 rehabilitation officers in The Department
of Reform Institutions; their case workload
works out at 45. Most of the people in the
field— indeed, when the hon. member for
Yorkview (Mr. Young) raised this in the
House during The Department of Reform In-
stitutions estimates, the hon. Minister did
not dispute it— admit that it should be no
more than 30 or 35. Again, in this one
example of The Department of Reform In-
stitutions in the rehabilitation officer class
we have a shortage of 25 per cent now, let
alone the pressures of the future.
But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole
attitude of that department and of the gov-
ernment is neatly summed up in the amount
of money it devotes to training of personnel.
That amount of money is $75,000 out of a
total budget of $24.5 million— .3 of one per
cent, Mr. Speaker; .3 of one per cent. It
verges on the unbelievable; it makes a mock-
ery of the ministerial protestations, it exposes
the hon. Minister for what he is. But in the
process, the hon. Minister makes one appoint-
ment after another, and the public is lulled
into an indecent sense of security while the
problem merely perpetuates itself. That is
the highlight I choose to deal with in The De-
partment of Reform Institutions.
Let me move to The Department of Public
Welfare. Here is the saddest recital of all.
I am glad the hon. Minister (Mr. Cecile) is
in the House, because I cannot frankly com-
prehend how a department can watch the
social services it administers disintegrate be-
fore its eyes and not even mobilize itself to
twitch in the direction of a solution. When
the hon. Minister's estimates come, let me
say to him, Mr. Speaker, through you, that
every conceivable question will be asked and
that we will not stop until the answers are
forthcoming. If the issue must be forced,
then we are prepared to force it because the
time has come.
I want to take the children's aid societies
in the province of Ontario as one part of a
many-faceted overview. After The Child
Welfare Act was promulgated— and again the
hon. Minister can correct me if I am wrong,
because some of these facts have not been
discussed in the public arena— there was con-
siderable dispute between the committee that
the government had set up on regulations
and the Ontario association of children's aid
societies. And the dispute, Mr. Speaker,
ranged around the question of personnel.
The general argument of the association of
children's aid societies was, that if you do not
stipulate your precise staff complement in the
regulations then it will be impossible for this
Act to work effectively. The government was
not prepared to move. The government re-
neged on the promise it had given to the
standing committee on health, education and
welfare last year; it reneged on the undertak-
ing it had taken in this House during clause-
by-clause debate of The Child Welfare Act;
it set up instead some kind of survey of the
child welfare field to ascertain staff needs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not necessary to
set up a survey. I learned with considerable
interest that the past director of child welfare
services, Mr. Bury, before he resigned, had
himself undertaken a survey of the entire
field and produced results. Those results—
again the hon. Minister can correct me—
were presented as part of a private memo-
randum to Cabinet, so desperate was the
Ontario association of children's aid societies.
I have that memorandum here, Mr. Speaker,
and with it the figures for every single one of
the 55 children's aid societies, the required
staff complement, in the province of Ontario.
I am of course not going to deal with them
one by one— but I shall table the total figure
and give the House an idea of what is
involved.
Before I indicate what the precise figures
are, let me read to the House the basis on
which they were arrived at, and hon. mem-
bers will see that it is a very reasonable ratio
and case complement that has been worked
out. Following a series of meetings the On-
tario association of children's aid societies
made this submission:
1. Every society shall provide the equiv-
alent of one caseworker servicing children
in homes other than their own-
that is, children in care:
—for every 40 such children served.
Now, that is not an extravagant ratio, 1 to 40.
MARCH 9, 1966
1345
2. Every society shall provide the equiva-
lent of one full-time caseworker serving
children in their own homes for every
15,000 population.
Nor is that an extravagant ratio.
3. Every society shall provide the equiv-
alent of one caseworker serving unmarried
parents for every 45 cases open for con-
tinuing service beyond the point of intake.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of those
broad guidelines, the Ontario association of
children's aid societies said that in this year,
1966, they would need 1,272 caseworkers,
that is, professionally trained social workers,
across the province of Ontario. They have
951. The difference in need is 321.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are al-
ready more than 300 trained caseworkers
short on our total needs for children's aid
societies across the province.
And let me point out something, Mr.
Speaker, which is not often referred to. That
shortage is four times more than the total
number of graduates from the University of
Toronto and St. Patrick's college each year.
In other words, we are so far behind under
the present situation that it is absolutely im-
possible to catch up. And that is purely
social work staff shortages for children's aid
societies, Mr. Speaker, that is not for the en-
tire range of alternative services in this prov-
ince.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the
absence of these people makes a mockery
of the Act. The hon. Minister can sit there
quietly and indifferent if he will, but he
proclaimed that Act in the Legislature, he
indicated it would move from areas of care
to areas of prevention. I say to him through
you, Mr. Speaker, that that Act cannot oper-
ate adequately; that the staff complement
is not there; that to all intents and purposes,
as far as we know of this government, it
will never be there.
I want to make another point just extend-
ing this. The Ontario association of chil-
dren's aid societies, in its very careful analysis
of the entire field, said that the increase in
trained people would expand this way until
1970: I estimate 25 per cent in the first
year, 20 per cent in the second year, 15 per
cent in the third year, 10 per cent in the
fourth year, and then a levelling off.
That would mean a requirement of 2,400
trained caseworkers in the year 1970. That
would put us 1,000 behind present graduat-
ing numbers.
And, I say, 1,000 behind forever, Mr.
Speaker, because as things now stand more
people are either resigning from or leaving
or, indeed, dying in the social work profes-
sion each year than we are graduating. So
it is safe to predict that on the basis of
the present situation, where we are now
320 short, by the year 1970 we will be in
excess of 1,000 short.
If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, each of these
individuals is to look after a caseload of
between 40 and 50, I ask you to multiply a
thousand by 40 or 50 to see the numbers of
children, unmarried mothers and family pro-
tective cases that will be neglected as a re-
sult of the government's refusal to move. It
is an impossible situation. In a sane society
this kind of thing does not conform with
any standards of common sense.
Let me move to another area in the hon.
Minister's own department, because this is
the department that is surely the most vul-
nerable. The children's institutions, Mr.
Speaker. There are 42 children's institutions
presently under the schedule of regulations
under The Children's Institutions Act, and
every one of them is filled to the maximum.
In fact the doors of Boys Village, as I under-
stand it, are already closed, despite the gov-
ernment's tremendous expansion programme.
Warrendale has its full complement, Ottawa's
Protestant children's village has its full
complement, Maryvale in Windsor has its
full complement.
Everywhere across the province, Mr.
Speaker, these children's agencies are filled
to bursting with no room for movement and
expansion. And all of them want to hire
people and expand. They all feel that they
might attract some people if they had the
financial resources, but the government will
not give a penny, not a penny for training.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, as I intend
to do a little later, that overnight we could
revolutionize this system of child care
workers in this province. Overnight we
could put a thousand more people on the
social service labour market if we were pre-
pared to channel money into the children's
institutions and the children's aid societies
for training purposes. As it now stands, I
would tell the hon. Minister, we already need
500 to 700 people before the centennial
year of July 1, 1967. And again, no possi-
bilities of finding them.
I go yet further into the hon. Minister's
department. In this year, 1966, if we are
in any sense fortunate, a social revolution
occurs in the hon. Minister's department. He
will not take that personally: I am not im-
plying that he will leave.
1346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
All the categorical aid programmes and
related programmes, will be combined into
The Canada Assistance Act. When that social
revolution occurs, Mr. Speaker, something
happens that I think the House has not
given much attention to: the rationale of
those programmes changes as well, and in-
stead of being administered on a means
basis, they are administered on a needs
basis. All the people, all the caseworkers,
previously dealing on a purely interview
basis with the thousands of people involved,
will suddenly have to exercise judgment,
evaluation, counselling techniques and a con-
sistent follow-up.
Now Mr. Speaker, that will also be true
of general welfare assistance when it is
brought within the needs test of The Canada
Assistance Act. What then are the numbers
we are dealing with? Let me give the
House some idea. There are 111,000 people
according to the most recent figures I have,
receiving general welfare assistance; there
are 24,000 receiving old age assistance;
there are 1,877 receiving blind persons'
allowance; roughly 15,000 on disabled per-
sons' allowance; and slightly over 10,000 on
mothers' allowance. The total figure of all
these programmes that are likely to come
within the new piece of legislation is 162,-
000 cases, at any given point in the year. I
emphasize this, Mr. Speaker. These are not
162,000 cases annually. There are 162,000
cases at any given time.
The present caseload in servicing such
people in The Department of Public Wel-
fare is one to 396 cases and I think the
hon. Minister was as embarrassed by the
appalling nature of that figure as any other
hon. member in this House when it was
revealed in his annual report last year.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that
reputable studios have now been done, and
very excellent authorities in the field have
established the required ratio for exactly
these kind of programmes. I quote such an
expert, Mr. Allan Winston, who is the U.S.
commissioner of welfare, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare in the United
States. In conjunction with the committee
on social work education and in conjunction
with several state surveys, he came up with
the proposition that the caseload is properly
one to 60, not one to 396.
Mr. Speaker, that has incredible implica-
tions for this department. Instead of having
somewhere in the vicinity of 400 workers
involved with these cases, this government
will need this year and next, 2,700 people
skilled in the social services, and that is a
gap of 2,300 people, Mr. Speaker. Some-
where, I suggest to you, those individuals
who are being serviced by this department
will not have their needs evaluated properly.
Although the Canada assistance plan may
operate validly in every other province of this
country, it will be bankrupt and empty in the
province of Ontario, because there will be
no people skilled in the evaluation of needs.
This is a highly sophisticated change that
we are on the threshold of, Mr. Speaker, and
the hon. Minister knows it well. Let me say
to him that that 2,300-figure difference that
we need, we could use by the middle of this
year as an absolute minimum. Not all of
these workers need be skilled. They do not
have to be social workers, trained with post-
graduate education; they can be welfare
workers, they can be child care workers,
they can be the technicians in this kind of
administrative procedure.
But the government does not take it
seriously. The hon. Minister of Public Wel-
fare takes none of this seriously, because
a cursory look at his estimates reveals
this incredible fact: of a total budget of
$102,666,000, the hon. Minister of Public
Welfare is spending $66,000 on training, and
that is .06 of one per cent. He supplements
it by a six-week course.
I will deal with that six-week course in a
little while, Mr. Speaker, but let me say to
the hon. Minister again, and I issue it as a
warning, that questions will come in his
estimates to find out why less than a tenth
of one per cent is spent on training in his
department, when he faces a manpower
shortage of absolutely overwhelming pro-
portions in the public services.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out that all
these areas do not include rehabilitation
services, they do not include family coun-
selling services, they do not include the new
skills required for the charitable institutions,
and that my estimates are the absolute mini-
mum estimates.
Since another hon. Minister has been kind
enough to enter the House— he looks up
curiously— let me deal with The Department
of Health. Mr. Speaker, in this department,
the situation is not critical, it is criminal. I
find it hard to believe, although I guess it
is part of that extraordinary heritage of his,
how the hon. Minister (Mr. Dymond) sits
year after year with such equanimity when
these things are pointed out.
Let me take some areas of his department,
Mr. Speaker.
Take mental health, for adults and children.
Last year I established in this House, and
MARCH 9, 1966
1347
established it after consultation with super-
intendents of Ontario hospitals, that in five
Ontario hospitals in the province— I will
remind you which they were: St. Thomas,
New Toronto, London, Whitby and Hamilton
—the shortage at that time for those five
hospitals was roughly of this range: 44
psychiatrists, 80 psychologists, 150 social
workers. And nothing has changed.
When you look through an issue of
Canada's Mental Health, and I look at the
issue of January-February, 1966, you find
the province of Ontario advertising for every
conceivable position. Allow me to read the
list of the institutions for which people are
required.
Appointments are available in Brockville,
Cedar Springs, East York, Hamilton, Kingston,
Kitchener, London, New Toronto, North Bay,
Orillia, Port Arthur, Penetanguishene, St.
Thomas, Smiths Falls, Thistletown, Toronto,
Whitby, Windsor and Woodstock— all levels
of training and experience required.
Again the hon. Minister's inclination is
to say, "We do not have the personnel," just
as it is the inclination of the hon. Minister
of Public Welfare and the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions. I say, Mr. Speaker, that
the absence of personnel lies with their own
conscience as well as the answer for it I hope
to give that in just a few minutes' time. But
I have to point out what happens in in-
stitutions when you do not have this kind
of proper personnel ratio.
Let me make another observation on the
hon. Minister's department, Mr. Speaker. He
has not yet brought before this House the
interdepartmental committee report on emo-
tionally disturbed children. I would like to
venture an opinion to this House as to why
that has not happened. Nothing the inter-
departmental committee can recommend can
be staffed. There is not a single thing that
they put concretely on paper by way of
expansion of services about which they could
be confident that they would find the per-
sonnel.
Indeed, when that interdepartmental com-
mittee comes, I venture to guess that it must
stipulate as its first recommendation, a crash
programme on manpower, or its report will
never be tabled before this House. For the
hon. Minister to say that he might not table
it this session, as he suggested in reply to a
question a few weeks ago, is again a shock-
ing abdication of responsibility on the part
of the hon. Minister of the Crown. Charac-
teristic, Mr. Speaker, but a shocking abdica-
tion nonetheless.
Of course the reason is very simple— there
is nothing these people can recommend. They
all see the gaps, they all know the needs,
and they are as frustrated as the government
permits them to be.
Those are just two of the specific areas,
but let us take a look at some of the things
that have been proposed in the mental health
field, Mr. Speaker. There are very close fig-
ures available in the study of Metropolitan
Toronto hospitals that was released in the
last two years— figures which quoted and cor-
roborated those presented by the Canadian
mental health association to the Hall com-
mission report; figures which suggested that
there should be one mental health clinic for
every 100,000 population, or 25,000 children,
staffed by one psychiatrist, two psychologists,
six social workers and three speech therapists.
That would be a total for the province of
Ontario of some 68 such clinics, requiring 68
psychiatrists, 136 psychologists, 408 social
workers and 200-plus speech therapists— and
that does not include any of the auxiliary
staff.
That is in excess of 800 people required
today, and we have fewer than 150 in the
field in those areas.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is a gap which
is in excess of 600 trained people in the areas
of mental health and The Department of
Health. Mr. Speaker, it gives rise to unbe-
lievable situations.
I was up in the happy hinterland of Simcoe
county yesterday morning— as accident has it
—chatting with the medical officer of health.
Simcoe county health unit includes 143,000
people, with such centres as Barrie, Orillia
and Collingwood. There is not a single
mental health clinic for those 143,000 people
anywhere in the county, and at the closest
Ontario hospital at Penetang, there is not
even an outpatients department. The entire
health staff in the county unit is in despair,
because all the referrals and all the needs
run into a total impasse. There is abso-
lutely nowhere for young people, or indeed
adults, to turn.
The same situation— and I think this is a
field we should explore more fully this session
—prevails in public health. We are now on
the verge of an equal crisis in public health
nurses. We are already running 40 to 50
behind each year in our requirements; the
University of Toronto school of nursing is
gradually dismantling its certificate course for
public health nurses who come from the nurs-
ing diploma school, and likely will have
abandoned it by 1968 or 1969. We will then
be deprived of a considerable complement of
public health nurses every year thereafter.
1348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But it is worse than that, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause just now the whole field of public
health is undergoing a tremendous expansion.
Instead of the original emphasis on com-
municable disease and immunization, public
health is now becoming responsive to mass
screening, problems of aging and problems
of mental health after-care. There simply
will not be the public health nursing person-
nel to handle the situation.
What about nursing homes, Mr. Speaker,
which are now in the hon. Minister's depart-
ment? The hon. Minister said blithely, dur-
ing the second reading of The Nursing
Homes Act, that 150 homes would be closed
down because they would not meet the
proper standards imposed by regulation.
Mr. Speaker, taking a leaf from the Ontario
welfare council study, and assuming at bot-
tom that only ten people are turned out of
each of the existing 150 homes, it means that
in the next little while, 1,500 older people in
the province of Ontario will simply be dis-
carded from nursing homes, with no obvious
place to turn.
The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, primarily,
is that the regulations will demand a certain
level of staff complement for which this gov-
ernment has made no plans whatsoever. In-
deed, the hon. Minister himself admitted that
the shortage of registered nursing assistants
was critical. For all of these services in the
hon. Minister's department— mental health,
disturbed children, public health, nursing
homes— the outlook is exceedingly bleak, and
we have a social service personnel gap which,
at the moment, cannot be bridged.
Let me turn finally to The Department of
Education. I am sorry that the hon. Minister
(Mr. Davis) is not here; I am sorry because I
wanted to break, if I could, that "noblesse
oblige" which exists in so much of education
debate today. I want to say that the pinnacle
of failure— the real sense of responsibility-
lies on the shoulders of the hon. Minister of
Education and University Affairs. His de-
partment stands wanting in every sense. In-
deed, Mr. Speaker, all the lavish plans for the
extension of education and for the provision
of equality of opportunity, are rendered
absurd by our inability to bring the social
service personnel into the school system so
that children who have problems in a sophis-
ticated society can be responded to.
I refer again to Simcoe county and my visit
yesterday— just to give a specific instance. Of
143,000 people with a very large elementary
and secondary school population, there was
not a single person anyone could turn to-
other than the ordinary vocational guidance
counselling that is available. School systems
cannot pronounce themselves such examples
of worth and merit when this kind of situa-
tion continues to prevail.
I spoke today to one of the head psychia-
trists at the Toronto board of education. I
had had brought to my attention over the
weekend a painful and unhappy incident of
a little seven-year-old boy who had been
suspended from class last Friday in a public
school. This little boy had a history of severe
physical and emotional illness. At the age of
seven he was suspended from school. He can-
not get an appointment for two or three
weeks, despite the fact that the child adjust-
ment service of the city of Toronto is one of
the finest anywhere in the province— indeed,
perhaps the only viable child adjustment serv-
ice in the province. When I spoke to the psy-
chiatrist, she said to me, rather plaintively:
"You know, Mr. Lewis, there were seven
such little boys in the past few days; I do not
know what is happening to the little boys of
this city."
It is very simple, Mr. Speaker, what is
happening is that despite all the protestations
to the contrary, our educational system is fail-
ing at its root, because in a sophisticated and
advanced society, and in a society which pre-
tends to some sensitivity and social con-
science, one of the first areas of concentration
is on providing the personnel to deal with
the social and emotional problems.
Let it be said, Mr. Speaker, that except
for the city of Toronto or Etobicoke or North
York or Forest Hill or perhaps Scarborough,
there is virtually nothing in the entire prov-
ince within the educational system to handle
those who are difficult in social ways. This
again was corroborated by visits of the select
committee of youth to every single corner
of the province. I think my colleagues on
that committee, whether they be on the
Liberal benches or on the government
benches, would admit that that was the
truth. It is not only a failure in reform in-
stitutions and in the Attorney General's de-
partment, and in Health and in Welfare, but
it is most fundamentally, a failure in The
Department of Education.
Yet some standards have been established.
To give this House an idea of the dimension
of failure, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate the
results of staffing ratios which have been
established in the United States after very
serious consultation, analysis and research. I
quote from a rather good authority in this
field, Wilbur I. Cohen, who is Assistant
Secretary of The Department of Health,
Education and Welfare in the United States.
MARCH 9, 1966
1349
They have established that the desirable
ratio of social workers, skilled councillors or
skilled case workers— however you would
wish it— to students in the school should be
one to every 2,000. Now let us see how that
works out in this province of Ontario, which
glorifies its educational system—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): How does it work out in the
United States?
Mr. S. Lewis: How does it work out in
the United States? They are considerably
behind, but as I will indicate to the hon.
Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, they are
making changes; we are not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: So are we.
Mr. S. Lewis: The hon. Minister is not
making any changes.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Going
backwards in this province!
Mr. S. Lewis: In 1964 there were 1,673,000
students in elementary and secondary school,
public and private, and at a ratio of one to
2,000 students we need 836 trained people in
our school system. If that sounds perhaps a
little high, let me relate it to schools and to
teachers, because I think this brings it right
down to a concrete frame of reference. If we
had such numbers of trained personnel, it
would be one for every 74 teachers and one
for every eight schools. I do not think in the
middle of the 1960's, Mr. Speaker, that that
is too much to ask in the province of Ontario.
We are already, in this department, over
700 short of such people; as a result, children
of seven are suspended from school, and as a
result, when select committees of the Legis-
lature travel around the province they meet
everywhere a sense of despair and frustra-
tion amongst those who make the presenta-
tion.
There has to be an answer here as well.
We are not suggesting in any sense that
that skilled person, the social worker or that
social welfare worker should be one per
school or one per teacher. We recognize
that these services are primarily supervisory
and counselling, but at the moment the
ratio is impossible, and so again another de-
partment has failed in its task.
There has to be some kind of solution, and
the solution obviously has to involve some-
thing more than social workers of the trained
specialties alone. If I can put it in summary
for this House, just in the few areas I have
dealt with, just in the few that I have high-
lighted—in the areas of Attorney General,
Health, Welfare, Education and Reform In-
stitutions—we can now on this day assert a
shortage of between 4,000 and 5,000 social
service personnel for those precise areas.
Without any hesitation I would assert that
that shortage is more likely between 10,000
and 12,000 trained social service personnel
when you take in the entire spectrum of
public and private agencies.
I ask you to relate those numbers to in-
dividuals served, or more accurately, in-
dividuals lacking service, and the enormity
of the government's neglect becomes obvious.
For the job is obviously impossible, Mr.
Speaker, in our present context. It may in-
terest the hon. members of the House to know
it, and I am spelling out these figures and
these details specifically because I think they
should be on record, although figures some-
times tend to overwhelm.
The total social work enrollment in the
province of Ontario in 1964-65 was 242—
the total enrollment, all grades, all years. The
total psychiatric enrollment, that is in medical
schools, in 1964-65 was 75. The total enroll-
ment of psychologists in the schools for
which we had reports— Toronto West, Water-
loo, Western, Windsor, Carleton and Queen's
—was 258. In other words the problems are
massive, they cry for remedy. And just before
I set out that remedy perhaps the House
will allow me to make one further reflection
—a little unorthodox— but something that I
think needs very much to be said.
While I suggest to this Legislature that
the government is primarily responsible,
there is one other agent in collusion, as it
were, and that is the professional associations
themselves. It causes me much distress to
have to make the remarks I am about to
make, but I suggest to you that no group is
more aware, yet no group presses less vocally
compared to that awareness.
One is moved to ask where are the pound-
ings of the Ontario association of social
workers? Where are the voices of the On-
tario welfare council and the social planning
councils? Where are the Ontario association
of psychiatrists, and the Ontario association
of psychologists?
What peculiar combination of professional
vested interests and professional timidity
results in this silence, this muted retreat, this
occasional humble supplication to govern-
ment in an occasional document or an oc-
casional brief?
I want to point out that the Ontario wel-
fare council is having a conference in May,
as they do annually, in May of this year,
and in their conference programme they
1350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have a series of areas for discussion. One of
their discussion groups says: "Manpower, is
there a crisis looming?'
Well, Mr. Speaker, they know that the
crisis is not looming, the crisis is upon us,
yet with that unexpected reticence, that in-
explicable reserve, which characterizes so
much of the profession's behaviour, very
little is said about it. They appear to be
willing to let the crisis go, unreported and
unlamented, rather than to speak out. They
are so concerned about the unprofessional
implications of speaking out, and so-called
pressures from the community, that the pro-
fessional groups are rendered, as it were,
respectable.
I say, Mr. Speaker, these are the groups
who should be lobbying Queen's Park. These
are the groups who should be putting pres-
sure, persistently and relentlessly on this gov-
ernment in order that we come to some kind
of solution and the government ultimately
succumbs. There is no doubt that they have
documented the field, but they have done
very little beyond that, and that is a matter
of very, very great concern.
The answers to all of this— this tremen-
dous paralyzing manpower shortage— are not
easy to find, but there are guidelines. After
all, there have to be guidelines and they
are particularly relevant. I repeat a banal
cliche when I say that in this part of the
20th century we move into the area where
services to people are likely to attract the
greatest part of the population. The effects
of the technological society move everything
in that direction, it compels all of the work
force to channel itself in that direction. We
are not talking about something that cannot
be achieved. Services to people make sense.
It is a matter of organizing those services.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the
magnitude of this crisis is so vast, and its
implications so great, that we cannot allow
a single department to be responsible. In-
deed, Professor Krueger pointed out that
interdepartmental conflict and a sense of ir-
responsibility frequently hamstrings any
genuine efforts to develop programmes. I
do not think that we should talk about one
Minister speaking to another, or about a
single department taking control.
I want to suggest to hon. members that
we should establish— and let it be said I do
not think it an unwarranted or extreme sug-
gestion—we should establish a Prime Minis-
ter's task force on staffing the social services.
All the hon. Ministers directly involved
would be responsible to him, plus a repre-
sentative citizens committee drawn from all
the agencies concerned across the province
to advise and make the required submissions.
On top of that, of course, the specialized
personnel would be present to enact the pro-
grammes.
Now the guidelines, Mr. Speaker, that I
want to suggest would be appropriate for
this crash programme on the part of the
Prime Minister's task force are several in
number. I have eight specific suggestions
I would like to make. Some of them have
been referred to in this House, some of
them have not. Some of them may not
meet with the approval of government. On
careful reflection, I suggest that they are
all equally indispensable.
First, Mr. Speaker, we must have under-
graduate degrees in social welfare and social
work. That suggestion is not likely to be
palatable to presidents of universities and
to those who worry, I think somewhat
esoterically, about watering down the liberal
arts content of our undergraduate courses.
But I suggest to you that there is no other
more effective short-term and long-term
answer. It may be that the hon. Minister
of Education, instead of abdicating his re-
sponsibility in this field year after year,
will have to lay down the law.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that
the states of California, New York and
Massachusetts have taken tremendous strides
in solving this problem of social service
staffing in precisely this way. And when the
hon. Minister of Reform Institutions says
that they are doing nothing about it and we
are doing something about it, the reverse, of
course, is exactly true.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that just as we
have to sort out the problem of having com-
munity college graduates move freely into the
university stream— and that is something about
which there can be no equivocation— so also
must we sort out the equal problem of getting
university administrators and leaders to accept
the absolute necessity of undergraduate social
welfare and social work education. And let
me say, Mr. Speaker, that it will take some
considerable persuasion.
There is a body that has been trying to
persuade them. The Canadian welfare council
set up a sub-committee, a commission on
education and personnel, and for years with
the extraordinary energies of Mr. Edward
Watson at the helm, they have been trying to
assess this whole field and come up with
some solution.
At one point not so long ago, in the middle
of 1965, they circulated all universities in
MARCH 9, 1966
1351
the province of Ontario and asked them about
an undergraduate course in social welfare
or social work. Let me read the answers from
university presidents into the record, because
I think they are indicative of the problem
we can anticipate.
This letter is from Trent University in
Peterborough, Mr. Symons president and vice-
chancellor:
Thank you for your letter of 20th July.
I am sorry to have been at little delayed
in replying to it but trust you will under-
stand it was held up by the postal strike.
In answer to the general inquiry posed in
your letter, may I say that I concur in your
committee's view that in this matter the
US experience is of limited relevance to
the Canadian scene. I think that we should
be very careful indeed before shifting
the emphasis in courses in the liberal arts
and social sciences at the undergraduate
level in Canada towards more vocational
work. It may be that some movement in
this direction would now be desirable,
but it should be made only after the most
thorough and careful consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we have been considering it to
death:
I wonder if it might not be desirable
to explore the possibility afforded by the
development of community colleges and
polytechnical institutes for some helpful
contribution to the social welfare field?
If these institutions are planned and
operated upon the high level which is being
suggested for them, it might well be possi-
ble for them to make an important contri-
bution to the preparation of people for
responsibilities in some areas of the welfare
services by providing educational oppor-
tunities to appropriate levels.
Let me interject and say, Mr. Speaker, that
of course it is obvious the community college
system will have to move in at this level.
But that does not mean that the universities
can remain in their state of withdrawal and
unconcern.
A letter from the University of Western
Ontario, signed by Mr. M. K. Inman, vice-
president of arts and science, states the same
reservations. He says:
I have talked to Dr. Mary Wright,
head of our psychology department, regard-
ing the suggestion of courses in social
welfare work be offered at the under-
graduate level. Dr. Wright's view, which I
share, is that no attempt should be made
to provide undergraduate courses in this
field. Dr. Wright informs me that this
problem has been discussed extensively
at meetings of the Canadian psychological
association. One problem of great impor-
tance is that of certification. Would persons
who had taken courses in social welfare
work receive professional recognition?
Again we encounter this professional mys-
tique. Says the letter:
If not, there would be little justification
in providing such training at the under-
graduate level.
Mr. Inman ends up this way:
May I suggest that your council ask
each Canadian university to appoint a
committee—
that sounds like the Legislature:
—to evaluate what is being done and to
indicate what might be done to accelerate
the training of social welfare workers in
this country? It seems to me that such a
survey would be helpful not only to your
council, but also the universities involved.
Mr. Speaker, we have the surveys. They
need not be further made. I point out that
these letters are a reflection of the stiff re-
sistance we are going to meet. I suppose it
is the same kind of resistance that the hon.
Minister of University Affairs is meeting
when he talks about the continuum beyond
community colleges.
From Queen's University, from J. A. Corry,
the president. Let me read the last para-
graph:
As far as I have been able to reach a
view of my own, from what you tell me,
I judge that your commission has made a
most careful study of needs and has
reached views about the kind of under-
graduate programmes that would be useful
in meeting the need. I appreciate very
much your recognition that this may raise
problems for the universities, particularly
in the question of how far the universities
should be expected to go now with voca-
tional preparation. Clearly this is a matter
that the universities will have to think
about and make their decisions. I also
believe it is a matter on which you can
fairly expect the universities to try to
give you some of the answers you are
seeking. Your sincerely.
I often answer constituents' letters in much
the same way, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, just to show you that the view
is not unanimous, that there is some hope in
the field, I want to read a paragraph from
the reply of Mr. James A. Gibson, president
of Brock University in St. Catharines. This
1352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is what Mr. Gibson says, and I think he hits
the nail on the head:
The question of the extent to which
directed vocational preparation should
enter into a broad liberal education based
on preparation in the social sciences and
humanities is one which is constantly
under our notice. My own answer to the
further question whether this blending can
be done without undue or inappropriate
inroads being made into the content or
integrity of a liberal arts education is,
again, yes.
Mr. Gibson comes down flatly on the side
of expansion in this field.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say
that I think that the hon. Minister of Uni-
versity Affairs has a real responsibility, that
there is no other possible solution than to
think in terms of undergraduate social wel-
fare and social work education. We are not
dealing in the realm of scores of people, we
are dealing in the realm of thousands of
people and tens of thousands of human be-
ings to be served. Universities have to be
flexible in their attitudes if we are to achieve
that kind of thing.
I would note in this House, Mr. Speaker,
that Sir George Williams University in Mont-
real and Memorial University in Newfound-
land have already established such pro-
grammes, with very considerable success,
and with no deleterious effects on their lib-
eral arts content. I would also emphasize
in this House, Mr. Speaker, that a survey
was done of some 30 liberal arts colleges
in the United States which have made the
same kind of change in the field of social
welfare work. It shows that students who
graduate from that course move easily, and
fluidly into social service status, again with-
out watering-down the content.
I gather, Mr. Speaker, from behind the
scenes, that there is some appreciable move-
ment in this direction. I gather that there
are quiet negotiations going on to institute
this kind of programme. They should be
declared publicly; indeed, they should be
proclaimed publicly by the hon. Minister.
That is the first suggestion I have, Mr.
Speaker.
The second, I suggest, should be an im-
mediate announcement on the part of the
hon. Minister of Education that two-year
courses in the field of social welfare worker
personnel will be established, as a matter
of practice, in every community college
across this province. Society desperately
needs precisely this kind of technologist.
After all, we have a welfare worker course
at Ryerson now, and it has worked extremely
well.
But let us take such courses seriously, Mr.
Speaker; let us take them seriously. We
started the Ryerson course and we nearly
abandoned it; it floundered for almost a
year. This year, Mr. Speaker, just for the
edification of the House, there are 22 stu-
dents in the second year of the Ryerson
course and 32 students in the first year of
the Ryerson course. They turned away well
over 100 students. Yet our shortage in the
field is between 10,000 and 12,000.
Mr. Speaker, again it is an intolerable
situation. The evidence of graduates from
welfare worker courses suggests that they
fit in nicely with children's aid societies,
with mental health clinics, with Ontario hos-
pitals, and with family counselling services.
If community colleges were to establish
such a course immediately upon the creation
of every community college, as part of its
original curriculum, we could be turning
out easily 1,000 people a year in these areas
in two or three years time. That is the
kind of thing that has to be done in order to
begin to cope with this kind of crisis.
The third concrete proposal that I think
the Prime Minister's task force should un-
dertake, Mr. Speaker, is the establishment
of at least two more schools of social work
in the province of Ontario. I say at least,
because I recognize the problem of finding
teachers and the general staffing situation
is involved. But the general feeling is that
we could have two more social work schools
in the province of Ontario; no one on
this side of the House is particularly exer-
cised whether it is at Waterloo Lutheran,
York, Western or Queen's. The point is
the need for these schools, and with the
schools, a reorientation of the kinds of things
graduate social workers do and learn. A re-
orientation in the sense, first, of continuing
work in graduate education, second, special-
ized training for people in the field who re-
turn to schools of social work for six to nine
months for upgrading, so as to fit into the
field of desperately needed administrative and
supervisory staff; and finally, social work re-
search to sustain all that is being done-
social work research which has necessarily
been neglected in our great efforts to pro-
duce bodies.
The fourth suggestion I have is that the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), should
summon— I use the word advisedly— the
leaders of professional groups and leaders
of all the agencies involved, to discuss new
MARCH 9, 1966
1353
crash programmes. This is the way an
answer was found in the state of California.
For the professional groups, Mr. Speaker,
the psychiatrists, the psychologists, the social
workers the area of response is fairly straight-
forward: lavish bursaries and scholarships
beyond anything that the government is pres-
ently giving; much more prestige to the place
of these selected skills in the faculties and
professions involved; a social service public
education programme which spreads dra-
matically into the high schools and the voca-
tional schools at this point in time, so that
somehow we salvage the situation by 1970.
It is instructive, Mr. Speaker— and I point
this out as yet another sad anomaly— it is in-
structive that the Ontario mental health asso-
ciation is the only agency in the field which is
helping teachers in this regard. It is, I sug-
gest, preposterous, that a private agency
should be doing the work of a government
department.
The private agencies themselves— for chil-
dren's aid societies, for children's institutions,
for health units and for all the others— should
be given, again immediately, unqualified
grants for training purposes. I cannot em-
phasize this too much. I know it seems diffi-
cult to conceive of, Mr. Speaker, but the fact
remains that if all these private agencies
were given grants for training purposes, they
could double their own personnel and turn
into the field this secondary stream of workers
—social welfare workers and child care
workers— to fill all the required jobs.
They would do it quickly— in six months to
a year. They have the capacities to do— in-
deed, some of the school boards have the
capacities to do it. The very sad thing about
it, if I can point to the situation which pre-
vailed in 1964, is that in the private agency
field there were 74 individuals doing some
training of staff. But not a single person in
the entire private agency field, not one of the
74, was full time. They were all part time
because they did not have the funds and there
was no government interest in the granting
process.
If you want to turn out these people; if
you want to staff our impoverished social
services; you do it through the agencies which
have the skills and the training. This is a
tremendous potential and an untapped re-
source. I suggest that delay is myopia of the
worst kind.
A fifth point, Mr. Speaker, and an equally
obvious one is a crash government in-training
programme to be administered by this
Prime Minister's committee. I would suggest
that three per cent— and that is a minimal fig-
ure and much less than industry spends, and
much less than has been advised in the
studies in the United States— of each depart-
mental budget go to retraining and upgrading
in-staff training in their own departments.
In Reform Institutions, instead of $75,000 you
would have $.75 million spent. In Welfare,
instead of $66,000 you would have $3 million
spent.
Otherwise, we are reduced to this farce
of six weeks in-training courses, which con-
sist of reading the rules and regulations of
the Act which apply almost irrelevantly to
the field, which do not prepare any of the
workers for any of the concrete needs in the
days of the Canada assistance plan. One asks
whether there is perhaps one ounce of hard-
headed business compassion in the govern-
ment so that they can design the programme
to serve the people involved.
I put it to them, if I can, in economic
terms, because the cost to this government of
human deterioration as a result of the absence
of social service personnel is incalculable.
Point six, Mr. Speaker, is one I am going
to relate only briefly because it is something
which should be dealt with in considerable
detail in the estimates. We need an entirely
new programme for the teaching profession
in the province of Ontario. It means that in
all the teachers' colleges and in the Ontario
colleges of education there must be— I empha-
size this— there must be mandatory courses
on identification of emotional disturbance; on
coping with such disturbance; on human
growth and child development. Teachers
should be provided at summer school courses,
and at night schools, if you will, with finan-
cial increments, to form some kind of induce-
ment to their taking these courses. Because,
Mr. Speaker, this surely fundamental. We
will never close the gap unless the teaching
profession can wade in and put their finger
in the dyke for the three or four interim
years, because I make the assumption of
course that the Prime Minister's task force
will move quickly.
Seventh, and here I repeat something I
have said previously in this House, but I will
say it again and we will not stop hammering
at it. Somehow we have to have a manpower
survey for the social services. Surely there is
some chagrin; surely there is some small par-
ticle of shame on the part of this government
that they alone are the only jurisdiction I
have been able to find on the North Ameri-
can continent— despite all their worldly pre-
tensions when bills are presented to this
House— the only jurisdiction on the North
1354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
American continent that has not made a man-
power survey of social service needs. There
was a survey of all Canada in the 1950s and
Ontario boycotted it. There was a very real
effort to set up such a survey this year and
Ontario refused again. As a result, the
federal Department of Health and Welfare
has almost assuredly abandoned its plans.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, the government is
afraid of what they will find. The fragmen-
tary bits of information we have, the frag-
mentary pieces that I presented to the House
this afternoon show a shortage of 10,000 to
12,000 in the entire area, perhaps much more
than that. This kind of illustration of infor-
mation frightens the government. They know
the crisis proportion of the problem, but they
are simply not prepared to move. It is much
easier to proclaim inertia in the absence of
information. That is exactly what has hap-
pened.
I suggest strongly that we must have this
manpower survey. The hon. Minister of
Labour (Mr. Rowntree) has, through his re-
search branch, launched some tentative man-
power studies into his department and into
the work force. We will deal with those
under his estimates shortly pending. But, Mr.
Speaker, nothing has been done in the
field of social service staffing, public wel-
fare, education, health. Nothing! No one
knows the precise needs, none of the ma-
terial is before us. Nobody knows how to
plan, and that is why we need this kind of
undertaking by the task force.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, and related to
it, we need some kind of study of utilization
of the personnel we now have. We have
to have some established ratio of workers
to cases. What caseloads should people
carry in any given government department,
in any given branch, in any given field? The
hon. Minister of Public Welfare could not
tell us. He would not have a hope of telling
us, not an idea of what was involved. Nor
would the hon. Minister of Health, nor
would the hon. Minister of Education, be-
cause nothing has been done here that has
been done in other jurisdictions.
The only thing that has been done is when
the Canadian welfare council took a look at
selected agencies, to analyze the utilization
of staff personnel they found that super-
visors were doing casework, that case-
workers were doing administrative jobs, that
clerks were doing specialized jobs, that
specialized personnel were doing mundane
jobs and that we were using badly even
those very few we have.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what I
have proposed are the fundamental answers.
I cannot refine them any more than that.
The data is not available. Even if the data
were available, I would not be privileged
to it. I would not have access to it.
But this government faces a crisis of un-
told, incalculable proportion. There is no
use trotting out the case histories on the
floor of this Legislature over and again. I
trust that we will not have to do that again,
because it demeans the Legislature, it is
not an effective way of moving government,
and it is often difficult for members to
be reduced to that level. But that is what
is happening. That is the position the gov-
ernment is putting the Opposition in, because
they refuse to work in all these areas; they
are completely indifferent to the individual
tragedies that are involved as a result of
dropouts in our educational system, of the
absence of mental health clinics, of the prob-
lems in family courts and, particularly, of
the inability to cope with any of these
areas because we do not have the social
service personnel and are making no plans
for them.
Until such time, Mr. Speaker, this is a
guilty government of guilty men— collaborators
in neglect of the worst kind. As we say on
this side of the House, we will pursue these
areas in one departmental estimate after an-
other, because there must somehow be a
forcing of the issue.
Mr. R. A. Eagleson (Lakeshore) moves the
adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment
of the House, tomorrow I suggest that we
take up the estimates again and continue with
them through tomorrow, subject to the five-
to-six hour for private members' matters.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6 o'clock, p.m.
No. 45
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, March 10, 1966
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 10, 1966
First report, standing committee on natural resources, wildlife and mining, Mr. Rollins 1357
Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, bill to amend, Mr. Gisborn, first reading 1357
Presenting report, Mr. Yaremko 1357
Welcoming "Timmy for 1966" re Easter Seal campaign, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Smith,
Mr. MacDonald 1362
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, continued 1363
Notice of motions Nos. 8 and 12, continued, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Root,
Mr. Young 1375
Recess, 6 o'clock 1386
1357
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports by com-
mittees.
Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings East), from the
standing committee on natural resources and
wildlife and mining, presented the com-
mittee's first report which was read as
follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bills without amendment:
Bill No. 3, An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act;
Bill No. 21, An Act to amend The Crown
Timber Act;
Bill No. 22, An Act to provide for the
expansion and improvement of privately
owned woodlands.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE HOURS OF WORK AND VACATIONS
WITH PAY ACT
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Hours of Work and Vacations
with Pay Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, the present Hours of Work and
Vacations with Pay Act provides that after
an employee has service of one year with an
employer he receives one week's vacation
with pay. The amendments to the Act that I
have introduced will provide two weeks
vacation with pay after one year's service
with one employer and three weeks after
five years of service with one employer.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the annual report of the St. Lawrence
parks commission for the year ending Decem-
ber 31, 1965.
Thursday, March 10, 1966
Mr. G. Ben (Bracondale): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Reform Institutions (Mr. Grossman), notice
of which has been given.
(1) How many guards were dismissed or
resigned from service at the Ontario refor-
matory at Guelph during each of the years
1963 to 1965, both inclusive? (2) How many
of the guards at the same reformatory who
signed a petition in 1964 asking for a meeting
with the hon. Minister are no longer with
the department?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): I take it, Mr. Speaker, this is one
of the three questions the hon. member asks?
Mr. Ben: It is one of three questions.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member want to
give all three at once?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is all right, Mr.
Speaker, I would just as soon answer this
way.
In respect of that particular question, this
requires a great amount of detail and I will
take that as notice and perhaps have it
tomorrow or Monday for the hon. member.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next question is: (1) Are the log books
at the detention cell at Guelph still being
kept in permanent bindings; and (2), if not,
when was the system discontinued and on
whose order or instruction?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to that question is no, to part one,
and therefore part two is answered by part
one.
Mr. Ben: Could I ask a supplementary
question of the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker. Was the hon. member's question in
the negative or in the positive? Are they still
being kept in permanent bindings? Is that
the question?
Mr. Ben: Yes, that is the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is yes.
1358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: And a supplementary question.
Where could I avail myself of these books
for inspection?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Presumably at the
institution, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now
my third question is: Is Mrs. Andrews, whose
husband died shortly after receiving injuries
during the disturbances in Guelph Ontario
reformatory in 1959, receiving a pension
from this government? And if the answer is
yes, how much per annum?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to that question is no.
Mr. Ben: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Highways (Mr. MacNaughton), a
copy of which has been submitted to him.
In view of the inclusion of a gas company
propaganda booklet in the official Depart-
ment of Highways publication, would the
hon. Minister inform this House:
1. Why he authorized the insertion?
2. What was the cost to the department?
3. What charges were levied against the
Canadian gas association for the insertion?
4. Whether the Canadian gas association
paid any or all of the postage charges?
5. If the hon. Minister would allow other
private industries or corporations to insert
similar institutional advertising pamphlets in
future departmental publications?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Speaker, to proceed in order
with the answers to the hon. member's ques-
tion:
1. "Why he authorized the insertion?" The
insertion was authorized by the assistant
Deputy Minister upon general direction from
the Minister that the DHO News was to
serve the best interests of staff to the greatest
extent possible.
2. "What was the cost to the department?"
No cost to the department.
3. "What charges were levied against the
Canadian gas association for the insertion?"
Nil.
4. "Whether the Canadian gas association
paid any or all of the postage charges?"
There were no increased postage charges.
5. "If the Minister would allow other
private industries or corporations to insert
similar institutional advertising pamphlets in
future departmental publications?" In this
instance, it was not a private industry or cor-
poration, but a Canada-wide association. It
contains nothing whatsoever of a promotional
or propaganda character.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, upon
examination I and my senior staff feel that
it is one of the finest safety booklets we have
even seen. I would draw the hon. member's
attention to the first page, and he will read
a statement by Dr. Robert J. Imrie, chair-
man, accident prevention committee, Ontario
medical association, staff physician, hospital
for sick children, Toronto:
Most civic-minded citizens realize the
high incidence of permanent injury and
death associated with all types of accidents
in and around the home. The precise,
accurate, comprehensive booklet, "Home,
Safe Home," has as in the past and I know
will continue in the future, to reduce this
unnecessary waste of human life and limb
by its simple, direct suggestions on acci-
dent prevention in the home. I highly
recommend its widespread distribution
into every Canadian household.
And then from Mr. P. G. MacLaren, general
manager, national safety league of Canada:
Excluding the motor vehicle, the home
accounts for most of the fatal accidents
and the greatest number of injuries. This
fearful situation can be remedied only by
constant attention to eliminating accident
hazards in the home and developing safe
practices. "Home, Safe Home" is one of
the most valuable instruments in the pro-
gramme of the national safety league of
Canada. It emphasizes the vital need for
home safety and provides ways to achieve
a safer home environment.
And from Judy Adams, home safety director
of the Ontario safety league:
"Home, Safe Home" is a vitally needed
contribution to the accident prevention
field. Over 2,000 Canadians die yearly,
and thousands more suffer crippling in-
juries from accidents in the home. The
Ontario safety league's home safety de-
partment has made extensive use of this
booklet in conjunction with its public edu-
cation work over a period of years. We
have yet to discover a better, more com-
prehensive piece of literature designed to
prevent accidents.
I would ask the hon. member to take a look
at the back page— if he has not already done
so— at the list of those contributors to this
contribution entitled "Home, Safe Home":
The Canadian gas association; the national
safety league of Canada; the Canadian Red
MARCH 10, 1966
1359
Cross society— Ontario branch; the national
safety council of the United States; indus-
trial accident prevention associations; Ontario
safety league; Canadian medical association
—Alberta branch; Occidental Life Insurance
Company of California; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; fire commissioner's
office, Saskatchewan; American Druggist
magazine; United States Department of
Health Education; Department of National
Health and Welfare, Ottawa; Newfoundland
Department of Health; Ontario Department
of Health; Manitoba Department of Health
and Public Welfare; Manitoba Department
of Agriculture and Immigration; Saskatche-
wan Department of Public Health; Alberta
Department of Public Health; British Colum-
bia Department of Health Services and Hos-
pital Insurance; British Columbia safety
council.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon.
member, we feel that the insertion of this
booklet at no cost with the distribution of
our Department of Highways Ontario News,
is a service to our staff and we will continue
to provide them with this service.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask of
the hon. Minister a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, of course.
Mr. Newman: Is the hon. Minister aware
that on page 22 of the booklet it shows the
heating plant hazards, especially by elec-
tricity, with a very unfavourable light? You
have one department of government working
at cross purposes with another, with Hydro.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would say to
the hon. member that if he reads this
through, he will find— explained, equally and
as fairly— hazards that can arise from the use
of gas. They describe certain preventive
measures that should be taken in terms of
the use of gas. I think they deal with the
matter very fairly and I repeat, we are quite
happy to make this booklet available to the
staff of The Department of Highways.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a series of questions, two of
which are holdovers from that speechless
condition I found myself in yesterday.
First to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts): In view of the statement made yes-
terday by Mr. Albert Shepherd, counsel for
the Hughes Royal commission, that loans and
other matters related to the British Mortgage
and Trust Company would be dealt with
separate from evidence relating to Atlantic
Acceptance, would the hon. Prime Minister
consider at this point establishing a separate
inquiry into the operation of British Mortgage
and Trust, which led to last year's crisis and
the takeover by Victoria and Grey?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to the question is "no."
We are not considering at this point the
establishment of a separate inquiry.
If one examines the terms of reference of
the Hughes commission, as it is now called,
included in the terms is a request that "he
investigate, inquire into and report upon"—
and I am just quoting part of it— "the activi-
ties and conduct of any person, company,
corporation or organization in relation,
whether direct or indirect, with such failure"
—this refers to Atlantic— "and in the activities
and conduct of any person, company, corpor-
ation or organization— including British Mort-
gage and Trust Company— who is, was, or
claims to be"; and so on and so forth.
So that in the terms of reference of the
commission, it is very clear that they are
asked to investigate into the affairs of British
Mortgage and Trust. In checking the news-
paper reports of what in fact Mr. Shepherd
said, at least as reported in the Toronto Globe
and Mail, he said the loans made by British
Mortgage and Trust Company of Stratford
required some explanation. Because it would
be impractical to interrupt the flow of evi-
dence respecting Atlantic Acceptance the
matters concerning British Mortgage and
Trust would be dealt with separately.
Now this simply is a question of the com-
mission exercising the judgment he is given
in deciding how he is to conduct the inquiry
within the terms of reference we laid before
him. I gather from what has been said, it is
purely a procedural matter. In the terms of
reference, of course,' the affairs of British
Mortgage and Trust, inasmuch and as far as
they relate to Atlantic, will be investigated
as the commissioner sees fit. He is an inde-
pendent commissioner.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the second
holdover question was to the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development (Mr. Randall).
Would the hon. Minister explain how
spiralling construction costs alone warrant an
increase of $1 million in the construction of
Ontario's pavilion for Expo '67?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Economics
and Development): Mr. Speaker, I apologize
to the hon. member for not being here yes-
terday, but I joined the hon. Prime Minister
in the town of Hanover, opening up one of
the largest, most modern furniture factories
1360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in North America. I might also say that four
times this year I have been here to answer
questions, and the hon. member who posed
the questions did not show up. So I think
now you understand, Mr. Speaker, it is
mutually a little inconvenient. I am sorry, I
apologize, and I can assure the hon. member
we will answer his question.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mean-
while, back at the Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Do not go away!
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of
the hon. member: Because the nature of On-
tario's Expo '67 project and the complete lack
of Canadian experience in world fairs and
exhibitors' cost experiences at the 1964-65
New York world's fair, a close cost control
system was instituted for Ontario's Expo '67
project.
A firm of quantity surveyors, G. A. Hans-
comb Partnership, were retained to work with
the architects and engineers in running a
continual cost survey on the Expo project.
The cost surveys were run on four different
occasions throughout the project, the last
being November 19, 1965.
At that time the steel for Ontario's pavil-
ion was estimated at $899,000 and the roof-
ing membrane at $227,291. The lowest tender
received on February 9, 1966, was as follows:
For steel, $1,312,455 and for the roof, $462,-
875, reflecting an increase of $659,039. In
the estimate for the general contractor, job
overhead was $263,000. And the lowest
tender received was $716,000, reflecting an
increase of $453,000. So the total increase is
therefore as follows: Steel and the roof was
$659,039, the general contract, $453,000,
making a total increase of $1,112,039.
That answers the hon. member's question,
but I think it would be of interest to the hon.
members of the House for me to proceed a
little further and give them a little more in-
formation, which I hope to do during the
presentation of my estimates. But they may
be a little time away and I would like to give
the information now, because I think there
is a certain amount of damage being done to
the Expo programme itself with some of the
comments made by not only government offi-
cials, but by others who perhaps do not have
the complete story.
The news reports are somewhat confusing
and I understand that the hon. member got
this information from a newspaper here this
week, because on one page it said the cost
increase was up 50 per cent, and on the next
page it said the cost increase was up 100 per
cent. Well, I want to clear up all confusion
with reference to the Ontario pavilion. The
cost increase is up 60 per cent over the $5
million figure, which was established on Janu-
ary 1, 1964.
At that time it was decided that the hon.
Minister of Tourism and Information (Mr.
Auld) would take on the centennial projects
in Ontario and my department would take
on Expo' 67. At that time when we picked
out the lot it was still under water. They
were still filling in. We hired our designers
and our architects and said, "Well, here is
a body of water which will be filled eventu-
ally. Will you get under way, time is short,
and design a building for us. Use your imag-
ination and your ability and your vision and
design something like Walt Disney would de-
sign so that we can attract people to Expo
'67." We establishd that programme and
got it under way.
We took what we thought was an esti-
mated figure, which we wanted to keep
somewhere close to that cost. I suggested
to the Cabinet that I thought the building
would cost us between $5 million and $7
million, but I would suggest that you give
me a working figure of $5 million and we
will do our best to stay within that limit.
Once the designers and the architects got
under way and designed the kind of unique
building that we have, and the various dis-
plays we will have under there, they kept
coming in with new programmes. As we
looked them over, we said, "Well, we have
allotted $2 million for the interior, we have
$2 million for the building, and we have
allotted $1 million for administrative main-
tenance, uniforms and staff."
And I might say, Mr. Speaker, we have
contracted for the interior of the building,
and it comes to $1,860,000, so we are under
the $2 million figure estimated in January
1964. And the $1 million for administration;
as near as we can figure right now, it is
$816,000, so we are below the estimated
administrative figure.
Now the $2 million for the building has
been explained in the answer to the hon.
member's question, and it is covered by the
last three contracts that we were not able to
let until just recently. I might say there is
only one source from which we can get the
roof. It is an entirely new concept. There
were only two people tendered on the steel
and we took the lowest bid. There were only
two contractors tendered on the building
itself, and under The Public Works Act we
could not tender until we had the blueprints
and had approvals. So we could not do this
two years ago.
MARCH 10, 1966
1361
I might suggest to the hon. members,
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the
Russians have given their building to an
Italian concern, who will bring their workers
over from Italy to build their building.
I understand the Americans did not ask
for a tender, they just said "Here is the
building, go ahead and build it at cost."
So you can see we have not taken this
kind of a gamble; we have done what we
thought would be necessary to get the build-
ing finished on time and within what we felt
was a reasonable cost.
As most of the hon. members know, we
showed them the model of the building in
February, 1965. We are on schedule with
the building and it will be opened a year
from the 30th of next month, or the 28th,
whatever that date is, and while we will have
invested approximately $8 million, Mr.
Speaker, the province of Ontario has already
received $35 million in contracts from the
contractors down there, and we estimate that
this $8 million investment will bring $200
million of business to the province of On-
tario. So I do not think it is an expenditure;
it is an investment in the future, if we look
at it on that basis.
Mr. Speaker, I have suggested this is an
investment in the future; it is not an exer-
cise in futility, as some have described it, in
building Expo '67. I am perturbed when I
see so many Canadians criticizing Expo—
and I am not referring to the hon. member
here, and I hope he does not take exception
to this.
Since taking on this project, I have worked
with the Expo '67 people. We were the
second province to sign a contract with them.
I have appeared on platforms both here and
in Quebec, to sell Expo '67. I find it diffi-
cult to accept some of the criticism that
Expo is getting, because we are going to
celebrate our 100th birthday, and this is the
first time that we have had something to
unify the Canadian nation outside of two
world wars.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that from
here on in, if we, as the province of Ontario,
and I mean all members of Parliament,
will devote our efforts to assisting and selling
and getting enthusiastic about Expo '67, we
will more than get a good return on the $8
million total that this province will spend in
Expo '67.
Mr. MacDonald: On the questions of to-
day's vintage, Mr. Speaker, my first one is
to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Connell), in two parts.
How does the hon. Minister reconcile the
fact that carpenters are being laid off, alleg-
edly because of the shortage of work, when
there are projects in this building alone
which have not been completed, allegedly
because the tradesmen are otherwise occu-
pied?
Second, is seniority not accumulative for
all the periods that a tradesman has worked
for the government, and if so, how can the
seniority of Mr. F. Hawe of Amherst street,
who has been given notice of a layoff, be
calculated only from August 17, 1964, when
he worked for the department since Novem-
ber, 1957, with the exception of a layoff be-
tween March 13 and August 17, 1964?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first
question is that work on the main building
is proceeding according to schedule estab-
lished over a year ago, and is now nearing
completion. Any work project, requires a
schedule which uses the various trades in
sequence, and while plumbers, steamfitters,
and so on, are at work, the other trades,
such as carpenters, electricians, and so on,
may not be required.
In Metro Toronto and throughout the
province, The Department of Public Works
has been trying, wherever possible, to con-
tract work instead of using day labour.
Results have proven this effective and eco-
nomical. The day labour staff of the depart-
ment has been progressively reduced from its
maximum of 3,050 in 1959, to less than 760
at the present time. It is the department's
intention to lower the number of casual
employees still further and to engage trades-
men on the same basis as other civil servants
on the permanent staff, at a fixed yearly
salary, to do the routine maintenance required.
Tradesmen will be hired for other projects
only as required.
The answer to question number two is no.
A man may be quite easily taken back on
the job because of previous employment and
experience, but this in no way implies that
he has greater seniority. And of course that
makes the answer no for the third part.
Mr. MacDonald: May I ask a supplemen-
tary question of the hon. Minister? When he
is referring to "main building," is he referring
to this building?
Hon. Mr. Connell: Basically.
Mr. MacDonald: Basically? Mr. Speaker,
I do not know what—
Hon. Mr. Connell: I am speaking of the
buildings in this general area here.
1362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, but I do not think
the hon. Minister has really answered my
question. I asked, why are men being let off,
allegedly because there is no work to do,
when there are projects that have been
waiting for three and four months to be
completed, allegedly because the men are
too busy?
Hon. Mr. Connell: I will try to run the
department, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my other
question was to the hon. Minister of Labour
(Mr. Rowntree). I will hold it until tomorrow.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Economics and Development.
1. How many units of new construction by
merchant builders have been completed for
the Ontario housing corporation in Metro-
politan Toronto?
2. How many are at present under con-
struction?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, there is a
total of 280 new units offered to the On-
tario housing corporation in response to its
advertisement for proposals from merchant
builders that have been completed to date.
The answer to the second question is that
at the present time there is a total of 652
new units under construction to the Ontario
housing corporation of Metropolitan Toronto.
This figure does not include certain merchant
builder proposals totalling over 1,500 units,
which have been accepted in principle by the
Ontario housing corporation, where the pro-
ponents are now seeking the necessary munici-
pal approval.
Mr. S. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. Minister to explain the first part
of his answer? The 250 units were in re-
sponse to the advertising campaign?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I said a total of 280
new units was offered to the Ontario housing
corporation in response to the advertisements,
yes.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, I would like to in-
troduce to the hon. members of the House a
young gentleman by the name of Paul
Picard, who is sitting under the gallery.
Would you stand up, Paul, please?
Paul is Ontario's Timmy for the annual
Easter Seal campaign. Some years ago he had
an accident and fell out of an apple tree
and fractured his right arm, which neces-
situated amputation. He has an artificial hand,
operated electrically, which is a very ad-
vanced piece of work indeed. You will be
interested to know that his hobbies are
building model aeroplanes, model boats and
collecting stamps. So you can see he is a
young man of great strength and power in
overcoming his deficiency as a result of this
accident.
He lives in North Bay. He is bilingual. He
is very fond of hockey and in this he dis-
plays a marvellous non-partisan attitude in
that his favourite athletes are Gordie Howe,
Henri Richard and Bobby Hull. So he covers
the situation pretty well in that regard.
His ambition is to become either a lawyer
or a pharmacist. I do not think anybody
here will offer him any advice in which
direction he should go in that regard, but
I think I speak for everyone in the House,
Paul, when I wish you well in the work that
you are doing and when I tell you that we
appreciate what you are doing by being
Timmy, in helping many unfortunate chil-
dren in this province. The best of luck to
you.
Mr. R. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege on behalf of the hon. leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Thompson) and the
Liberal Party to welcome Paul Picard to the
Legislature. Since he comes from my riding
and the city of North Bay, I am doubly
proud and I am sure that the hon. Prime
Minister and the other hon. members of the
Legislature who have talked with Paul will
realize why we in the district of Nipissing
are proud of Timmy and the manner in
which he is representing the crippled child-
ren of Canada in support of the Easter Seal
campaign.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is an
old adage which we hear periodically— that
is, "You should not send a boy to do a man's
job." I must say that every year as I watch
the job that is done by Timmys on behalf of
crippled children, I think they do a magnifi-
cent job of refuting that old adage. I watched
Timmy this year on television, as I have
done on previous years, engaged in pursuits
which I suppose most young boys of his age
would find not only overwhelming but a
little bit terrifying. Yet he does it with such
poise that I suspect that he is not going to
be a lawyer or a pharmacist, but a politician.
I suggest that our hon. friend from North
Bay had better watch his laurels in that
area.
I want to join with the hon. Prime Minister
and the hon. leader of the Opposition in ex-
MARCH 10, 1966
1363
pressing my appreciation to Timmy, not only
for that triumph of human spirit over his own
disability, but for the magnificent job he is
doing on behalf of other crippled children
across the province.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The twelfth order,
House in committee of supply, Mr. L. M.
Reilly in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 807:
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of
Highways): Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a short observation before we proceed
any further with vote 807, and it is with a
bit of reluctance that I do this.
You, sir, and hon. members will recall
that when we were talking about the esti-
mates and the capital construction vote 807
on Tuesday, at that time when replying to
the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Free-
man), I made some references to part of the
programme in the north and northwestern
part of the province. My observations were
categorized by the hon. member for Kenora
(Mr. Gibson) as "a lot of garbage."
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to you
and to all hon. members of the House, that
I recognize my responsibility as that of
answering questions to the best of my ability,
accepting any reasonable and sensible criti-
cism that can be made. I would rather like
to propose to hon. members that I have been
reasonably patient in doing that. But I do
say that when an hon. member of this House
who has not— and I think I am accurate in
this— been in his seat for more than 12 days
out of two sessions of the Legislature; who
has not, to my knowledge, been in my office
in an attempt to do anything on behalf of
the people he is supposed to represent; and
who failed to attend with the delegation
from the northwestern Ontario associated
chambers of commerce when they presented
their annual brief to the Cabinet last month,
makes this type of comment, it is unbecom-
ing. I say to you further, sir, that this hon.
member is perpetrating a fraud on the
people he is supposed to represent and he is
perpetrating a fraud on the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 807, please.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. I really fail to
understand why the hon. Minister is so
exercised on this point. Perhaps there is an
explanation, but I do not believe that it is
in order for an hon. member of this House to
say that another hon. member is perpetrating
or has perpetrated a fraud, and I would ask
that the hon. Minister withdraw that com-
ment.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Chair-
man, also on a point of order, I think this
sort of an attack by the hon. Minister of
Highways is entirely uncalled for. I think
that if somebody is keeping score— I do not
know whether they are or not— the scorer
could well look at the other side of the
House and at certain hon. members. I am
not going to have the audacity that the hon.
Minister does, to single people out, but I
think everyone has a right to sit here if his
voters send him here, until his voters decide
otherwise, and if we are going to start
naming names and running around the
House, then I think the hon. Minister should
look to his own colleagues and to his own
side of the House.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, my point is on
a specific comment, not on general comments.
Mr. Chairman: I am inclined to agree with
the member for Woodbine that remarks of
this nature are construed as disparaging re-
marks and should not be said in the House.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I will withdraw
any remarks that might be considered dis-
paraging; the general substance of what I
have said, I will not withdraw.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
on March 7 the hon. member for Riverdale
(Mr. Renwick) asked a question regarding
comparative costs, and the hon. Minister
said this:
I can assure the hon. member that we
will not take any longer than required to
get these answers. If we can make them
available during the course of the esti-
mates, I think you might even get back
to them on 807.
The hon. member for Riverdale is not here
this afternoon. He was unable to come and
he asked me if I might question the hon.
Minister as to whether or not he has these
answers for us yet.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
must confess to the hon. member that I do
not have them. They are in the course of
1364
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
preparation now and we discovered that they
are going to take a little longer to prepare
than we thought, but we are actively in pur-
suit of this information. I will make it avail-
able as quickly as I can for the hon. member,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young: I would like to point out for
the information of the hon. Minister that a
question was tabled in the province of
Saskatchewan lately for C. George Willis of
Melfort-Tisdale. He asked—
Mr. Chairman: Is this on vote 807?
Mr. Young: Yes, Mr. Chairman. He asked
regarding the mileage of highways oiled in
1965 out of the capital programme, and the
average cost per mile for oiling done by gov-
ernment crews and those done by private
contractors— right on this very point, Mr.
Chairman.
The answer was tabled by Highways Min-
ister G. B. Grant, and showed that a total of
806.36 miles of highway were oiled. He said:
Based on expenditure to date incurred,
cost per mile for oiling by government
crews was $2,356 per mile; the cost per
mile of the oiling done by private con-
tractors was $3,119 per mile. This repre-
sents $583 per mile difference.
This perhaps is significant. Whether the con-
ditions are the same or not, I bring them to
the hon. Minister's attention. Certainly the
experience of that province seems to be in
this respect, at least, that the government
itself is doing the job more reasonably than
the private contractors.
Vote 807 agreed to.
On vote 808:
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, the other evening I brought up
the subject of the Quinte parkway and I
would also like to discuss the proposed Lake
Erie causeway under this vote, if this is in
order.
Mr. Chairman: I am not quite sure that it
is; just a moment.
Mr. Singer: It is under planning and design.
Mr. Chairman: Under planning and design.
Mr. Paterson: Yes. Dealing first with the
Quinte parkway, I have a number of articles
here from the Kingston Whig-Standard per-
taining to this proposal, and also the Ellis
report that was submitted to the economic
council on the tourist industry back in 1962.
The report contained a proposal for a Quinte
parkway system running between Collin's Bay
and Adolphustown.
I attended the committee on commissions
a few weeks ago with the St. Lawrence parks
commission and apparently they had studied
this matter themselves. The information I
received was that they were not recommend-
ing that The Department of Highways pro-
ceed with a Quinte parkway, and were just
recommending the preservation of land along
the existing Highway 33. But in the submis-
sion to the economic council— I do not wish
to take up too much of the time of the House
—there are some fairly strong charges against
The Department of Highways in this area. I
will just read a brief paragraph here on page
6 of this report:
Ten years ago people could stop along
the shoreline almost at will. Today there
is a fence put up this summer by the DHO
that would seem to bar all but a few areas
from the public and some of these points
of access were left only through the
courtesy of new owners.
How much of this shoreline was lost in
the manoeuvres of The Department of
Highways which traded shoreline proper-
ties to obtain a right-of-way for a proposed
four-lane highway in the areas, is not
known, but it certainly would seem the
government has relinquished in the past
few years control over most or all of the
six miles of shoreline between Collin's Bay
and Bath.
And it carries on in this theme.
This was back in 1962. Here we are in
1966 and the Kingston Whig-Standard again
has articles on this. I just wonder if there is
any interest in this area. At the conclusion of
one of these articles it states:
There still isn't much interest even, we
often feel, on the part of those who have
fought the hardest to have a parkway
established, although we must admit that
we wouldn't blame them for tossing in the
towel after nearly a decade of knocking
their heads against a stone wall of politi-
cal indifference and procrastination.
In a planning study of the Kingston area it
estimates the population in that area will
rise to 130,000 and it states further that there
should be more study for more parks in this
area.
I just wonder if the hon. Minister could
enlighten the House on this. I have checked
through Hansard, the past two years but
could see no speeches on behalf of this
Quinte parkway.
MARCH 10, 1966
1365
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
we are certainly aware of the situation. I
would point out to the hon. member that
there is a very sharp difference of opinion
involved in the area between the proponents
of the Quinte parkway, which is a group of
citizens, I believe, who have associated to-
gether for the purpose of promoting their
case. On the other hand, I think it is fair to
say that the good majority of the municipali-
ties involved in the area of Highway 33 are
not as kindly disposed to the proposition as
are the proponents.
I think I would point out to you, too, Mr.
Chairman, and to the hon. member, that it
is a little difficult for us to do anything
other than accept recommendations and pro-
posals from, shall we say, duly elected bodies
along the mileage of Highway 33 referred
to. And there have been no material pro-
posals advanced to us by those who might
be called people in authority.
I think really that is the best answer I
can give the hon. member. We have been
kept quite aware of this, but there has
been no really official proposal or recom-
mendations laid before us.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, there are some 16
recognized groups.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston): I would like to
correct the statement of the hon. member
for Essex South who indicated he had gone
through Hansard and had not seen anything
in connection with the Quinte parkway. I
think if he takes the trouble to look more
carefully he will see that I have mentioned
this on two separate occasions, and I think
is well documented in Hansard, the com-
ments on the Quinte parkway.
I think there has been something done in
connection with surveying of the area, and
I understand there is a report now in the
hands of the St. Lawrence parks commission,
recommending certain things be done in con-
nection with this particular parkway. I do
not think that has come to the attention of
The Department of Highways yet, but I
understand this is being contemplated and
some action is being taken to implement to
some degree some of the suggestions made
in the report that the hon. member men-
tioned.
Admittedly, it has not gone as far as that
report and there may be something desired
as yet, but I believe it is a start on what I
consider to be a great idea to implement
some sections of this parkway and reserve
to the people of the area and also to the
people of Ontario a very historic route
through Kingston across to Adolphustown.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, if I might
reply to the hon. member, I checked through
the listings in Hansard since coming into this
House and could see no reference to it.
Possibly the clerks overlooked that.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of
Prince Edward-Lennox, through which most
of this highway runs, I think perhaps I have
a little closer concern than any other hon.
member of the Legislature.
I might say that this is a very historic
section of highway, not only from Kingston
West to Adolphustown, through Lennox and
Addington county, but on through Prince
Edward county, to Trenton, and it is cer-
tainly one of the loveliest drives in the prov-
ince of Ontario.
We appreciate the energy and enthusiasm
of the people who have been behind this
parkway proposal, but I can say that a great
many of my own people in that area have not
gone along with some of their ideas. How-
ever, they did bring certain things to the
attention of the general public and I feel
their idea that this drive should be en-
hanced, that it should be better known and
that a great many features should be pre-
served, is entirely correct. I also do feel
that additional park space can be provided.
But I want to point out at one and the
same time that The Department of High-
ways does not get the credit it should get
for what has already been done to see that
Highway 33 is preserved. In Prince Edward
county at the present time they have under
construction and rapidly approaching com-
pletion, the new Quinte skyway to Hastings
county, which will remove considerable in-
dustrial traffic and commercial traffic from
Highway 33. At the other end, near Mill-
haven, they have a new access road, No.
133, travelling from Highway 33 to the
Macdonald-Cartier highway, which likewise
will help remove industrial and commercial
traffic at that point.
So in point of fact, The Department of
Highways is already spending millions of
dollars in this direct way, as well as pro-
viding excellent ferry service at Adolphus-
town, where there is a free boat ride for
everyone amid beautiful scenic conditions,
and I may add this ferry service is made
available 24 hours a day throughout the
entire year, unless adverse weather condi-
tions prevent it.
1366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now I think that last summer the hon.
member for Essex South did have a view of
the Lake-on-the-Mountain and the ferries
plying back and forth on the Bay of Quinte,
and I do feel that certainly he would agree
that a great deal has been done in the area.
I have read the proposed Quinte parkway
feasibility study, which was prepared by Mr.
Cantelon of The Department of Lands and
Forests at Tweed— who is a very fine parks
expert— and by Mr. Lemon, from the St.
Lawrence parks commission, and I feel that
they did a masterful job.
One of the objections of the local residents
has been to the name "parkway," because the
very fact that people have come and have
climbed fences and done a various number
of things, has been a source of annoyance
to them. At one time some people made a
lot of noise near a house where a funeral was
taking place, and the local people just did
not like it.
Another feature we must consider is the
safety of the travelling public— because some-
times they park vehicles indiscriminately
and walk across the highway and permit their
children to play there. Certainly, these are
all factors that enter into the problem.
I do feel that parts of this highway should
be rebuilt. If there are severances, I feel
that these severances should be transferred
to the parks authority. In fact, I feel that
The Department of Highways, as well as the
St. Lawrence parks commission, should give
this report very serious consideration at the
proper time.
I am going to mention one specific thing,
that is contained in this report and I do not
think it will do any harm. That is, that the
proposed name is the Loyalist Route, High-
way 33. Now I think that will be a very fine
name. I think it will be a descriptive name—
an historical name— and I do not anticipate
anyone objecting to that particular name.
One of the objections we have had is
the fact that while they wanted to call this
the Quinte parkway, the Bay of Quinte does
not start until actually halfway up the high-
way towards Adolphustown. Whereas, down
near Kingston and Bath and all along that
area, it is not the Bay of Quinte area at all.
So the name would be a misnomer. Secondly,
many people object to the name parkway
because they think some people would get
the idea that all land adjacent to it is public
property.
The third reason in favour of this sug-
gested name is that it would carry on through
Prince Edward county as well as to Trenton.
So that as far as tourists and the travelling
public are concerned, the Loyalist Route,
Highway 33, would extend from Kingston
on the east, to Trenton on the west, and I
think that people therefore would be induced
to travel it both ways and enjoy the great
pleasures available throughout this fine his-
toric and scenic area of Ontario.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, just to con-
clude here. I spent a couple of very enjoy-
able days in that area of our province this
past summer, and will certainly support these
two hon. members in any of their efforts to
acquire greater and better tourist facilities
for that area.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York-
view.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, that note of
harmony should not be broken, I suppose. I
must say that in regard to the matter of
which I want to speak, that I should start by
congratulating the hon. Minister too, because
the more I see of the design of Highway 401
as it passes through my riding and adjacent
ridings, the more impressed I am at the
engineering skill that is built into that high-
way and the safety features that are there.
The hon. Minister must have gathered
around him a group of men who are top-
notch in this whole field of highway design,
and men who, I think, contribute greatly to
the future highway system of this province.
So I want to say that word of congratulations.
I think though, that the hon. Minister
ought to be looking— and it is not a "but,"
but a bit of advice— at the question as to
why people are being killed on these high-
ways. In that respect, I would like to suggest
to him that there is a job that The Depart-
ment of Highways itself ought to do, because
this matter of safety is divided up among
various jurisdictions. I suppose the hon.
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) has part of
it, the hon. Minister has part of it, and the
hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett) has
part of it. It seems to me that this ought to
be gathered together.
I am suggesting to him this afternoon that
we ought to set up a safety research bureau
within his department, to ask why accidents
happen on his road system.
When we look over the last statistics avail-
able for 1964, I find these rather startling
facts: that the largest group of accidents is
caused by or happened to people between
the ages of 25 and 34; that in driving experi-
ence, the largest group has ten years or over;
that the condition of the driver in the largest
MARCH 10, 1966
1367
group is apparently normal; driver action in
the largest group is given as driving properly.
Then we come to the type of vehicle; a
passenger vehicle is responsible for most of
the accidents. Condition of the vehicle in
the largest group is apparently good.
Direction of travel in the largest group is
going straight, and the next largest group,
stopped.
Looking at these figures, Mr. Chairman,
one would wonder how accurate they are,
because if in effect these accidents occur and
these statistics are accurate, it looks as if
there is something lacking in our attempt to
find out what really happened, because this
just could not occur. There must be more
to it than this picture. Certainly there are
other categories here and they are well laid
out, but the largest group involved in acci-
dents seems to be a group which is between
25 and 34, with ten years experience, appar-
ently normal, driving properly, and the con-
dition of the vehicle good and the direction
going straight.
Mr. Chairman, in view of these findings, we
must take another long look at what is hap-
pening on the highways. That is why I am
suggesting that we should set up a safety
research bureau. The functions of that bureau
should be first of all to look into this matter
of road design. It should study every acci-
dent that occurs in the province, if humanly
possible. I know that is a big job and a big
assignment. But certainly every fatal acci-
dent and everyone with serious injury should
be looked at and looked at in depth.
Mr. Chairman: I think this is done by the
Ontario provincial police.
Mr. Young: It may be done by the provin-
cial police, Mr. Chairman. My point is that
evidently from these statistics, they are not
getting the thing done in sufficient depth,
because we are not learning enough of the
actual cause of the accidents.
If I could elaborate on that just a bit. The
first problem is a matter of road design. The
hon. Minister has been looking at that, and
certainly we need a great deal of study on it
to find out what accidents occur, where they
occur in the road system, whether at intersec-
tions, and why, or on straight roads, and why.
What part has the road system itself to play
in the accidents?
Then, second, I should think they should
look into the driver's mental state, if you will,
as far as it is possible. Did he have a mo-
mentary lapse? Did he become careless? Was
he under great emotional strain? Was he
fatigued? I know we look into whether he
was intoxicated or not, and that is important.
But these other matters, I think should have
more study, as to the state of mind and state
of body of the people who are behind the
wheel, or the people who are involved in
accidents.
In the third place, I think we should look
at the tire situation. How many of these
accidents are actually caused by tire blow-
outs, whether the blowout occurs before or
after the accident, because there is a lot of
investigation across the continent in this par-
ticular field.
In the fourth place, this bureau would look
into the structural defects or weaknesses of
the cars themselves. Again we have some
statistics on this. But certainly if this were
done in depth and in detail, by a bureau
assigned to do this job and staffed by experts
who know their field, I think that we could
learn a lot, as to what might have been done
to prevent this, in the matter of car struc-
ture. How many people were impaled on
ornaments? How many were impaled on the
knobs inside the car? How many accidents
occurred because of weakness in the side
structure of the car? All these things should
be looked into and carefully studied.
I have before me a release telling of a
survey conducted in Sweden last year, where
a government-controlled safety agency con-
ducted a survey of 550,000 vehicles, not all
exactly relating to the in-depth study that I
mentioned. The testing period was January
1 through November 30. Out of the various
cars that were tested, I have here the list of
defects that were listed. The defects were
listed by makes and models of cars, which is
significant, and the results are made public.
This kind of thing, of course, brings cer-
tain pressure to bear upon manufacturers and
also upon the owners of the cars, to get those
defects cleared up. When owners have to
have them fixed up on certain cars, the next
time they look for a safer car and it is up to
the manufacturer to see that each car is
made safer the following year.
Out of this kind of safety research, it seems
to me would come recommendations regard-
ing highway construction and driver educa-
tion, recommendations to overcome defects
and poor training of drivers, and recommen-
dations regarding improvement in car design.
The University of Michigan has been con-
ducting tests along these lines and has carried
out certain studies. Dr. Shulman, I notice,
has made certain recommendations and is
trying to interest some of the car manu-
facturers in them.
It seems to me that some public authority
1368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—specifically The Department of Highways-
ought to set up this safety research bureau
and go into this matter in depth, with the
co-operation of other departments and of the
provincial police and the co-operation of
every agency that can be gathered together.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman,
we have the nucleus of good highway
designers. The hon. Minister has people who
are experts and there are people in The
Department of Transport who know some-
thing in this field, but instead of the separa-
tion of responsibility, there should be a
drawing together and there should be a real
study of this whole field. I wonder if the
hon. Minister has been thinking in this
regard and whether he has any words of
encouragement for us.
This happens in the aircraft industry and
in the whole air transport field. We see what
has happened in Japan with the recent air
crashes, where everybody concerned moved
in to find out the reason for those crashes.
Millions of dollars are going to be spent
to find out what were the contributing causes
to the disasters.
I think we should be conscious of this in
the motor car field where we are killing and
maiming thousands upon thousands of people
in this province over a period of time. The
time is here for co-ordinated action in this
field and I would like very much to see
this kind of a bureau set up within The
Department of Highways.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to quarrel
with the interests of any hon. member in
matters of highway safety. I am sure that we
are not alone; I am sure that everybody
across the province, the country and the
continent is equally concerned about the
tragic loss of life that takes place on our
highways.
I can say to the hon. member that we do
have a special section of the department that
assigns all its time to those matters of high-
way safety which, by any stretch of the
imagination, could be attributed to, shall we
say, defects in the highways themselves.
This section is headed by a man with a rather
broad and very acceptable reputation in this
field.
At present we are working with the On-
tario provincial police very closely. We have
records in the office of the department of
each and every accident and certainly all
fatal accidents. We consult with the Ontario
provincial police in each and every circum-
stance and, in fact, we visit the site of the
accident with the Ontario provincial police
and then we do our best to translate that
into reasons why the accident occurred. We
examine the particular section of highway to
see if it has what are known as "accident
prone" characteristics, and if that is so, at the
earliest possible time we undertake some re-
construction to remedy it.
We do all these things, and as I said,
certain officers of our department are in al-
most constant contact with the national high-
way research board and with the safety
leagues and safety councils in all the Canadian
provinces. As a matter of fact, we send
representatives to seminars on this all over
the continent, but notwithstanding, we find
it very, very difficult to determine why these
highway accidents take place.
The hon. member made reference to
fatigue. Certainly this can contribute to a
fatal highway accident. I personally think
that preoccupation while behind the wheel
is a major contributor; I know I find myself
while I am driving, preoccupied occasion-
ally-
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps you should never
drive a car!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You should not,
but certainly I think it happens.
Intoxication is a major contributor; plain
carelessness and recklessness are factors, and
probably defects in some of the highways
and structures. We will not deny that that
is possible but I still submit to you, sir,
and to the hon. member, that it is difficult to
know. That is why I am prepared to say
right now that I have much interest in the
proposal that he has made.
I think that any reasonable proposal that
will reduce the tragedy of loss of life and
property and human suffering on the high-
ways of this province or any other jurisdiction
warrants any type of investigation that may
tend to reduce it. I certainly say that we will
give very careful consideration to the recom-
mendations of the hon. member.
Mr. Young: I thank the hon. Minister for
his answer. The only problem that I see
with it, as he admits, is that the investigation
is primarily from the point of view of the
highway, and what in the highway system
caused this. That, of course, is the hon.
Minister's particular problem, but here again,
it seems to me that this bureau ought to
investigate all facets of the accident.
It ought to be prepared to move in, not
only to look at the highway but to look at
the driver as far as possible, if he is still
alive, to find out what happened to him just
MARCH 10, 1966
1369
before, and also to look at the car and to
see what parts of the car really were respon-
sible, what improvements might be recom-
mended—all this, so that the accident is
looked at as a unit. I think if that could be
done and such a bureau undertook this kind
of a project, we would be a long way to-
ward accomplishing what we want to accom-
plish.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
that is really what I had in mind when I said
that I liked the hon. member's proposals
sufficiently well to look into them very closely.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, this will in-
troduce a new area, and I believe the hon.
member for Yorkview has a point.
Mr. Chairman: Is it in the same area?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if I might ask the hon. Minister a specific
question? On occasion there are absolutely
baffling developments with regard to a certain
stretch of highway in various parts of the
province, where there are regular occurrences
of accidents. I think of one on Highway 2
in the Orleans area east of Ottawa—
An hon. member: Highway 17.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Seventeen— that is
right.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a straight stretch.
I have driven it many times when I used
to summer in that area. Yet regularly, once
or twice a year for the last number of years,
there have been one or two people killed
in that area. I remember seeing that when
still another fatal accident had taken place
and there was a news account to the effect
that The Department of Highways was going
to make a study. Was this done in this specific
instance and was there any conclusion drawn
as to what conceivably could have caused that
persistent succession of fatalities?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
would say to the hon. member that when one
drives that highway, it is just as the hon.
member has said. It is a straight highway;
there is no visible impairment of the sight-
distance factors; the signing appears to be
good, and I say quite frankly that we are at
a loss to know why these accidents occur.
We do know that at one time, in the majority
of instances, the accidents involved drivers
from out of the province. Whether this is
because of unfamiliarity with the stretch of
road, of poor driving habits on the part of
those who came in from their neighbouring
province, we do not know.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
could you go wrong on a straight stretch?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: How can you,
unless you are driving too fast or you are not
in a condition to drive? But in a very great
number of circumstances, this turned out to
be the case. I would not like, Mr. Chairman,
to attribute that as the reason for the acci-
dents, but the frequency of this situation
was of enough interest to make us think that
it had a bearing on it. I say frankly that we
could not find the road too deficient, so that
it is a bit of a mystery to us.
However, we do hope in the not too distant
future, to have a controlled access facility
south of that and in due course take the
through traffic off that road and leave it foi
local purposes. A heavy mixture of local
and through traffic is not good. It can con^
tribute to accidents too— turning movements
on the part of people travelling short dis-
tances, or what we call "local users," mixed
in with through traffic can contribute to acci-
dents. I think when we do get this con-
trolled access facility from Ottawa to the
Quebec border it will at least relieve the
existing highway of that through traffic and
we will have nothing but local traffic on it.
This should be beneficial, I think.
Mr. Chairman: If tne member will yield
the floor, the member for Ottawa East would
like to speak on the same point.
Mr. H. S. Racine (Ottawa East): I have a
comment or two to make on that subject, Mr.
Chairman.
I think that in the last big accident on that
highway, four or five people were killed and
I think every one of those involved in the
accident was a resident of the area. I would
like to get this point straight. I think two of
those people came from Alfred and the other
three came from Ottawa.
I would like to disagree with the hon. Min-
ister when he says this is a straight stretch of
highway, because if I recollect correctly,
there is a distance of a mile and a half or
two miles in the Cumberland area where
there are a number of curves, and where
there is a continuous double white line,
which prevents cars from passing in that
area.
I would like the hon. Minister to tell us
what he intends to do besides building the
new road that he talks about, for that par-
ticular stretch of highway in the Cumberland
area, and whether there is any possibility of
extending or widening that highway. I think
possibly the Deputy Minister knows that area
1370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—there is a hotel-motel in that area— and that
road is not quite straight. I think this is
where there were a number of accidents.
Perhaps the hon. Minister could tell us
whether there is a possibility that that road
may be widened for at least a mile or a mile
and a half.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, we
can certainly look into this. I will not deny
that there may have been accidents in that
mile-and-a-half section, but the great volume
of accidents, a great volume of them, comes
from the straight section the hon. member
for York South has referred to. Now we can
substantiate this statistically. I will not deny
there has been an accident in the section the
hon. member refers to, but compared with
the incident rate of accidents on this straight
section, it is quite low.
However, I am prepared to say we can
have the district office up there to examine
this section and see if there are any remedial
measures that can be introduced that would
improve the situation he has referred to.
I might say— and this is back to a matter
the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Nixon) dis-
cussed before the orders of the day, not too
long ago— we certainly proposed at that time
to make a more intensive examination of
what was causing accidents at a highway
junction in the area in which he lives. But I
will say this, that even there we feel now
we have done everything possible, short of
grade separations or something— which would
be very costly— to take care of the situation.
Nevertheless, we are going to pursue that
very vigorously. But there are situations in
the province, I assure hon. members, in
which, upon investigation, it is very difficult
to know why the accident took place, from
the standpoint of the roads. But that does
not minimize the importance of continuing
to try to do something better about it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Brant): Mr. Chairman,
I am glad the hon. Minister has referred to
the specific instance that I brought to his
attention previously at Osborne's Corners in
the county of Brant. I would like to say
this to him, that although he has promised
another careful investigation, and the people
in the area appreciate this, nothing has been
done as yet. About a month has passed and
I know that the hon. Minister's examining
officials are very busy in many matters. But
I must say, every time I go home I listen to
the news with some trepidation, because
there have been eight separate fatal acci-
dents at this corner since the last work was
done on it.
There is one thing that I want to bring
to the attention of the hon. Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that would not have been per-
missible before the orders of the day. That
is, at the time of the last investigation, it
was seriously suggested by myself and others
that an overhead stop sign might solve the
problem there. The representative of the
department said at that time that this would
cost $7,000— the price may have changed—
and that surely we were not suggesting that
this sort of thing would be installed at every
corner where there was some hazard.
I would certainly suggest this most seri-
ously at this particular corner. If, in fact,
the expenditure of this amount of money or
much more would make it into a safe corner,
then I believe that the money should be
spent. The signing there is adequate by the
standards presently required by the depart-
ment, but evidently they are inadequate as
far as the people who have the misfortunes
in the area. In every case I believe the
accident has been where the driver has
either not seen the stop sign, or not heeded
it, and gone right out into the four-lane
highway that intersects there, where the
speed limit is 60 miles an hour; and the
resulting catastrophes we are all aware of.
So I hope he does not agree with the
departmental officials who were objecting to
the expenditure of this money. Particularly
in that it might set a precdent that would
then involve the department in additional ex-
penditure. Certainly we are going to have
to spend a lot of money if we are to improve
our safety record at this particular spot,
and elsewhere in the province.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request
the hon. Minister to do something concern-
ing the intersections on Highway 401, in the
Essex county area, from the fact that the
tourist coming into the county is accustomed
to driving on four-lane roads that are gen-
erally limited access, and once he gets be-
yond the city limits he starts accelerating
and finds himself suddenly confronted with a
crossroad. The hon. Minister has in his plans
for this year six overpasses which will remedy
this situation at six danger points in the
county. I know he cannot construct all of
the overpasses immediately, but he could
sign the highway in some fashion to warn
our American friends who use the highway
that there is a danger ahead, because of the
number of crossways or crossroads in the
Essex county area. The signing does not go
on 401 itself, and possibly the signing might
be on the crossroads themselves, so that the
MARCH 10, 1966
1371
farmer or the individual using the crossroad
will definitely slow down before he comes
to Highway 401.
I understand that half of the accidents that
occur between Windsor and London have
occurred in the Essex county area— I am
subject to correction— and half of those ac-
cidents involve our friends to the south of
us, our American friends. We want to keep
these people coming into our country; we
do not want to kill them off. We would
certainly request that the hon. Minister do
some type of signing or something to notify
our friends across the border that this is
not a limited or a controlled access road,
that there are inherent dangers as a result
of the number of accesses to Highway 401.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask three questions of the hon. Min-
ister in regard to the sensational announce-
ment last July by the Governor of Ohio, that
his state was contemplating erecting a high-
level bridge or causeway across Lake Erie.
And to bring hon. members of the House up
to date on what has transpired on this sub-
ject, and a little background, I might read
into the record a brief editorial from the
Sudbury Star of last July. The caption was:
Ohio Governor's Erie Highway Will
Come Only to the Border?
At the worst it may have been an act
of discourtesy on the part of Governor
James Rhodes of Ohio to ask for a feasi-
bility study on the causeway across the
eastern end of Lake Erie without first
consulting with Ontario authorities. The
Canada side would be within Ontario's
boundaries. The action of the Ohio Gov-
ernor is not of a nature which will build
up friendship with Ontario's government
and highway officials. Nothing along the
line proposed without the co-operation and
assistance from this province—
And further:
Now that Governor Rhodes has gath-
ered in his modicum of political publicity
with his surprise and perhaps premature
announcement, the Ontario government
might ask the Ohio Governor just what he
has on his mind, and ask him if his pro-
posed study extends only to the interna-
tional boundary line.
On March 3, this is the latest press in my
area concerning this. I have had informants
in Ohio and this topic is still bubbling over
there. To bring the hon. Minister up to
date, recently Mr. Rhodes ordered a further
study of the plan after he received favour-
able reports from the state highway engineers
in The Ohio Department of Development.
One proposal: a link from the Sandusky
area across Kelly's Island and reaching into
my riding at Pelee Island and proposed to go
to Point Pelee. The estimated cost is $250
million, for approximately a 40-mile stretch.
The other proposal would run from the
Cleveland area into the riding of the hon.
member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), somewhere
in the Port Stanley area, with an estimated
projected cost of $600 million.
I would ask these three questions of the
hon. Minister: As yet has the Governor or any
department of Ohio contacted him on this
proposal? Second, will your department co-
operate in any way, in the light of the prob-
lems you have, say, in the St. Thomas area
now, with locating highways, and lend co-
operation to this sort of study? And further,
will this government possibly make an econo-
mic study of the impact and the benefits to
industry and tourist development and other
facets of our society, should this proposed
Lake Erie causeway ever become reality?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: First, Mr. Chair-
man, I would say to the hon. member that
all I have ever heard about the proposed
causeway across Lake Erie, whether it be
from Sandusky to Point Pelee or from Cleve-
land to Port Stanley, is what I read in the
newspapers.
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe they are going to
pay for the whole tiling themselves.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I was just about
to come to that, as a matter of fact. I think
this thing first started about a year ago, as I
recall it, and I really have not changed my
opinion. Nor do I think has my department
changed its opinion since we heard about it
a year ago, at which time we replied to the
press, pointing out that for the kind of money
it would take to consider either of these pro-
posals—and our engineers think their esti-
mates are very low— there are certainly many,
many priority items to take care of in the
province of Ontario before we need a cause-
way over Lake Erie. I have not changed my
mind on that, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to a study, if Governor
Rhodes wants to pay for this study, we would
be prepared to give his study consideration.
We might then find that we had some views
and ideas in this particular respect that were
at some variation to the views that he might
develop in a feasibility study, but we would
be prepared to review it.
1372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would point out to the hon. member a
feasibility study of this type would be quite
expensive. I should think it could run cer-
tainly to $1 million or more. It could be
quite expensive to undertake a full feasibility
study. It is not too difficult to undertake an
engineering feasibility study, but a full one,
which would involve economics and so on,
is quite an operation.
As I say, against this background and the
opinion of myself and others, that kind of
money can be used to better advantage in
many areas of the province than for a cause-
way over Lake Erie. I am inclined to think
that we are not too keen about even parti-
cipating in the cost of a study, although I
would not rule that out. We would certainly
be prepared to examine any proposal ad-
vanced. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman,
I will conclude these particular observations
by saying it is very difficult for us to con-
template anything, until Governor Rhodes
makes some type of official contact with us.
So there is where the matter stands.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
East.
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, under planning, I would like to ask the
hon. Minister if he could explain the prob-
lem on the Queen Elizabeth between the cut-
off of Highway 10 and Oakville. For the
winter months that highway has been left in
one awful mess. Would this be the contrac-
tor's fault that it was left in this condition,
because he did not clean it up right last fall,
or did he start to do too much work and was
not able to finish it?
It is really a dangerous situation now.
There is no white line in lots of places. You
are curving in and out of traffic there, I would
think that a contractor should be compelled
to leave the highway in better condition than
he has for the winter months.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I have to
agree again with the hon. member. There is
some responsibility on the contractor, if he
leaves a job completely. I am not too sure
there was not some work going on there all
winter. But certainly if he leaves a highway
contract at some stage in the fall until the
next spring, there is a responsibility on him
to leave it in a condition that is as accept-
able for driving as possible. I think I would
have to ask the hon. member to let us inves-
tigate this situation a little further.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask
the hon. Minister, would he mind replying to
the previous suggestions I have made con-
cerning Highway 401 and the crossroads?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Of course. In that
respect, Mr. Chairman, I had some informa-
tion out here to reply to the hon. member
just a moment ago; I will see if I can find it.
We have undertaken what we believe to
be an accelerated programme. Actually, while
there are six more contracts for interchanges
and flyovers, to which he made reference, to
be awarded in the 1966 construction season
in Essex, there are in addition to that three
in various stages of completion that were
awarded last year. That makes a total of
nine. As we proceed a little further, we find
there are a number in Elgin and in other
parts.
What we try to do really, Mr. Chairman,
because we cannot build them all at once, is
to pick out those which constitute priority
locations. We try to build these where we
think they are needed the most. Again it is
probably safe to say these might be consid-
ered more-accident-prone grade crossings
than others.
This is the way we are trying to get on
with the job, but we cannot possibly build
them all at once, I would point out to the
hon. member, Mr. Chairman. We do feel
we have accelerated the programme in that
manner.
Mr. Newman: Actually, Mr. Minister, we
would like to see them built immediately.
We know we cannot. It is physically im-
possible, but the sooner you do it, the better
off not only the residents of Essex county are
going to be, but our many American friends.
I had mentioned signing the crossroads
rather than 401 in certain areas. Would
this not be an advantage to the tourists?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would be very
much surprised if there is not a readily
visible stop sign at any township or county
road that intersects 401, where the grade is
not separated, and on 401 I would be very
much surprised if, well in advance of the
intersection, there is not the customary sign
that indicates a crossroad. If there are any
of these locations that are not signed in that
manner, I would be happy to hear about
them, because of course they should be.
Mr. Newman: I would say, Mr. Minister,
they probably are, but maybe not sufficiently
far enough back to warn the individual. Now,
rather than using the main roads in going to
MARCH 10, 1966
1373
the lakes in the summer, a lot of our people
take these short cuts by using some of the
county roads.
I was going to ask the hon. Minister if he
is aware of the Doxiadis study that involved
the cities of Windsor, Detroit and Sarnia.
This study concerned a megalopolis that
would start with the city of Milwaukee, go
into Chicago, from Chicago through to
Detroit, to Windsor, Sarnia, and the three
counties in southwestern Ontario, skirt down
to Toledo, follow the lakeshore to Cleveland
and Buffalo and then go right up to Toronto.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I am not, Mr.
Chairman. I would be happy to know more
about it.
Mr. Newman: May I suggest to the hon.
Minister that he get a copy of it, because I
think it will have a tremendous impact on
Essex, Kent and Lambton counties.
The study is a Detroit research project,
undertaken by Detroit Edison in co-operation
with Wayne State University and Doxiadis
Associates of Athens, Greece. It concerns
this megalopolis extending from Milwaukee
at the extreme west, right up to the city of
Toronto. The economic impact that this
study will have on the three counties is tre-
mendous. There was a full-page insert in the
Windsor Star several months ago mention-
ing it and I would suggest that The Depart-
ment of Highways get a copy of it because
it can have a real impact on the area.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, on vote 808, planning and de-
sign, I would like to make just a brief com-
ment regarding the Burlington skyway bridge
and perhaps the hon. Minister would answer
two or three queries.
Mr. Chairman: This is on planning and de-
sign?
Mr. Gisborn: Yes, it is in regard to plan-
ning and design.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be
necessary shortly, in my opinion, to widen
the Burlington skyway bridge. In regard to
planning and design— as you reminded me,
sir, this is the vote we are on— one would
have wondered why this was not done in the
first place to provide for a six-lane bridge,
three on each side. We are developing the
Queen Elizabeth Way from Toronto to
Hamilton to six lanes and there are plans on
the board for the development of controlled
access from there on to Niagara Falls.
I understand that shortly after the bridge
was completed there was some question in
this regard as to why it was not made a six-
lane bridge. I believe there was a statement
by an official of The Department of High-
ways that this bridge could be extended very
easily by putting an extra lane on each side.
I wonder if that is the case and if there is
anything on the board now to develop the
skyway bridge to a six-lane traffic artery.
I understand that traffic crash barriers are
being put in at the present time and I noticed
from the press release on it that it was esti-
mated that the cost would be between
$250,000 and $500,000. This is quite a
differential between an estimate and an
actual cost. I would like some comment as
to how these figures were arrived at.
The necessity to construct these crash
barriers was brought about, I believe, be-
cause of two accidents involving fatalities
and caused by trucks going out of control and
crossing the median and colliding with other
traffic. I have looked the situation over.
Certainly I do not oppose the construction of
these heavy steel crash barriers, but I do not
think these barriers would have prevented
the two accidents that precipitated the action
because they both happened on the lower
part of the incline. If the crash barrier had
been there, I cannot see any other thing
than that the vehicle out of control would
have gone on down and collided with traffic
that would have been stopped for the toll
gates, or it would have crashed the toll gates
themselves.
I think in regard to this sort of possible
accident, other measures have to be taken.
The speed is too great on that bridge. I
know that vehicles are barrelling down there
at 65 and 70 miles an hour and I think the
first thing that has to be done is to have some
control of the speed on that bridge. I think,
second, that trucks should not be allowed to
pass on downgrades and I think this would
be another improvement in the safety factor
on that bridge. The hon. Minister will realize
that it is a narrow bridge and two large
trucks there certainly create a hazard in go-
ing downgrade at such high speeds.
I would like the hon. Minister to advise
me as to whether there are plans being made
to widen the bridge to three lanes on each
side, and to comment on the differential in
the cost of the construction of the crash
barriers.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
in reply to the hon. member I would cer-
tainly say to him that we are aware of the
early— certainly not immediate— necessity of
widening the Burlington skyway. The four
1374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
lanes will not provide capacity much longer
for the traffic volume that is developing, so
I would suggest to the hon. member that we
feel that in the foreseeable future, either a
widening of the bridge, if it is possible, or
the construction of another bridge, may
have to be considered.
I suppose it is safe to say that at the time
the bridge was built, it was a little more
difficult to anticipate what we can see clearly
today. I doubt very much if we would have
ever considered six lanes versus four lanes
—it might have been better to consider eight
lanes versus four lanes. But at the time the
bridge was built we would have had quite a
tremendous investment for capacity require-
ments that were not going to develop, shall
we say, for a period of 15 or 20 years. At
least that is the way it appeared at that
time.
It may look like false economy, but then,
of course, there is a limit to the extent that
these facilities can be provided in advance
of need, although some of that has to be
anticipated, as well. Certainly I admit to
the hon. member and to the House, Mr.
Chairman, that we are aware of this matter
and it is under study at the moment, as to
the best means of implementing more ca-
pacity for the crossing of Burlington Bay at
that point. We hope to know just when it
should be done and how it should be done
in the not too distant future.
With respect to the matter of grade sep-
arations on the Queen Elizabeth Way, we
again have been aware of this problem for
quite some time and we have a programme
now ahead of us which will eliminate all
grade crossings. Again, it is difficult to say
that we can accomplish this immediately;
we certainly know that it should be done as
soon as possible and as I mentioned with re-
spect to another similar matter just a few
moments ago, we are trying to pick out the
priority locations on the Queen Elizabeth
Way and do those first. We know that this
Queen Elizabeth Way should be, and eventu-
ally will be, completely access controlled.
This is our plan now and it is programmed
for some work to be done in each of a
number of succeeding years until this is
accomplished. Of course, as the hon. mem-
ber knows, we are on with the widening
now.
The cost of the median barrier that he
makes reference to was $352,000. At the
moment I do not have the tender costs but
the contract actually involved $352,000 and
the engineering will make that total $358,-
670. That is what we will be expending for
the median barrier. Those expenditures are
substantial, when you consider that in the
not-too-distant future we hope to have it
access-controlled. These are interim meas-
ures to provide some safety that is required
before we can accomplish the full pro-
gramme.
Mr. Gisborn: There is just one other brief
comment that I would like to make, Mr.
Chairman. I would hope that in the planning
and design of either a new bridge or the
widening of the present bridge, consideration
be given to the problem of the lack of run-
off in case of accidents on the bridge. I hate
to imagine what the situation would be now
on that bridge if there was a serious tie-up
on the top of it, and if an ambulance tried
to get up there. I know this problem was
raised in regard to the Gardiner expressway
and I hope that in the future this problem
will be given the greatest consideration.
Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 808 carry?
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in my origi-
nal-
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wonder, Mr.
Chairman, if I could just have a word in
reply here. It will only be a brief one,
but again I am bound to agree— I am very
agreeable today— that I shudder sometimes
when I cross that bridge myself.
Maybe we will have to look into the mat-
ter as the hon. member proposed, such as
passing of trucks on a two-lane stretch going
one way or down. I have some doubts
whether trucks should be allowed to pass
on many sections of our controlled-access
highways, or any roads. This may be worth
looking into and certainly we will have a
look at the speed limit. I just wanted to say
these things.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in my origi-
nal comments on the hon. Minister's dis-
course concerning his department the other
day I made certain recommendations. Would
the Minister mind giving me a comment
on my recommendations? I would like to
know if what I have suggested is feasible or
not, or if it is practical.
Mr. Chairman: Are these recommenda-
tions under planning and design?
Mr. Newman: Yes, under planning and
design.
MARCH 10, 1966
1375
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
these would be the recommendations that
were part and parcel of his introductory
remarks. It is going to take us quite some
to make an analysis of them. I say to the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that
we want to make an analysis of them, and
I say very frankly that we want to have
some knowledge of what it might cost if
some of them were to be implemented.
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: So this will be
done, and we will be happy to comment on
them for the hon. member a little later on.
Mr. Newman: Right. Thank you, Mr. Min-
ister.
Vote 808 agreed to.
On vote 809:
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on vote 809,
may I ask the hon. Minister to reconsider the
case of Mr. Clare Ford, the individual who
had the nursery business and was dislocated
from the nursery business as a result of
expansion to Highway 400, because the de-
partment in their approach to the problem
have simply driven the man right out of
business, and I understand the man today is
seeking public welfare.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am not familiar
with the matter the hon. member raises, Mr.
Chairman, but I am informed that it has
been thoroughly investigated and the man
in fact was a tenant, not a proprietor, and
it was not an isolated case. The best I can
tell him is that we do not get any satisfaction
out of this sort of thing and yet, on the other
hand, there are circumstances when we
cannot build roads unless somebody is dis-
located. I wish I knew the answer to the
problem in a general way. I would be happy,
as a matter of fact, if the hon. member is
interested, to let him review our file.
Mr. Newman: Right. Mr. Minister, we
know you are legally right, but I think you
are morally wrong in the way the man has
been treated. You review the case and I
think you will give more consideration.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, I will let
you review it, too.
Mr. Newman: Thank you.
Vote 809 agreed to.
Vote 810 agreed to.
On vote 811:
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I have quite
a little bit to say on this vote and I wonder
if we should not adjourn it until after-
Mr. Chairman: I think so; we will wait
for the leader of the House.
Hon J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report certain
resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: Thirty-third order.
Resuming the adjourned debate on Resolu-
tions Nos. 8 and 12 respecting water re-
sources.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS
NOS. 8 AND 12
( continued )
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, in resuming this debate I confess
to a certain difficulty at the outset. The
hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) in-
troduced these two motions, but his remarks
were devoted almost solely to the motion
No. 12 standing in his name. He did not
even read motion No. 8, so that in a sense
it really is not before the House— though it
is formally, I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker. My
position is something like that of the hon.
member for Lambton West (Mr. Knox). He
got up and was shooting at a missile which
had not yet been put into the sky, so to
speak. And he was attempting to shoot it
down.
Some time before the debate is over,
Mr. Speaker, presumably the hon. member
for Grey South (Mr. Oliver) is going to speak
to his motion.
Meanwhile, I am going to join the hon.
member for Lambton West in shooting at it
before it gets into the sky— if not to shoot
it down, at least to discuss its contents.
I wanted to devote my remarks to Resolu-
tion 8, and I shall confine my remarks to 15
minutes so that one of my colleagues can
speak to the other motion that stands in
the name of the hon. member for Sudbury.
1376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Dealing with the motion itself, Mr. Speaker,
just let me read it:
That the Ontario water resources com-
mission be instructed to report upon the
feasibility of piping water from the Great
Lakes to drought areas in western On-
tario.
Mr. Speaker, in my view this motion is a
few years out of date. I do not think the
problem is really to consider a fresh water
piping system to cope with drought areas. I
would acknowledge that we have had to face
the problem of drought, and therefore the
need for water to cope with drought. But it
seems to me that on focusing on drought
areas and drought problems, you are hitting
the outside of the target instead of the bull's
eye.
The real problem, the basic problem, is
the question of greater fresh water supplies,
not only to cope with drought areas, but to
cope for all of the far-ranging needs of water
and our shortage of it, particularly in southern
Ontario.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Drought, in
the resolution, conveys shortage of water for
industrial uses and through anti-pollution
measures.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Grey South interjects that his definition of
drought area is any area that is short of
water, even if it is a city. If he is putting that
definition on it I would accept it-
Mr. Oliver: I do not see how anybody else
can interpret it otherwise-
Mr. MacDonald: When I think of a drought
area I think of a drought area such as the
farmers have to face. I think most people
have up until now. All the more regret there-
fore, that the hon. member for Sudbury
squeezed the hon. member for Grey South
out, or we might have had his explanation
of his resolution before we misinterpreted it.
However, let me go back, Mr. Chairman,
to show you how long-standing is the need
and how tardy this government has been in
coming to grips with this need. I have in my
hand a copy of the report of the Conservation
committee for the year 1950. This was a select
committee of this Legislature. The hon. mem-
ber for Grey South was a member. I think
another of the important members of the
committee was my predecessor E. B. JollifTe.
However, let me quote one or two passages
from it. On page 95:
Two million people or almost one half
of our total population of 4.5 million—
this is 1950, I remind the House:
—are dependent upon subsurface water sup-
plies. As shown on the accompanying map
these include the larger cities of London,
Chatham, Guelph, St. Thomas, Owen
Sound, Woodstock, Brantford, Kitchener,
Stratford and Gait— cities whose sole limit-
ing factor now for industrial and popula-
tion expansion is water supply.
In other words, as far back as 1950 a com-
mittee, the overwhelming majority of which
was made up of Conservatives, came in with
the unanimous report that said that the sole
limiting factor for the industrial development
of these cities stemmed from the shortage of
water supply.
On page 96, Mr. Speaker, another quota-
tion:
Evidence presented to this committee,
particularly from western and south-central
Ontario, has been most emphatic on the
apparent lowering of ground water sup-
plies. Not only do farmers complain that
their wells are going dry but many of the
large cities mentioned above are finding it
difficult to secure water for an increasing
population, or even for their present num-
ber. This growing demand by our large
inland cities has caused serious difficulties
for farmers adjacent to deep urban wells
which deprive the shallow farm wells of
much water.
In other words, once again, they were spell-
ing out a condition which has persisted and
only in very recent years has there been any
action or programme of any proportions at all
to cope with that basic situation.
A third quotation:
To increase the ground-water supply
there is again no easy solution. Reforesta-
tion, the reclaiming of certain swamps for
their original purpose, and proper land use
are all important. Also necessary is the
construction of storage reservoirs at stra-
tegic points in the river valleys, which
would serve the dual purpose of assisting
flood control and recharging the soil be-
neath the impoundment, especially if the
subsoil is gravelly or absorbent.
Mr. Speaker, there has been some effort to
this end through our conservation authorities
and related bodies— like The Department of
Lands and Forests— in building dams so that
we could capture some of the water, so that
it would be held in our river basins, instead
of running off into the lakes. From there it
could conceivably get down into the subsoil
and do something to check this disastrous
lowering of the watertable.
MARCH 10, 1966
1377
But the comment of the hon. member for
Lambton West was that all of this problem
has really been coped with by the establish-
ment of the water resources commission. The
answer to that, or the comment on that com-
ment, is: yes and no, but only within the con-
text of "the fullness of time" in which this
government operates.
I only intend to mention this and move on
to the main points of my remarks. It is true
that the Ontario water resources commission
has come to grips with the desperate need
for local water, for sewage purposes, for
fresh-water purposes, and so on. For years
this government refused to face up to the fact
that the capital requirements involved in this
kind of a project were away beyond the
capacities of many of the local municipali-
ties, Mr. Speaker.
Only last year— 15 full, long years after this
conservation report and after an impressive
accumulation of evidence that the previous
approach was not working— did this govern-
ment finally recognize that they must break
through the financial barrier. Therefore they
have now adopted a policy whereby the On-
tario water resources commission will plan
the project in co-operation with local authori-
ties but will resume responsibility in terms of
the capital outlay for building it, and then
lease it back so that the payment can be put
on the tax rolls year after year until it has
been met.
As the hon. member for Lambton West
reminds us, the result of this breaking of the
log jam, so to speak, has been that the water
resources commission now has 100 applica-
tions. Indeed, there is some prospect that
because of the backlog of work that we did
not get done despite the desperate need, de-
spite the continued pollution and all of the
other factors involved in it, now there is such
a rush of work that the Ontario water re-
sources commission is likely going to have to
establish priorities. They will have more than
they can contend with.
However, I leave that aspect to go back
to what in my view is the point in the resolu-
tion of the hon. member for Grey South. This
is the proposition that he has been advancing
in this House for a number of years and that
certainly we in the New Democratic Party
have had as a specific part of our programme
—the development of a water grid in southern
Ontario, comparable in a general sense to the
hydro grid that was developed some 50 years
ago— in order to get this vital resource to all
of the people who need it, since we know
what that desperate need has been since
1950.
I was very interested to have what I pre-
sume is an up-to-date report of what has
happened on this from the comments of the
hon. member for Lambton West. I took the
trouble of getting a copy of his speech so
that I could read the details carefully. I
just want to recapitulate what has happened
in this intervening period. From it, Mr.
Speaker, I suggest there emerges a clear
lesson that once again this government is
indulging in what I would choose to describe
as Tory planning— namely, you leave the
development to come like Topsy and then
when you have inequities and anomalies
emerging in it you try to devise some sort of
of a pattern out of this Topsy-like develop-
ment.
All this, instead of sitting down, assessing
your need, which was clearly delineated as
far back as 1950, and mapping out a pro-
gramme, devising a grid, making it available
so that everybody knows what this grid ulti-
mately is going to be, even though its imple-
mentation may be gradual in accordance with
the highest priority needs.
What the hon. member for Lambton West
reminded us of was that in 1963, the towns
of Leamington and Essex, and certain indus-
tries in the area like the Heinz plant, had
taken the necessary steps to establish a
system of piping water from the lake, known
as the union water system. But here is the
interesting point, Mr. Speaker: Within three
years of this being established they recog-
nized that this was not the way to go about
it, and that you should not be doing it in a
piecemeal fashion with each little municipal-
ity dabbling in the overall problem.
The hon. member for Lambton West now
tells us that the OWRC is considering taking
over this whole system as a project that
would be part of the OWRC's overall net-
work—the equivalent of a hydro grid. Having
taken it over, then they will proceed to the
necessary expansion to meet other needs in
neighbouring areas.
He also reminded us that as far back as
1957 another bit and piece in the picture
was started, namely, in Dunnville, with cer-
tain industries working with the municipality.
They got approval for a pipeline that brought
water in from the lake to that area. He
pointed out that in 1963, for the first time
apparently— 13 years after the clear delinea-
tion of the problem by the conservation
committee— the OWRC made a survey and a
study of what the probable water pipeline
requirements would be. His report to the
House, which I have no reason to believe is
incorrect, indicated that there would be 19
1378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
new pipelines needed, 11 of them in south-
western Ontario. He said that nine of these
are either under construction or in the pro-
cess of negotiation.
I for one would like to know what this
system is. I remember last year, Mr. Speaker,
when I went with the standing committee to
the annual visit up to the OWRC on the 401
bypass, I asked the question about this grid,
or whether there was consideration of de-
veloping a grid. One of the officers of the
OWRC said, "Oh, we have a grid worked
out." I was a little startled to learn of this.
I am wondering why they are so secretive
about it.
If they are attempting to build a grid; if
they have plans for building a grid; if as
the hon. member for Lambton West said,
there are 19 new pipelines required, why
cannot the OWRC— and this government, in
keeping with a planned policy— map this out,
make it available to us, the members of
the Legislature, and all of the municipalities
and the public in southern Ontario so that
we will know what the plans are, instead of
keeping them in the dark?
Indeed, to continue with the recapitula-
tion that the hon. member for Lambton West
gave us, he pointed out— and I am curious to
know whether this is in keeping with the 19
pipelines that he referred to, or whether
this is in addition to those 19— that since
1964 when the hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) announced on behalf of his own
home city of London that the OWRC was
going to bring water in from Lake Huron—
the so-called Lake Huron water supply
system which is going to sell not only to
London but to other municipalities along
the pipeline. It will be completed by 1967
for $18 million— obviously a project of con-
siderable proportions.
Last year St. Thomas was in need, and
another bit in the broad picture was met
with plans for a pipeline from the lake.
Finally the hon. member for Lambton West
told us that regional studies are now being
made in Lambton and Peel for secondary
services to the Lake Huron water supply; in
Kent and in the lower Grand Valley.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled
as to why the government is going about it
in this apparently unplanned fashion. If it
is more planned than is apparent, what is
the reason for the delay in publishing an
overall plan? I put this to the hon. member
for Wellington-DufTerin (Mr. Root) who sits
on the Ontario water resources commission.
What is the reason for the delay in the pro-
duction of a map which will indicate to us,
as Hydro does in its grid system, what pre-
cisely is planned; what is going to be tackled,
for example, in the next few years; what is
anticipated as a need 5 or 10 or 15 or 20
years from now?
It would seem to me that that kind of
rational, sensible planning, rather than an
attempt to impose a plan on all of this
bits-and-pieces kind of development, would
result in the future in avoiding wastage and
uneconomical development. If we go about it
piecemeal, I can see the possibility that on
occasion we are going to run a pipeline to a
certain area, and it will be of a certain size
and we will discover five years later that
there are many other municipalities in that
area which will need water and we will
have to loop the pipeline. It would have
been much more sensible and much more
economic to put in a larger pipeline to be-
gin with, to meet those needs that are im-
mediate and those needs that will have to
met some five years later.
My concluding remark, Mr. Speaker, keep-
ing within the 15 minutes that I said I was
going to take, is a plea to the government,
in light of the motion of the hon. member
for Grey South, that we rescue all of this
vitally important development, particularly in
southern Ontario, from the apparent secrecy,
and the apparent piecemeal approach, and
let us present it to the House as a fully de-
veloped plan, even though the implementa-
tion of that plan may be staged over the
next 10, 15, 20 or 25 years.
Mr. F. R. Oliver (Grey South): Mr.
Speaker, I confess to the hon. member for
York South, and the House generally, that
if another occasion should arise when any-
body suggests that two motions, one of
which is mine, should be fused, I shall
oppose that recommendation very strongly
indeed. It puts one in a rather awkward
position, in that the motion standing in my
name has been discussed, and quite well
discussed, by a number of hon. members
up to this time.
My hon. friend from York South— and I
agree entirely with what he said, which is a
strange thing for me to say— has outlined the
programme and the proposition in a manner
that meets with my approval and coincides
with what I would have said had I been the
original speaker.
Now my hon. friend mentions the con-
servation committee report. I would say
to the House that this was one Opposition
resolution that was accepted by the Tory
government of that day. I moved the origi-
MARCH 10, 1966
1379
nal resolution that set up the conservation
committee, and in the speech at that time,
I stressed that one of the main reasons for
setting up this conservation committee
would be an examination of the water po-
tential of the province, its use and its man-
agement.
That committee was set up 15 years ago,
and today we stand in this House, recogniz-
ing that if the use of water, its potential
and its management were important 15 years
ago, they are much more important today.
We are, in this province, rapidly becoming
a great industrial giant. Our industries are
springing up all over the place, you might
say, and as we become more of an industrial
unit, our requirements for water double and
triple and on up.
We need water in great quantities. If
there is one thing industry needs to be as-
sured of in Ontario, it is ample water to
meet this growth in the years to come. In
Ontario, we are very fortunate in that we
have an availability of supply almost un-
limited. Other countries, or other provinces,
are not as fortunate as we are in that re-
gard. We have at our back door all the
fresh water needed for industry, needed to
clear up pollution, needed to alleviate the
distress caused by drought conditions on
the farms, and needed for any other variety
of purposes that one might conjure up in
one's mind.
I agree with my friend from York South,
that the danger as I see it today— I am not
completely lacking in the knowledge of water
conservation matters in this province— is that
we are going at this matter in a haphazard
and a dilapidated sort of way. We are doing
it, as my hon. friend says, by bits and pieces.
One project seems to be not related to the
other. There is no relationship between a
pipeline here and a pipeline there, and I
would say that the greatest need that we
have in Ontario today is for an Adam Beck
for water, as he was for Hydro many years
ago.
There is a great danger, it seems to me—
I said this at the time the London pipeline
bill was going through. I disagree entirely
with these individual commitments to serve
local communities, unless that commitment
is bound together in one whole that will
serve the provincial purpose over a broader
area than we have enveloped in our thoughts
so far. That is the point I wanted to leave
with the House.
I say we are in great danger of not having
enough water for all the multi-purposes for
which water is necessary, and if we are
going to harness that water for the best use,
then we should do it under a public utility
or a good system that will bring some
sense to the management of this important
product. Then we will have some degree of
uniformity and there will be some sense
of direction to it. It will not be growing up
as it is now, like Topsy, without seemingly
any direction or any advice that is sound on
a provincial wide basis.
That is what I urge upon the government
this afternoon, and it is why I introduced this
resolution, because I think there has not
been progress enough in 15 years. I think
the need for water has greatly advanced,
doubled, trebled in the last 15 years, and
our determination to meet that problem has
not kept pace with the problem itself. And
unless this government, and my hon. friend
who speaks after me, can show to the House
what they have done and what they intend
to do— do they intend to have a grid sys-
tem? Do they intend to make this a public
utility? Do they intend to make it available
for the people of the province of Ontario,
or do they want to keep their light under
a bushel, if indeed there is a light?
Certainly, if you have plans, this Legisla-
ture is entitled to them, because we are
the ones that have to fight for it or against
it, in this Legislature and throughout the
province.
I hope that when my hon. friend speaks
he will reveal, perhaps for the first time,
what plans the government have in mind,
and if they are cognizant of the great need
for water, not only today, but in the plans
that extend into the next decade or so. Are
we looking ahead, are we making plans?
There is no visible evidence, I suggest, that
we are making sufficient plans in a proper
way to meet what I think is an emergency
now, and which will be a greater emergency
as the years go on.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Duff erin): Mr.
Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal,
I want to make some comments regarding the
resolutions standing in the name of the hon.
member for Grey South and the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury.
In the course of my remarks, I will reply
to some of the comments we listened to to-
day. Last Tuesday evening, the House leader
called for resolution No. 8 and imme-
diately we saw evidence of organized con-
fusion. The hon. member for Sudbury got
up and said he was going to talk on resolu-
tion 12, with some reference to 8, and this
led to the confusion which the hon. member
1380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for York South mentioned; all of which
was contrary to the agreement that had been
made.
As the hon. member proceeded with his
address, it became apparent he was going
to ignore the gentlemen's agreement that had
been worked out by the Whips, that he
would speak for about half an hour and
leave 15 minutes for the hon. member for
Lambton West, representing government sup-
porters, and 15 minutes for the hon. member
for York South, representing the ND Party.
Since the hon. member for Sudbury was
reading from a prepared text that was in the
hands of some hon. members, it was evident
that he had prepared enough words to take
up practically the whole hour. That we could
expect, from previous experience in the
House.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, it may be that
this hon. member has something of value
to contribute to the debate, but he is attack-
ing my colleague, the hon. member for
Sudbury, in his absence. I think he is mis-
stating the facts. He has misstated several
of the facts and I think he should be told to
desist from this unless he wants to properly
state the facts. I think if he were carrying
on in the manner of a member of this
House, he would at least have the courtesy to
wait until the hon. member for Sudbury
was back.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you
will not deduct that short speech from my
time. The hon. member knew that this debate
was to be called tonight and if he is not in
the House, that is his business. His absence
from the House is something that we are
accustomed to.
As a result of this lack of co-operation
on the part of the hon. member for Sudbury,
we are debating both resolutions. It is not
my purpose today to make any extended
remarks regarding the resolution standing in
the name of the hon. member for Grey
South.
The hon. member for Lambton West dealt
very fully with this resolution, pointing out
the great programme that had been carried
out by the Ontario water resources commis-
sion, in surveying areas, providing informa-
tion to municipalities and proceeding with
the construction of pipelines into areas where
there is need for water that has been
recognized by the municipal governments.
At this point I want to make some reply
to the suggestion that we have a water grid.
I would point out to hon. members of the
House that good water is drawn from many
sources in Ontario. We have ground water in
abundance in many parts of the province,
we have surface water, and it would be
entirely unrealistic to build expensive pipe-
lines into an area where there is an adequate
water supply. Our policy has been to build
pipelines into the areas where there is not
adequate water of suitable quality, and I
think this is sound, because people will use
the cheapest source of good water.
Are the hon. members opposite suggesting
that the OWRC should force people to
abandon sources of good water to take water
from a grid that they indicated they had no
intention of wanting?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: The 19 areas that were men-
tioned in the speech of the hon. member
for Lambton West were areas where we had
checked to see if there was any possibility
of constructing an economical and feasible
pipeline. The areas we are working on today
are the areas that have shown the greatest
possibility of an economic construction.
What is our plan with regard to water?
This question was asked, I believe by the
hon. member for York South. Our plan is to
supply water in the most economical manner
possible. We are oversizing pipelines to take
care of the reasonable demands that have
been projected into the future, wherever
we are building pipelines.
Our programme is a provincial programme,
recognizing all sources of water and supply-
ing to our people good water from the most
economical source available.
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to some
comments that I wanted to make regarding
the address that was delivered by the hon.
member for Sudbury. He knows his resolution
and I am not going to take the time of the
House to read it because hon. members have
read it. I am sure that if the hon. member for
Sudbury would keep himself informed of the
great programme that has been carried out
and that is being carried out by the Ontario
water resources commission, he would ask to
have that resolution removed from the order
paper. I listened with interest to his ram-
bling remarks on March 8—
Mr. Singer: Read his speech!
Mr. Root: I have read his speech and I
must say that I still am not sure that the hon.
MARCH 10, 1966
1381
member had really organized his thoughts.
There was some comment about dinosaurs
and precambrian shield— in fact, the whole
language of the text that he read did not do
justice to the oratorical ability of the hon.
member for Sudbury, all of which indicates
that either did not prepare the text himself
or he was not familiar-
Mr. MacDonald: Let us get away from
the text and get down to the real issue.
Mr. Root: I am coming to it, I am coming
to it!
All of which indicates that either he did
not prepare the text himself or he was not
familiar with the subject-matter of his own
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that I am not
going to waste the time of the House reply-
ing to the rambling remarks that were read
on that occasion, other than to say that I take
strenuous objection to any reflections he
makes on the general manager of our com-
mission, Mr. Caverly, or the staff of our com-
mission. I would suggest that there is a no
more dedicated group of public servants any-
where in the province of Ontario, than we
find on the staff of the Ontario water re-
sources commission. We have gradually built
this staff up to something like 475 persons.
We are dealing with 978 municipalities
wherever there is evidence of pollution. We
are dealing directly with the industries that
discharge their wastes directly into streams.
Other industries are dealt with through mu-
nicipal sewage disposal systems.
Under the terms of reference that have
been given to the commission by the Legisla-
ture and by the government, our programme
extends as far north as the Severn river where
it discharges into Hudson Bay. This river is
one of the northern rivers that we will survey
to develop accurate information regarding the
amount of fresh water in the Hudson Bay
and James Bay basins.
This, Mr. Speaker, is very necessary if we
are going to make wise and sound decisions
that may have to be made in the days that
lie ahead with regard to the possibility of
diverting water into another watershed; and
at the same time, protecting this valuable
resource that may be needed for the future
development of the northern part of the
province.
Our programme extends as far south as
Windsor, Essex county, and out into Lake
Erie, where we are carrying on surveys, gath-
ering information and assessing the quality of
the water that we may provide suitable water
for the various needs in that part of the prov-
ince.
Our programme extends as far west as the
Rainy River and Kenora districts— to the
Manitoba border, and as far east as the
Ottawa and St. Lawrence river valleys.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for
Sudbury cast reflections on the 475 members
of staff and suggested that they are not dis-
charging their responsibilities, I challenge
him to show me any other group that is
carrying on such an extensive programme
with such a limited staff.
In the short time at my disposal this after-
noon, it is not possible for me to present to
the House all details of the very broadly
based and extensive programme the Ontario
water resources commission is carrying out.
I will be making remarks in other debates in
the House and will try to place before it, as
I have always tried to place before the House,
a record of what we have accomplished, and
what our programme may be for the future.
Before I go further, I want to put this in
the record: I am surprised that the two resolu-
tions we are debating should come from hon.
members of the Liberal Party. I am particu-
larly surprised that resolution 12 should stand
in the name of the hon. member for Sudbury.
This member, of all hon. members, is the last
one in the House who should have placed this
resolution on the order paper. He is a mem-
ber of the standing committee that summons
the Ontario water resources commission to
appear and present its programme and answer
questions.
The OWRC was asked to appear on Feb-
ruary 15 to give members of that committee
a comprehensive review of the work of the
commission. We arranged for transportation
and took the members up to the laboratory
on 401 highway. There, the members were
met by senior officials of the commission and
taken on a tour of the laboratory, so that they
would have first-hand knowledge of the work
carried on in that important arm of the com-
mission.
They could see where thousands of tests
were made every year on water and sewage
samples. They could see some of the research
projects that are being carried out. Follow-
ing the tour, the members of the standing
committee assembled in the conference room,
where officials of the commission presented a
brief outlining the work of the commission,
and then answered questions submitted by
members of this committee— the committee
that represents all parties in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to correct that
statement. The Liberal Party gave a clear
1382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
indication of their interest in the work of the
water resources commission by being con-
spicuous by their absence; they were absent
when the commission was giving information
regarding the programme that is being car-
ried out. The New Democratic Party did a
little better than the Liberal Party. They had
one man there, and if my memory serves me
correctly, he asked no questions during the
question period.
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): What's the
use of asking questions? It is the same story
every year.
Mr. Root: How would the hon. member
know, he was not there.
Mr. Speaker, the only party members who
indicated they were really interested in the
work of the Ontario water resources commis-
sion and the great programme that is being
carried out, were the members of the Pro-
gressive-Conservative Party, who had a
strong representation present to review the
work of the commission, to ask questions
and to gather information. The hon. member
for Sudbury is a member of that committee;
he was not present to see what was going on,
to hear the brief or to ask questions.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, if I could carry on
I would get to some very valuable informa-
tion which apparently the hon. members do
not wish to hear. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I
sometimes despair of ever getting through to
the hon. member for Sudbury. At the last
session, at the time when the estimates of the
Ontario water resources commission were
presented to the House, I tried to give a
comprehensive report of our programme. I
spoke at some length, but again the hon.
member was not present; indeed, if my
memory serves me correctly, we did not see
him for several weeks during that session.
Annually we present a report to the Legis-
lature. The information is there for all to
read. We are constantly giving press releases
to keep the public informed. It is very diffi-
cult for me to understand how a mem-
ber of this Legislature, a member of the
standing committee on government commis-
sions, could be so woefully ignorant of what
is going on that he would stand up in this
House and make the speech he made last
Tuesday and handed out to the press.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are
left to me I want to point out some basic
information.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: First— are the hon. members-
ready to listen?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: They should get their heads
out of the sand so they can see and hear.
First, let me point out that The Ontario
Water Resources Commission Act was
passed ten years ago and the commission was
charged with the responsibility of picking
up the backlog of necessary work that had
developed throughout the entire history of
the province of Ontario. At the same time,
the commission had to keep pace with the
tremendous industrial development taking
place in the province and the population
explosion that paralleled the industrial de-
velopment.
When the Act was passed in 1956, some
months were necessary to acquire office space
and set up the organization. However, since
the commission began its programme in 1957
a tremendous construction programme has
been undertaken throughout the province in
the field of water supply and pollution
control.
For example, under The Ontario Water
Resources Commission Act, all plans for the
establishment of any waterworks or sewage
works, as well as the extension of and
changes in the existing works must be sub-
mitted to the commission. No such works
may proceed until commission approval has
been given.
I am sure hon. members will be interested
to know that at December 31, 1965, the
number of certificates issued by the commis-
sion since 1957 with respect to such works
totalled 15,095 for an estimated value of
over $1 billion.
Mr. Singer: Of whose money?
An hon. member: Whose should it be?
Mr. Root: Let me ask the hon. member-
Mr. Singer: It is municipal money and that
is the whole problem.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): They get it from people.
Mr. Root: Let me ask the hon. member,
is that a deplorable record?
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is
a tremendous programme that has been
carried out by the Ontario water resources
commission in co-operation with the mu-
nicipalities. Let us keep in mind that at the
time the commission was formed, it was fore-
MARCH 10, 1966
1383
cast that over a 20-year period it might
require something like $2.4 billion to pick up
the backlog and keep pace with the boom-
ing and expanding economy of Ontario.
The figures I have quoted indicate that
the programme is right on schedule and that
at the same time our municipalities are pro-
viding many other needed services for the
people.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House
that this programme was carried out under
two methods of financing, and basic to all
methods of financing, as I have mentioned
previously, the plans for every project have
to be scrutinized and approved by the com-
mission. Following the issuance of the
approval certificate, the municipality makes a
decision. If it wishes to finance, build and
operate its own plant, it is free to do so,
provided it delivers an effluent that reaches
the objectives of the commission. If, on the
other hand, a municipality wishes, it can
enter into an agreement with the water re-
sources commission and the commission will
arrange for the financing, construction and
operation of the plant until the debt is paid
off, when the plant would become the prop-
erty of the municipality.
The $1 billion programme I have men-
tioned has been carried out under these two
methods of financing. However, the govern-
ment recognized there was a limit to the
amount of debts that municipalities would
carry, and in order to speed up the pro-
gramme, it announced a programme in 1964
for building water pipelines. Last August
this principle of financing was extended to
cover certain water and sewage works, and
a new programme was launched whereby
the province will finance and own the sew-
age works and waterworks that come under
this programme, will sell water to municipal-
ities at cost and will receive and treat sew-
age at cost on a unit basis.
Scores of municipalities have made in-
quiries and some are already entering into
agreements with the commission for con-
struction of water and sewage works under
this programme.
The municipalities now have three options:
(1) They can finance, build and operate their
own works provided the effluent meets
OWRC objectives; (2) They can enter into
an agreement with the OWRC and the com-
mission will finance, build and operate the
works until the debt is paid, when the sys-
tem is turned over to the municipality, unless
the municipality enters into an agreement
for the OWRC to continue operating the
system; (3) They can enter into an agree-
ment with the OWRC where the OWRC
will finance, build, own and operate the
works and sell the service to the municipality
at cost. The municipalities have a free choice
of which of the three programmes they wish
to follow.
Mr. Speaker, since this third programme
was announced, the OWRC is stepping up its
programme to bring pollution under control
wherever pollution may exist and to provide
necessary water supply systems so that our
people can have adequate supplies of good
potable water.
As I mentioned earlier, over $1 billion
worth of water and sewage works have been
approved by the commission. Many of these
works were carried out by larger municipali-
ties on their own. Some 340 projects serv-
ing some 204 municipalities have been
developed by the commission at a cost of
over $133 million.
The vast majority of our municipalities are
now treating their sewage. However, there
are still some municipalities that for various
reasons have not installed sewage treatment
works. Some have spent great sums of
money building sewers but have provided
no treatment. Under the new proposal for
construction of treatment works, the OWRC
is stepping up its programme and exerting
pressure on the municipalities that are not
treating sewage.
Mr. Speaker, since this resolution stands
in the name of the hon. Liberal member
for Sudbury, who is no doubt speaking for
his party, I think the OWRC can be assured
that it will have the full support of this
House when it applies pressure to municipali-
ties and industries that are not adequately
treating waste. As. we read the press, we
are aware that the OWRC at times does
receive criticism from municipal officials, and
indeed I have had criticism from hon. mem-
bers of this Legislature. Sometimes we are
criticized by the press when we refuse to
accept proposals, to delay the construction of
needed sewage works.
The hon. member for Sudbury is away off
base when he suggests this House is of the
opinion that the government has lacked
direction and purpose in providing for many
thousands of our citizens the minimum re-
quirements for fresh water and reasonable
facilities for sewage disposal.
Mr. Singer: He could not be more cor-
rect.
Mr. Root: The OWRC has carried out a
tremendous programme to provide clean
1384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
water in the province of Ontario. The pro-
gramme is being stepped up, reaching into
all areas of our province. Sewage and indus-
trial wastes are rapidly being brought under
control. Adequate supplies of water are be-
ing developed for people, for industry, for
agriculture and for pleasure.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is
now doing exactly what he criticized the hon.
member for Sudbury for.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, do I have the
floor?
Where necessary, pipelines are being con-
structed. Surveys are being carried out to
have an accurate inventory of ground water
and surface water in all parts of the prov-
ince.
The hon. member for Sudbury is critical
of our general manager, Mr. Caverly, for
suggesting that it might take from 10 to
15 years to provide an accurate inventory of
the waters in our northern rivers. I suggest
the hon. member's statement displays lack
of knowledge of the subject.
I remember that when I came into this
House in 1951 we were confronted with very
high water levels in the Great Lakes system
following a period of high precipitation.
Great concern was expressed in many areas
about the effect of high water on docks and
shore facilities. Then the cycle of nature
changed and precipitation dropped below
normal and the lake levels went down. Some
people were ready to make snap decisions
that would cost many millions, yes, even
billions of dollars.
The Prime Minister of this province, with
his usual calm judgment-
Mr. Singer: Raised the water levels.
Mr. Root: —called a conference that led to
the initiation of studies that would lead to
the best method of controlling lake levels.
In many cases, they had reached an all-time
low following a five- or six-year period of
low precipitation. During the past year the
cycle apparently changed; we have had high
precipitation and lake levels are coming
back to normal. This is the reason we say
that before we go into any wholesale diver-
sion of water from the north we must have
an inventory based on sound principles.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise the
member that his time will expire within a
minute.
Mr. Root: Thank you, sir. I realize that
part of my time was used up by hon. mem-
bers opposite and that may have been by
design-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: With what we have seen in the
last 15 years on the lakes, it is reasonable to
think that we need a 10- or 15-year period
to make a sound inventory.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying the
OWRC stands ready to help any municipality
to solve its problems with regard to sewage
disposal or provision of adequate supplies of
water. I have outlined the three methods by
which we can be of assistance. We appre-
ciated the co-operation we received from
municipal governments. Almost two-thirds of
our people are now paying for some form of
pollution control through municipal systems,
and we cannot refrain from asking other
municipalities, who are not treating waste, to
move forward and clean up.
With this brief resume of our work, I hope
the House will be unanimous in rejecting the
resolutions that stand in the name of the hon.
member for Grey South and the hon. member
for Sudbury.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
only want to say three things about the hon.
member who has just spoken about his pres-
entation.
The first one is that he should go back to
the dictionary and do a bit of studying about
what a grid system actually means, so he will
understand what we are talking about on this
side of the House.
The second is that he has forgotten com-
pletely that the government he represents
has been in power in this province for over
20 years; that the government's neglect has
caused the pollution and the buildup of the
very problems he was talking about. And
now he is in a position of claiming credit for
this government for cleaning up the mess
which they themselves have caused.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: Well, exactly, for trying to
clean it up, then. Or starting to clean it up.
In the third place, the hon. member casti-
gated the hon. member for Sudbury for run-
ning over his time in the debate, and we
object to that, too—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Young: —but then he went on to do
exactly the same thing.
MARCH 10, 1966
1385
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member
please be seated? I am afraid we are abusing
the privileges that go with debating this
resolution. All members, I think, to some
extent are straying from the principles in-
volved in these resolutions— I would ask the
member, as we only have 12 minutes or so
left, that he return to the resolution.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
have already said all I wanted to say in that
regard.
I will get down to the subject of clean
water. I want to pinpoint in the short time
that we have left the fact of the Great Lakes
and the important part they play in our con-
tinental water supply. It was because of these
Great Lakes that we had, first of all, the great
settlement of people around their borders,
and the fresh water in these lakes is a vital
factor not only to the present-day civilization
here, but in the days ahead. There is danger
to this civilization set around these lakes;
danger not only now, because of the neglect
of the past and the slowness in cleaning up
the situation, but across the years before us
there is a threat which, unless we face it,
can write finish to the life as we know it
right here.
A few days ago I asked the hon. Minister
of Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett) about the United States Public Law
89-2-98. He assured us at that time that
there was little danger in this law to the
water supplies of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence river. I would like to call to the
attention of this House what this law means,
and I quote from it these passages:
The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the chief of engineers, is author-
ized to co-operate with federal, state and
local agencies in preparing plans in
accordance with the water resources
planning Act to meet the long-range water
needs of the northeastern United States.
And the plan provides for a system of
major reservoirs to be located within these
river basins in the northeastern United
States, which drain into the St. Lawrence
and into Lake Ontario, and also those
which drain into the Chesapeake Bay to
the south.
Second, it provides for major convey-
ance facilities by which water may be ex-
changed between these river basins to the
extent found desirable in the national in-
terest.
Three, it provides for major purification
facilities.
And section B of the Act provides:
For the Secretary of the Army to con-
struct, operate and maintain this system.
And section C says this:
Each reservoir included in the plan
authorized by this section shall be con-
sidered as a component of a comprehensive
plan for the optimum development of the
river basin in which it is situated, as well
as a component of a plan established in
accordance with this section.
Now, it is true that the United States corps
of engineers has issued soothing statements
to the effect that the plans under way will in
no sense interfere with the Canadian interest
involved, and if there is any threat of that
that they will consult the Canadians before
anything is done.
I think two things need to be remembered.
The first one is that Public Law 89-2-98 con-
templates the development of the river
basins flowing northward to Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence, as well as those flow-
ing into Chesapeake Bay to the south, and
it provides for interchange of water between
these basins when necessary.
The second thing to note is that this law
was passed in October of 1965, after one of
the most severe droughts in recent history
along the Atlantic seaboard of the United
States, and it was after five years of drought.
I have quotations here showing the despera-
tion of the people in New York city par-
ticularly in respect to that water shortage.
It is true that the New York water system
is antiquated, it is full of leaks, it needs to
be repaired— but the fact is that the people
in New York faced this drought, and faced
it without too much cheerfulness. The people
of New York and surrounding areas spent the
summer with very little water. Millions of
people knew, for the first time, privation
which comes with falling watertables and
with parched reservoirs. New York buses
carried the slogan: "We do not wash so you
can." Dry taps brought frustration and
desperation. People clamoured for action on
the part of responsible authorities, but noth-
ing could be done to solve the problem in a
short time; only rain would help.
Bringing into production new sources of
water would take time, and the drought
would not wait for the new dams and the
new pipeline. By the time the summer ended
everyone was agreed that this kind of
calamity must not happen again. In northern
New York were available sources of the
precious liquid, and people who struggled
through the hot, long, dry summer, naturally
1386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
turned their eyes to these sources. And they
told their representatives, Mr. Speaker, in
no uncertain terms, that as long as water is
available within engineering distance, there
can be no excuse for a recurrence of the
events of those dry and hectic months.
Out of this background then, came Public
Bill No. 89-2-98. If any of us are still naive
enough to think that once constructed these
works will be used only to conserve water
flowing in natural basins, and that in time
of crisis, "the conveyance facilities by which
the water may be exchanged between river
basins" will not be used, then we may be in
for a rude awakening. Certainly in a case
like this there will be consultation with
Canadians, but when those consultations take
place, and the machinery for the interchange
of water is there, I can hardly see the Cana-
dians saying that 30 million or more Ameri-
cans must continue a dry and parched
existence, when the water might easily be
shifted even though it means difficulties on
Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence.
Just as this bill was born out of a great
thirst on the Atlantic seaboard, so with the
first reappearance of similar conditions at
any time after the contemplated works, the
water in that system will flow down to
quench that thirst, no matter how Canadians
may feel. In an emergency like that, even
Canadians will have to agree that it makes
sense for it to flow southward.
More than this, I think we have to think
of the fact that the populations on the
Atlantic seaboard are now exploding. Indus-
try is growing with great rapidity there.
The demand for water is growing in geo-
metric proportion every year. It means that
more water is going to be demanded and
water needs must be met. Present facilities
are certainly inadequate.
Last year's crisis was partly because water
sources had not been brought into effect
adequately to meet the needs of that time. As
populations grow, and as industry expands,
there must be new sources of water, there
must be new places from which this water
will come. The one place which ultimately
must supply this water is the Great Lakes
basin, Mr. Speaker.
These people are going to look to the
Great Lakes and the great source of water
here, and as onr population grows and our
demand for water becomes greater, and as the
Atlantic seaboard explodes again, that whole
complex develops. Then our water takes on
added international significance. We have to
face that future.
Right now we have to do two things.
One, of which the hon. member just spoke,
is speed up the job of curing the pollution,
so that fresh water flows into those lakes
from our rivers and streams, as it has not
been flowing for many, many years. It means
works of all kinds, to cure that pollution
from our municipalities, and particularly from
our industries. I urge upon the hon. member
to get busy, not only to write letters and meet
with industry, but to put teeth into the situ-
ation, because all these years of neglect are
now catching up with us. That is important.
But the second thing we must do, and I think
this House has to face it right now, is speed
up the assessment of our water assets to the
north. As the hon. member for Grey South
put it, we have at our back door great re-
sources, and that is true.
Any of us who were guests on the Lands
and Forests trip last summer and flew over
the northland and saw that great potential
there, realize that we have an asset beyond
imagining. That asset must be looked at,
must be catalogued, and we must understand
just what we can do with it. Then we have
to start bringing some of that water into the
Great Lakes basin, because this basin is just
too small to meet the needs in the days to
come. The watersheds are too close to the
lake borders. We cannot depend upon rain,
as we found out in the last few years. So in
the days ahead, we have to look very care-
fully into the scheme that Mr. Kierans
brought to us last year— of diverting water
from the Hudson Bay watershed, after it is
used up there, and of diverting other water
resources from the northwest down to the
Great Lakes and using them as far as they
are in surplus supply. Failing this, we have
to set a limit to the development around the
Great Lakes basin— the kind of limit, Mr.
Speaker, that none of us wants to see.
I think we have to face this great fact,
that water is going to be the key to that
development, and the wisdom with which
we, in this House, at this time, face up to
this problem, is going to determine the shape
of the Great Lakes basin civilization for a
century to come.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have the good
sense to understand the fundamental prob-
lem here, the problem not only of this basin,
but the problem of the Atlantic seaboard.
Inevitably, because of its explosion, it is going
to demand the water that we count upon
today. I hope this House— this government and
this nation— will take the appropriate action
that seems called for at the present time.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 46
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Thursday, March 10, 1966
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Price per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 10, 1966
Estimates, Department of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, concluded 1389
Estimates, Department of Tourism and Information, Mr. Auld 1406
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1413
1389
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
Clerk of the House: The 12th order. House
in committee of supply. Mr. L. M. Reilly in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS
( continued )
On vote 811:
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, last year when the hon. Minister of
Highways (Mr. MacNaughton) introduced
into this House the decision that we were
going to have a commuter service in On-
tario, I think maybe we were all a little
surprised when he announced it was going
to be from Dunbarton to Burlington. I know
when some of us went to our home areas we
certainly heard from the people in those
areas. Especially in Hamilton there was a lot
of dissatisfaction.
I have to agree with them to this extent,
that if we are going to have a commuter
service and one that we hope in some future
date is going to carry itself, we have got to
look at actually where the service is going
to start. We must feel it has got to start
where the people are, such as in Oshawa
at the one end and Hamilton at the other
end. This is where the large groups of people
are and this is where the service, if it is ever
going to make any money of any type, will
make it.
I could imagine a private group of people
deciding to set up a commuter service like
this and going, say, to The Department of
Economics and Development to get money
to start it. I could imagine what they would
say if they were told that it was going to
start out in the country at one end and out
in the country at the other end and run into
Toronto. I think the department would have
said: "Well, you people should take another
look at this. You should maybe go to where
the people are that are going to be using
this service."
This is the position that I take. The com-
muter service in the west end should start
Thursday, March 10, 1966
in Hamilton. Now I know last year, I think
it was November 25, the city of Hamilton
presented a brief to this committee. I had
the opportunity of being there and listening
to the brief. At the time, I thought it was a
very sensible brief. The hon. Minister at that
time seemed to have the feeling that there
were some merits in it. I have noticed since,
in some of his statements, he disagrees with
it and he may have a reason for this. But I
would, Mr. Chairman, like to quote from an
editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, and I am
just going to quote a couple of paragraphs:
It is argued that to give this city a
restricted service would involve costly
extra trackage. Until convincing evidence
to support this proposal is presented those
desiring services in the almost railway-
isolated city will not accept the view that
the tracks between Bayview and Burlington
are so congested that they cannot accept
one train each hour each way.
This commuter service is to be heavily
subsidized by the provincial government.
It is an experiment and if private under-
taking were to be guilty of such an obvious
folly of ignoring its biggest potential user
how would you expect it to survive?
I think this is quite right. I was interested on
Wednesday, March 2, there was a big head-
line in the Hamilton Spectator and it says:
"Won't get commuter line for three years,
maybe never", and it is datelined Toronto:
No commuter trains will roll into Hamil-
ton for at least three years, Ontario High-
way Minister C. S. MacNaughton said
today. The reason: While the experimental
52 mile Burlington-Dunbarton route will
cost under $10 million to set up, it would
take nearly four times as much to bring
trains ten miles farther into Hamilton.
$36 million. That is a bit rich when you are
only experimenting with a commuter serv-
ice, Mr. MacNaughton said. The high cost
lay, he said, in the unanswerable objection
of a tremendous railway bottleneck be-
tween the lakeshore towns and the city.
It has been estimated that sufficient track-
age and signals to break this ten-mile
bottleneck would cost between $24 million
and $36 million.
1390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, he made this statement to the chamber
of commerce in Hamilton, I understand. I
would like to discuss this, but I would like
to discuss it on the basis of the up-to-date
thinking on it. I wonder if the hon. Minister
would enlighten us as to what did happen
and how he feels it is going to cost between
$24 million and $36 million to bring it into
Hamilton?
Mr. Chairman: Does the member mind
if we find out what is the wish of the
House in this connection? I understand that
there are several members who would like to
speak on this particular topic. If it is the wish
of the members of this House, that we
all speak on it first and then allow the
Minister's statement, whichever way-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): No, I do
not think, Mr. Chairman, that there should
be a dialogue between the hon. member
for Hamilton East and the hon. Minister-
Mr. Chairman: I am not suggesting—
Mr. Singer: This is exactly what is being
suggested and I think because the hon.
member happened to jump to his feet does
not mean that he should be able to monop-
olize it and I would like the floor as soon
as the hon. member sits down.
Mr. Davison: I would say that the hon.
member could have the floor but we are
asking to debate something here in the House
that developed a year ago. We have no in-
formation given to this House at all, all we
have is what we read in the papers. Now the
Hamilton brief certainly did not point out
that it was going to cost $24 or $36 million.
I think we have a right to know what this
cost is so we can really debate this thing
intelligently. And I would hope the hon. Min-
ister could explain this so that we could
discuss it in all fairness.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the
hon. member I do propose to disclose to the
House tonight a fairly well-documented sub-
mission with respect to this and I must say I
think the hon. member will have no reason
to be concerned about how it is done.
I frankly would prefer to do this following
all the comments that may well be raised
here tonight. Mr. Chairman, I will abide by
your ruling, of course.
Mr. Chairman: I notice two or three mem-
bers have been on their feet at the same
time, I recognized the member for Hamilton
East and I recognized the member for
Downsview to succeed him and also the mem-
ber for Oshawa (Mr. Walker) in that order.
I think in fairness to all members, we should
hear from all members and then hear from
the Minister.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, in the brief
that Hamilton presented, they were able to—
Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the member
would permit an interruption just for a
moment? I know that the members of this
House would like to know that among the
many guests that we have tonight, we have a
special group from the international student
centre of the University of Toronto, who are
visiting from various countries. I thought you
would like to know about that.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I feel in the
brief presented by the city of Hamilton that
they did make some points that were very
important. At the time the hon. Minister quite
agreed that they should look into this again.
I presume in the meantime he has looked
into it, but let us take a real look at what
we have in the situation as far as Hamilton
is concerned.
We have a station there that could be used
for a terminal point for this rapid transit
system. It is a good station. We have the
trackage to allow the trains to come in and
as far as the bottleneck goes I do not think
that there is really quite as large a bottle-
neck as some of the people would like to
leave the impression.
We must point out first that the CNR has
a responsibility to the people in Hamilton as
well as the people in the rest of the province.
If they are taking the position that they do
not need to bother supplying commuter serv-
ice to Hamilton, they certainly are not supply-
ing very much train service at the present
time. Most of their time is used in freight
traffic which actually brings them in more
money. But I think the railway systems in
this province have a responsibility to the
people of the province and I am very sorry
to see the hon. Minister take this position
just because the railways say that this is im-
possible. He has got to get in there and
fight with these railway people and get the
people of the province something they are
really entitled to.
Now I presume the hon. Minister in talking
to the CNR would likely be talking to the
people at the time. I spent some time over
the weekend talking to the people who run
the trains out of Hamilton— people who
handle the central traffic control, people who
MARCH 10, 1966
1391
work on the freight trains-and they give me
quite a different picture.
May I say that the track between Burling-
ton and Hamilton is run by a central traffic
control, that is, a control tower in Hamilton
that controls all traffic into Burlington and
into Hamilton, both ways. They can go as
far as Toronto and direct trains from Toronto
into Hamilton.
In the old days when a train would run
into Hamilton it would come into Hamilton
on the north track, if it was going to Toronto
it would go on the south track. With this
central control system, if there is a freight
train at Burlington coming into Hamilton it
can leave Burlington and start into Hamilton
and at the same time the control tower can
also switch a train onto the other track and
bring it in from Burlington, too.
For instance, a passenger train and a
freight train can both be coming into Hamil-
ton at the same time with this central control
tower. These people claim that there defi-
nitely is no bottleneck and they do not feel
that there is any reason why the CNR cannot
supply this commuter service into Hamilton.
At the present time— and I could be one
train out per day, but I think I am pretty
close— at the present time between Hamilton
and Burlington there are seven freight trains
leaving Hamilton each day and seven freight
trains coming in.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: May I ask the
hon. member if he is referring to the T H &
B terminal, or the CN terminal?
Mr. Davison: I am referring now to the
people who run the tracks here, which is the
CNR, so we are discussing the trackage part
of it. I am not talking about where it hooks on
and goes up to the T H & B.
There are, as I say, roughly seven freight
trains per day going each way. This, of course,
does not include the shunting that is going
on when they are making up their trains.
There are roughly six passenger trains each
way per day between Toronto and Hamilton.
From the time they leave the station in
Hamilton until they leave Burlington takes
14 minutes on their schedule. There are 14
freight trains and 12 passenger trains per
day running between Burlington and
Hamilton, which actually is roughly six
hours running time out of 24. On top of that
there is a group of trains—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I hope the hon.
member will excuse me for interrupting. I
want to be precise on this. Is he talking
about the Canadian National station or the
Toronto-Hamilton and Buffalo?
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): He is not
talking about either station.
Mr. Davison: I am not talking about any
station; I am talking about the number of
trains that are running over the tracks be-
tween Bayview and Burlington.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Bayview and
Burlington?
Mr. Davison: Yes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, that is
established.
Mr. Davison: There is trackage coming
down to Bayview from London. There are
roughly five passenger trains per day both
ways on this track and roughly five freight
trains. As I say there could be one more on
some days. These trains, by the time they
get down to the track at Bayview and until
such time as they reach Burlington, take
14 minutes; so that group of trains uses that
track for an hour and a half per day. The
track usage actually is 7% hours out of 24
hours.
A few years ago the CNR repaired all this
track and has it in first-class condition. They
claim the signal setup they have is one of the
best in Canada, in fact pretty nearly all over
the province that same signal setup is being
used and it was put into effect within the
last year. They claim with this central
control traffic setup that there is no problem
at all. They claim that there is all kinds of
time that they can have free to bring this
commuter service into Hamilton. They spent
a pile of money in the last few years in build-
ing a new set of trackage between Aldershot
and Burlington, which is five tracks wide. It
leaves room for a full train to pull in and
for trains to pass.
Just outside of Hamilton they have built
two new yards on each side of their tracks
where they can pull trains in. The people
who are running the trains say that it is just
a lot of hogwash when railway people say it
is impossible to bring these trains into Hamil-
ton, that they are too busy with their freight
isetup. I think when you look at it on the
basis of that track being used for IVz or
maybe eight hours at the most out of 24,
their schedules can be worked so that this
rapid transit system can come into Hamilton.
By doing this they will be able to pick up
groups of people who will maybe make the
commuter service pay.
1392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Otherwise this is going to be a tremendous
cost to the taxpayers of Ontario and it will
only be servicing a small number of com-
munities. It will be looking after Toronto
and the little area around it and that is all.
It certainly will not be touching the two
other main areas of Oshawa and Hamilton.
I do hope that the hon. Minister will get
together with the railway people again and
ask them to bring in some of the running
trades, who will talk to him and let him get
an impression from the people who are actu-
ally running the trains, about the type of
service they feel they can give the people
by bringing these trains into Hamilton. Their
argument is that there is lots of time on this
track, that the bottleneck is not there
although some people think there is one.
I understand that close to Burlington there
are two tracks that might have to be
changed. They are at ground level and there
might have to be bridges put there so that
the road will go underneath or over the top.
But those are the only two. For all the rest
of the whole trip the train either goes under-
neath the road or over the road.
This has all been done at quite a tre-
mendous cost and I figure there would be
very little cost at the present time to bring
this in. Certainly on an experimental basis
I think we could at least run some trains
into Hamilton to find out first-hand if the
system could be made to pay, by using that
great large group of people in Hamilton who
would be going to Toronto daily, rather
than have them go out to Burlington and
try to get it there. I do not think that this
is profitable.
• As I said, if they use the TH&B setup,
they are only coming in as far as Bayview.
They do not go down to the CNR at all, and
we have all this service there for them at the
present time. I would hope the hon. Minister
would take another serious look at this be-
fore he finally decides to stop it at Bur-
lington.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I had the
opportunity not too many nights ago of
watching the hon. Minister of Highways on
television. He was out inspecting the com-
muter service. He cuts as fine a figure on
television as he does here in the House, and
he was examining the trains and the tracks
very carefully and regretting at great length
the fact that the commuter service, for the
present time, could not go to Hamilton.
There were all sorts of technical reasons
which the hon. Minister was mentioning as
to why it could not go to Hamilton.
I am not a railroad man, certainly, and I
am not too familiar with the technical argu-
ments. But it would seem to me that while
we are getting our feet wet in the com-
muter service, there is some logic in popu-
lation statistics and in the development of
the golden horseshoe area of Ontario, that
perhaps dictates against this too-hurried de-
cision that appears to have been made.
The thing that seems most sensible to me
would be, if there is going to be a com-
muter service you join up— even though the
immediate cost might be a little higher—
the two largest cities in southern Ontario;
that you do not stop at Burlington, which
has a passenger potential of about 1,600,
but that you go on as far as Hamilton, which
has a passenger potential of from 12,000 to
15,000.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, so many
errors have been made in public transit, that
before the government becomes irrevocably
committed to this halting experiment, it
should take into consideration some of the
representations it has been receiving.
The hon. member who spoke just a few
moments ago suggested that people in the
railroad trades have somewhat different
ideas than the hon. Minister. The mayor of
Hamilton has suggested the use of the T H
& B station in place of the station at Bur-
lington. It would seem to me to make some
sense, that instead of putting money into the
ground at Burlington, when eventually one
would anticipate the service is going to be
extended as far as Hamilton, that money
could be saved— there would be an economic
saving realized by not having to construct
new buildings at Burlington, acquiring more
lands and so on. I think this is the sort of
thing that you have to get into. There are
facilities in Hamilton that can be adapted
much more readily.
I do not think the mayor of Hamilton is
on the Minister's committee which has
been studying this, and this was one of my
concerns when the committee was originally
set up. I would have hoped that the hon.
Minister would put on some municipal offi-
cials from Toronto and some municipal offi-
cials from Hamilton, and who could be more
logical? He has Mr. Allen on— the chairman
of Metropolitan Toronto— but he was the
only Toronto man.
It would seem logical to me that the hon.
Minister would have put on a senior muni-
cipal representative from the city of Hamil-
ton, because he has available— he must have
available to him— certain information that
would be harder for the committee to get
MARCH 10, 1966
1393
than if he was there as part and parcel of
the Minister's committee, and have him help
in making these decisions.
We are committed, and were committed
by last year's statute, to spending $2 million
annual subsidy on the line for this commuter
service. It would seem to me that if it gets
into downtown Hamilton this subsidy could
be cut back materially. Does it not make
sense, Mr. Chairman, if there are more
passengers that more money is likely to be
made? If instead of stopping the line at a
place where only 1,600 passengers can be
looked forward to, why not go on to a place
where 12,000 or 15,000 can be picked up?
Is this not a more economic venture?
There has been a history of experiments in
community service, particularly in Chicago,
under private operation. There is an article,
I am sure the hon. Minister is familiar with it,
in the January Harper's, dealing with a pri-
vately run commuter service there. It has
been a great success because the people who
did it, as a private and successful business
venture, sat down and studied where the
passengers were, the kind of service they
wanted and then went out to supply it to
them and reversed the North American trend
to make commuter service pay. It can be
done.
My suggestion to the hon. Minister tonight,
Mr. Chairman, is that this requires a lot more
study before we stop this line at Burlington.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Studies can be
initiated after service is operating.
Mr. Singer: The hon. Minister of Energy
and Resources Management, I suppose, im-
plies by this remark that we are arguing that
it run from one end of the province to the
other.
Let me repeat again, Mr. Chairman, the
simple argument that I am putting forward
at this time. In the so-called golden horse-
shoe of Ontario, the two big cities are Metro-
politan Toronto and Metropolitan Hamilton.
If we do not link up Metropolitan Toronto
and Metropolitan Hamilton in a commuter
service, it seems to me that we are missing a
great proportion of the people available to
use commuter services.
I think it is a very simple concept. Even
that hon. Minister should be able to under-
stand it.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of High-
ways, not too long ago, I am advised, spoke
with the Hamilton chamber of commerce
and indicated he might reconsider his deci-
sion and extend the line into the downtown
area. The chamber at that time, I am told,
volunteered to conduct a survey to determine
more exactly how many people in Hamilton
would use the commuter service. But the
hon. Minister, apparently without taking up
this offer, or even waiting to see what sort of
a survey could be conducted, apparently has
made up his mind, and for the present time
at least the line is not going to be extended.
Without getting into any, or attempting to
get into any of the technicalities, it seems to
me to make sense insofar as the service of a
substantial portion of the people of Ontario
is concerned, to run the train from Toronto
to Hamilton. If you have more passengers
than less passengers, it is more likely to be an
economic success. And it seems to me that
the hon. Minister is missing the train unless
he does it.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. A. V. Walker (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
in rising to my feet to say a few words on
this I rather hesitate to do so, because I have
heard so much about the two major cities of
southern Ontario. But I just wanted to say
a few words about—
Mr. Singer: I said two of the largest.
Mr. Walker: —the small city to the east, of
some 75,000 very fine people. Last year I
questioned the reason with the hon. Minister
during the commuter train programme. I
questioned the reason for the stoppage of the
eastern end of this commuter train at Dun-
barton and I suggested to the hon. Minister,
Mr. Chairman, that it should have gone as
far east as Oshawa.
The hon. Minister mentioned the cost of
laying additional track east of Dunbarton and
he outlined some other points on which the
decision to stop at Dunbarton was based. I
would agree certainly, Mr. Chairman, that
for the very large subdivision areas of Dun-
barton and Bay Ridges and West Rouge, this
commuter service will undoubtedly serve a
real need for the citizens in this area. But
it will be, I suggest, of very little use to the
heavily populated areas immediately to the
east.
In other words I am suggesting, Mr. Chair-
man, that the present planned programme will
do very little to fulfil the transportation needs
of the area east of Dunbarton. I suggest it is
unlikely that commuters who travel from
Oshawa by car to Toronto each day, would
drive 15 or 16 miles to Dunbarton, leave their
car at the station and travel the rest of the
1394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
way, approximately 12 miles, by the new
commuter train.
It must be remembered that within this
area between Dumbarton and Oshawa there
would be well over 100,000 persons, a sub-
stantial market for this new method of trans-
portation if it were extended into this area.
One other point that has recently come
to light, which I think is a very important
point. The morning train from Brockville,
which arrives in Toronto at 9:45 a.m., no
longer stops at Oshawa and the former train
commuters are now forced to travel by road.
This presents a new and even more important
need, I suggest, for an extension of this
commuter train to as far east as Oshawa. I
would certainly urge the hon. Minister's con-
sideration that the transportation needs of
this heavily populated area should be given
more consideration. If we are going to spend
$9.3 million on this commuter train project,
then let us spend a few thousand more and
provide a much more effective service for a
much larger group of citizens.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Chairman, last year when the hon. Minister
introduced to the House the proposition of
the experimental commuter train service from
Dunbarton to Burlington, it appeared to me
and, I think, to many in the House that there
was a considerable degree of logic in the
experiment's ending at those two points. Of
course, the introduction of propositions by
the government in several instances appear
to have logic and merit until one investigates
the full ramifications of the situation. I am
not sure at this point whether the Minister
or anyone on his behalf had investigated the
feasibility and economic reasoning to extend
it to Hamilton. It appears from what has
happened since with the various opinions,
the opinions of the brief presented by
Hamilton and the opinions of the Hamilton
chamber of commerce that this was not the
case. But nevertheless, when I listened to
the introduction last year I believe I took
the floor and agreed with the hon. Minister
that there was some logic in his presentation.
I immediately applied the situation to my
own riding, which is in the far east end of
Hamilton. I knew at that point, even if I
argued that the commuter train service should
continue on into Hamilton, into the west end
at either one of the stations, it certainly
would not help those people in my riding
who were employed east of Hamilton, say,
Burlington, Oakville or Toronto, because of
the fact that they would have to take public
transportation uptown from the east end,
which at the best of times consumes half an
hour. Of course, if you want to make sure
you get there, you have to take something
like 40 minutes to an hour from various
parts of the east end of the city before you
would get uptown and then get a train to
go to Burlington and Oakville; whereby the
employees, and I spoke to a lot of them in the
Ford plant, can jump in their car and in 20
minutes, at safe driving, be at work.
This was the approach I took at that time.
Now, of course, I have to admit there is a
lot of merit in the brief presented by the city
of Hamilton.
Many of the submissions have mentioned
tonight that it might have been profitable
for both the government and the city of
Hamilton if there had been a representation
on the Toronto regional transportation study
so that some of the reasoning could have
been presented to all concerned.
I am looking forward to hearing an answer
by the hon. Minister in regard to the presen-
tations made in the Hamilton brief. I think
he will have to be fairly thorough in his
explanation to convince some of us from
Hamilton that there is not reasonable justifi-
cation for reconsideration of the proposition
which points out the fact that there is a heavy
potential of users.
We understand that the facilities of the
T H & B station can be used. It is now
almost going to waste because there is very
little usage of the station. It is a fine
station, in good shape and could handle a
lot of customers.
We understand by the presentation made
by my hon. colleague from Hamilton that
there is a computer-controlled signal system,
which will allow the quick rescheduling of
traffic from the west down through to
Burlington to allow a schedule of fast com-
muter trains. I hope that the Minister will
try to convince us that it is not feasible,
economically or mechanically; or else retract
and give further consideration to the prop-
osition put forward by the city of Hamilton.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Halton.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to take advantage of this vote to
ask a couple of questions about the proposed
commuter rail service project between Bur-
lington and Dunbarton.
It is probably understandable that I am
wholeheartedly in favour of this project.
This service will have a tremendous effect on
my riding, not only from the point of view
from transportation but also in respect to
residential and commercial development. Any-
one who daily commutes between Hamilton
MARCH 10, 1966
1395
and Toronto realizes the highway capacity
in this area has almost reached the satura-
tion point. The area serviced by the commuter
project will substantially reduce travelling
time involved, not to mention the release
from some of the hazards of modern motor-
ing.
There is definitely a need to encourage the
use of public rapid transit to relieve the
heavy cost of road building and maintenance.
The people in the southern part of Halton
are looking forward to the inception of this
service. We realize the service at first will
be limited because of the experimental stage
and that patronage will play a decisive part
in the future extension of this project.
Certainly this department and this gov-
ernment will want the project to succeed and
therefore on this basis it will eventually be
extended. I was wondering if the hon. Min-
ister could give me some idea as to the
present estimated starting date for the serv-
ice; what new or improved station facilities
that will be necessary, if any, including the
establishment of parking and riding facilities.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I had not intended speaking on
this particular topic and I am not looking for
a commuter service to my riding, although I
know a great number of people who would
like to go down there.
I think there is an obvious point that has
been missed by all the hon. members, from
either Hamilton or Oshawa, in that that they
seem to be quite concerned about getting
people to Toronto. I just wonder if there
should not be a reverse picture in order to
allow people from Toronto to get out and
visit these fine communities and shop in their
very fine retail establishments. I just say a
word on behalf of the retail merchants in
these two communities, and the chambers
of commerce, that this proposed rapid transit
system be extended to these fine cities and
give the people of the Metropolitan Toronto
area a chance to get out and visit these fine
cities.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
do come prepared to comment at con-
siderable length on what I, of course, regard
as a rather major undertaking on the part of
the government. I propose to read a docu-
mentation of the position of the government
and The Department of Highways which
department is now charged with the admin-
istration, implementation and eventual
placing into service of the commuter rail
operation that has been rather widely
acclaimed. Before I do that I think I would
like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that I
will read to the House the material that has
been prepared on the basis of considerable
careful research. I would like then to be
provided with the opportunity to make some
further comments.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I may
ad lib a little bit as I go through this material.
Then, of course, I will be quite happy to
answer any specific questions which may
arise.
I am very anxious, Mr. Chairman, to put
this on the record. I am very anxious to
evince, not only to the hon. members of the
House but to the people in the entire study
area that is involved, the extent to which this
matter has been pursued and investigated as
thoroughly as it is possible to do so.
Before I commence to read to the House
this information I may say to you, sir, and
to hon. members, that up until a number of
weeks ago, by actual count, 1,200 individual
decisions had been made with respect to this
commuter service and we have not finished
by a long way.
Mr. Chairman, if I may try to document
this and go back to September, 1963, when
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) an-
nounced in a preliminary report on the rail
feasibility study that service could be pro-
vided on tracks between Dunbarton and
Burlington.
The statement said, and it is recorded in
Hansard:
East of Dunbarton and west of Bur-
lington, which are junction points with the
new access line tfre CNR—
the Canadian Nation Railways:
—is constructing around Toronto. These
lines are to get to the new marshalling
areas that we are all very familiar with.
The freight traffic will be too heavy to
permit operating more than one or two
commuter trains a day on railway tracks.
On November 28, 1963, I personally said, in
announcing the results of the feasibility
study, that increased freight traffic beyond
Burlington and Dunbarton would not permit
commuter operations unless there were
heavy expenditures on trackage and signal-
ling facilities. This is a matter of record.
In reporting on the development of Metro-
politan Toronto and region transportation
study during the last session, sir, I made
reference to the investigations into the rail
1396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
commuter service and these are recorded in
Hansard.
These references, as a matter of fact, in-
cluded the following statement appearing on
page 770 of the Legislature of Ontario De-
bates of February 24, 1965. I will repeat
them for the House now:
Because the findings—
of an economic feasibility study:
—would be related to a probable experi-
mental service to provide data on actual
operating conditions, officials selected for
study a line that would serve the greatest
population, one that would provide a broad
measurement of results under various con-
ditions, so that the data could be used to
assess other rail commuter possibilities. The
line chosen was one serving the lakeshore
corridor from Burlington to Dunbarton. I
might explain that the eastern and western
terminals were not the choice of the study
but were dictated by the availability of
trackage. Although there is a decline in rail
traffic on the major part of the line, be-
cause of transfer of the marshalling yards
from the downtown Toronto area, two
sections of lines from Dunbarton to
Oshawa and from Burlington to Hamilton,
a total distance of more than 20 miles, will
have too high a volume of railway traffic
to permit frequently scheduled commuter
rail operation.
I depart from the text of this statement here
at the moment and point out to the House,
as has been said on a number of occasions,
that during peak periods we propose to oper-
ate these trains on a 20-minute headway—
every 20 minutes during peak periods there
will be a train leaving the two terminal
points and arriving at Toronto Union station.
On May 19, 1965, when the hon. Prime
Minister and myself jointly announced the
government's decision to implement a rail
commuter service, the hon. Prime Minister
outlined a recommended alternative that was
offered to the government by the consultant.
On page 3092 of the official report of the
Legislature of Ontario Debates, he said:
Before making its decision, Mr. Speaker,
the government was presented with a num-
ber of proposals of the type of service that
could be implemented. These proposals
offered alternatives with restricted opera-
tion and correspondingly sizeable savings
on capital expenditure and operating costs.
The alternatives were: 1. an operation
which did not have a special off-peak
service-
in other words, it would operate at peak
periods only. I continue:
—2. a service between Oakville and Dun-
barton only; 3. a service that would oper-
ate between Oakville and Guildwood only;
4. a service between Port Credit and Dun-
barton; 5. a service on the eastern sector
only, between Union Station and Dunbar-
ton; and 6. a service restricted to the west-
ern sector only, between Union station and
Oakville.
Again, I depart from the text of these re-
marks to point out to the House that prob-
ably in a minimal way, any one of these
would have provided the information that the
government needed for experimental or trial
purposes. Now, when I make reference to
the words "experimental" or "trial," I would
like to repeat with emphasis what I have said
on so many occasions, that the words "trial"
or "experimental" should not be construed as
meaning that at the end of the trial period
the service is to be abandoned. It was felt
that it would take two to three years— more
likely three— of actual operation to determine
positively from operations themselves what,
up until that point, can only be projections
and nothing else, and I repeat this.
With any one of the alternatives that I have
made reference to— and which, as I say, are in
Hansard as of last May— any one of these
minimal services would probably have served
to provide us with this information.
I continue, Mr. Chairman:
Since the rail lines, we believed, could
provide a valuable addition to regional
transportation, it was felt that the project
deserved a bold and imaginative approach
and that a trial service based on any of
these alternatives would be less than
adequate. We wanted it to operate under
the best conditions within our power, so
that it could have the fullest opportunity
to prove its function and potential.
In a supplementary statement on the same
date, I said— and it may be found on page
3093 of Hansard of May 19, 1965:
The transportation study's experts
selected the CNR line primarily for three
reasons:
1. It passed through the most populated
area of the region.
2. The lakeshore corridor contained
widely differing community and trans-
portation characteristics to provide a
variety of data that could be related to
other parts of the region, and the line it-
self offered considerable savings in capital
MARCH 10, 1966
1397
investment because it did not require ex-
pensive changes to adapt track, signal
and other facilities.
Now let us stop there and go back to the
opening remarks that I made, and point out
again that at Burlington on the west and
Dunbarton on the east, the junction points,
or the terminals of the new line rebuilt to
take freight traffic out of Toronto and into
the marshalling yards of Toronto stop at
each end of this corridor; these are the points
where this traffic is rerouted around the city
of Toronto.
On page 3094 of Hansard, I stated:
Although there will be a considerable
reduction in the number of freight trains
using the line, the remaining volume of
traffic and limited facilities for passenger
handling at Union station will prevent
a higher frequency and more extensive
service. Indeed, an increased volume of
railway traffic between Burlington and
Hamilton, and Dunbarton and Oshawa, is
expected as a result of the changes in the
marshalling yard location. This rules out
any possibility of rail commuter opera-
tions on these sections, unless more than
20 miles of new lines are built and
equipped with advance signalling facilities.
This would be a very expensive proposi-
tion and one that could not be considered
justified at this time.
Again I depart from the text to say that to
serve the purpose for which this trial opera-
tion was originally intended— and it was
intended, and I repeat it with emphasis, to
provide us with the data, the experience of
actual operation that might make it possible;
we hope it will enable us to consider whether
the cost of extension of the service is
warranted, whether the additional patronage
that might accrue would warrant the heavy
expenditures that were required.
This is all a matter of record and it has
been said many times.
Mr. Singer: That does not make it right.
A decision by the city that you could run it
from Mimico to Scarborough—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
listened very attentively to the hon. member
because I am quite prepared to listen to
every piece of sensible advice that I can get
on this subject. That is the type of impor-
tance we attach to it and I am trying to tell
the House exactly the difficulties and the
limitations of doing it.
The survey also disclosed that there were
very few regular train commuters expected
from Hamilton and the majority of present
commuters patronize long-distance express
trains. These express trains will continue to
be available to serve them; or if they wish,
Hamilton passengers can use the parking
facilities at Burlington and board trains
there.
I am quoting from last year's Hansard:
Because the survey also indicated that a
somewhat lower level of patronage can be
expected from the Burlington and Bronte
areas, service to these two stations will
consist of four peak-period trains daily
throughout the work week. It would be
the same as the present CNR commuter
service which will be discontinued. But
travel time would be from ten to 20
minutes faster.
All these statements, Mr. Chairman, received
wide publicity in the Hamilton press and
other press within the region. On November
25, 1965, the Metropolitan Toronto and
region transportation study, after several
months of advance notice, held a hearing at
Hamilton on various aspects of transporta-
tion on a regional basis. Briefs were invited
on the following themes:
1. The type and location of transportation
needed in the future.
2. The degree to which transportation
availability and flexibility affects economic
development and land use.
3. The policies of the different levels of
government needed to resolve transportation
problems.
Mayor Copps presented a brief on behalf
of the city of Hamilton. His opening state-
ment said:
Although the terms of reference of this
committee of the Metropolitan Toronto
and region study embrace the various
means of transportation, our submission
will deal only with the proposed railway
commuter service. We appreciate this
opportunity to make a submission to the
committee and wish Hamilton had been
given this chance sooner, before an an-
nouncement was made that the railway
commuter service would be from Dun-
barton to Burlington and would not come
into Hamilton.
Now let us examine that, Mr. Chairman.
That was last November, 1965. Our earliest
statements were made in the previous
November, subsequently in May in the
House. I suggest to the House that the
opportunity existed over a long period of
time, but nothing was submitted to any
branch of The Department of Highways or
1398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the Metropolitan Toronto transportation
study, until the hearing took place last
November, and this submission was made. It
was not even among the terms of reference
that were suggested for the hearing.
But be that as it may, I am quite willing
and prepared to understand the concern of
Mayor Copps, as far as the city of Hamilton
is concerned. That is quite natural. If he
is not concerned as the mayor of Hamilton
for transportation facilities for his city, then
of course he should be and I am confident
that he is.
Now then, he went on to say:
We are very pleased that you are the
chairman of the executive committee of
Metropolitan Toronto and region trans-
portation study because your knowledge of
Hamilton traffic problems makes you aware
of the eagerness with which we awaited
fast and frequent railway commuter serv-
ice between Hamilton and Toronto. I am
sure this knowledge of our problems gives
you some idea of the shock to this com-
munity of the news that the long-awaited
commuter service would terminate at Bur-
lington and not come into Hamilton.
Again, that was on November 25, 1965, and
it was announced repeatedly from a year
previous November, right through until May
in the legislative assembly.
I point out with respect that Mayor Copps
was well aware of the government's decision
and the reasons for not extending into Hamil-
ton. He says the decision was a shock. It
was a shock last November, why was it not
a shock a year from last November? Why
was it not a shock last May, when all this
was disclosed to the House and widely
publicized?
Mr. Singer: It was a year before you got
around to having a public hearing in Hamil-
ton. That was the first time you invited
him.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I have public
hearings in my office every day of the week,
public, private or otherwise. At no time from
1963 when he took office, through a series
of announcements that repeated the prospect
that the service would not include Hamilton,
did Mayor Copps, or any Hamilton authori-
ties, communicate with the government on
the matter. If the shock to this community
was so great, it is submitted that it was his
duty to his people to make representations
on their behalf earlier than last November.
Mr. Singer: So it is going to rise or fall on
the day the representations were made—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
how would the hon. member like to keep
quiet for a moment until I get something
on the record? He has a congenital yack-
ing ability.
Mr. Singer: Exceeded, however, by the
hon. Minister.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Perhaps the
mayor's true reason for the present approach
to the matter was revealed in his brief at
the hearing, in which he proposed as a
solution to the problem that the Hamilton
station for commuter service should be the
T H & B station in downtown Hamilton.
I want that to be underscored and I would
like the House to remember it, the Toronto,
Hamilton and Buffalo terminal. I hope the
hon. member for Hamilton East makes note
that the mayor's entire proposal at the
hearing was the Toronto, Hamilton and
Buffalo terminal.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman—
and this is a quotation from the brief in
support of this proposal:
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I
want to introduce some plans of a proposed
building that is to be erected adjoining
the T H & B station in the city by
private developers because it is to provide
for some 250 enclosed parking spaces which
would be nearby and which would be used
by people using the commuter service.
The problem of usage of track facilities
between Burlington and Hamilton does not
appear to be as serious as indicated. We
realize that there is very heavy freight
traffic on this stretch of track but if the
T H & B station were used as a terminal,
the pressure on the use of the track would
be reduced from that part between Bur-
lington and Hamilton, to that part between
Burlington and Bayview, from which point
trains would proceed over the T H & B
track to this station. Surely it would be
possible to schedule commuter trains at
least on an hourly basis into and out of
Hamilton so that they would not interfere
with the freight traffic on both the CNR
and CPR, which use the tracks between
Burlington and Bayview. While there
should be no need to reroute via the
CPR line through Guelph junction, con-
sideration might be given to the greater
use of the CNR beach strip line which
might ease the pressure between Bur-
lington and Bayview. We have discussed
this arrangement with railroad people in-
formally and understand from them that
MARCH 10, 1966
1399
this plan is quite practical and workable
as a means of bringing a commuter service
into Hamilton. Mayor Copps suggested that
the study officials should convene a meet-
ing of representatives of all the railway
companies to explore the proposal.
I assured the mayor that this would be done.
As a result of such a meeting, and further
research by the study group, I informed the
mayor in a letter dated January 21 this
year that an extension of service into Hamil-
ton could not be entertained in the early
stages of the experiment because of time
and cost.
Now I repeat that at the hearing I com-
mitted myself to receive the representatives
of the three railroads, and I did, and then
based on the information that they sub-
sequently made available to me, we reached
this conclusion.
Subsequently, on January 21, I wrote the
mayor and I said:
I would welcome your views on the
proposition that the Burlington service,
which will be limited at the outset to two
trains at morning and evening peak periods,
might well be augmented with additional
services if the city of Hamilton would
consider a trial feeder bus service between
downtown Hamilton and Burlington.
I said I would welcome the views. I have not
received them yet, other than by newspaper,
television and radio. Mayor Copps' response
to the letter was to quote a Globe and Mail
report, angry and bitter words. It is interest-
ing to quote further from the Globe and Mail
report on February 3:
Mr. Copps termed nonsensical and ridi-
culous Mr. MacNaughton's proposal that
Hamilton institute a feeder bus service to
link the city with the service's western
terminus in Burlington. He chastised the
provincial committee headed by Mr. Mac-
Naughton, which met there in November
to listen to Hamilton's plea to be made a
part of the service. Mayor Copps accused
the committee of "coming here under a
pretence that it intended to do something
when in fact all it was was a lot of window-
dressing."
And I point out we never went down to dis-
cuss this matter at all. These were not the
terms of reference that were assigned to the
hearing.
Mayor Copps said that the province's
feelings towards the city should have been
obvious because it took the committee six
months to come to hear Hamilton's pro-
posals.
But we had indicated as long as a year ago
what the proposals were, and we did not hear
from him until a year following.
These are statements from the same man
who admitted in opening his brief that the
transportation hearing in Hamilton was for
purposes of general transportation, not speci-
fically the rail-commuter problem. The hear-
ing was never arranged to hear Hamilton's
proposal on commuter rail as there was never
any indication up to that point that Hamilton
had an alternative proposal. From a radio
source, the mayor is quoted as saying that
Hamilton should be included in the three-
year experimental service and if it is found
that there is insufficient patronage then it
could be dropped.
Now when I proceed a little further and
tell the House what it would cost to do that,
and contemplate a statement that anybody
should undertake the expense of providing
the service and consider even remotely aban-
donment at the end of three years if it does
not work, I suggest to you this is wanton
expenditure of somebody else's money.
The problem that is faced by the govern-
ment is this: As railway officials and engineer-
ing consultants warned, the volume of freight
traffic on the Bayview-Burlington section of
the Oakville subdivision has increased with
the opening of the marshalling yards in 1965;
and bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, if you will,
sir, that you cannot get from Burlington to
the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo station
unless you go over this section from Bayview
downtown.
Prior to the opening, there were 75 trains
using this section on an average day. In
1965 the volume had increased to 96 trains.
Next year it is predicted the average daily
volume will be about 110 trains, a train
every 13 minutes of the day, and not includ-
ing any additional commuter trains. There is
no way to increase the service to Hamilton
even on an hourly schedule, as was sug-
gested in the Hamilton brief, in the face
of this volume of traffic if the Toronto,
Hamilton and Buffalo terminal is considered.
The only alternative is to construct new
facilities.
Here are the costs for accommodation of a
full service including a 20-minute peak
period schedule as given to us by railway
officials who have studied all aspects of the
matter. Now, let me depart from my text
here again and say that while it has been
suggested we should talk to the running
trades, I simply indicate to the House that
we have had many meetings with the vice-
president and all the people at that level
1400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who I think know what goes on in the
operation of a railway just as well as the
people who operate the trains. I have to sub-
mit that the vice-president of the Great
Lakes region and the executive vice-president
at Montreal know something about it.
Mr. Davison: May I ask the hon. Minister
a question?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wonder if the
hon. member would mind if I finish this
and then I will be available for questions,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. J. II. White (London South): The hon.
member for Downsview has not even been
listening. He has been talking to his neigh-
bour.
Mr. Singer: I shall ask the hon. member
what sign I must give to show I am listening.
Mr. White: Stop talking!
Mr. Singer: Would the hon. member send
me a memo on that, please?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: If I may go on,
Mr. Chairman.
I repeat, the only alternative is to con-
struct new facilities. Here are the costs for
accommodation of a full service, including a
20-minute peak period schedule as given to
us by railway officials whose advice we must
rely on and who we are confident have studied
all aspects of this matter: For constructing
double tracks and signal facilities from Bur-
lington to the existing station area, $25
million; for constructing new trackage and
signal facilities between Burlington and
Hamilton junction, excluding any costs on the
CPR and T H & B sections that give access
to the T H & B station, $16 million.
In order to accommodate an hourly service,
the minimum costs for the construction of a
single track from Burlington to Hamilton
junction where it would join CPR and T H &
B trackage to the T H & B station would
be not less than $12 million. If a second
track were to be added later, the cost would
be almost the same, a total of $24 million;
and this is where the figures that the hon.
member for Hamilton East referred to came
from.
These figures do not include the cost of
additional rolling stock that would be re-
quired to provide any extra service beyond
Burlington. A minimum estimate is in excess
of $1.6 million, almost incidental after the
cost of constructing new lines.
Mayor Copps said that his discussions with
railway representatives indicate that the use
of the T H & B station was both practical
and workable. There is no arguing this point.
What he did not add was that it would
also be costly.
As to his proposal that Hamilton should
be included in the trial service and dropped
if there was insufficient patronage, I ask you,
Mr. Chairman, to consider the situation when
the same proposal was last put to the railways
in 1962. Representatives of the city of Hamil-
ton and the Hamilton board of trade requested
that a service be inaugurated to get business-
men into Toronto around noon. Because the
railway had not sufficient time to research
the patronage for such service, it started on
April 29 on the understanding that if it was
not patronized it would be discontinued. The
service remained in operation from April
to June 24 and carried an average of four
passengers a day. The peak load for any one
day was 16 persons.
This was a comparatively inexpensive
gamble to the one that Mayor Copps is now
proposing when he suggests that we run this
at the cost that I have indicated to the
House and if it does not work abandon it.
Hamilton is presently serviced with ten
trains daily to Toronto: Two early morning
commuter trains at 6.15 and 7 a.m.; two other
trains at 8.45 and 10.54 a.m.; two mid-after-
noon trains at 2.48 and 3.05 p.m.; and even-
ing trains at 7.35 p.m., one at 9.53 and
another at 10.10 p.m. There are also ten trains
from Toronto; seven into Hamilton proper
and three into Dundas with connecting bus
links to the city. These trains are at 8.00 and
8.30 a.m., 12.45 p.m., 4.20, 4.25, 5.20, 6.15,
6.20, 6.50 and 11.10 p.m.
The average passenger volume for all
trains per day is 50 persons or an average
of five persons per train; and these are up-to-
date statistics.
Hamilton is also served with extensive bus
connections that total 84 trips daily both
ways between that city and Toronto. The total
daily passenger average by bus is 747 people
on 84 trips. More than two-thirds of these
people use 18 express buses that operate
between the two cities.
It cannot be said that Hamilton lacks
public transport with Toronto.
The judgment of the government in not
extending the commuter experiment service
into Hamilton on the base of cost alone, I
think, is a justifiable one, remembering that
this service is being inaugurated to test the
acceptability of this form of transportation
by a travelling public that is strongly oriented
MARCH 10, 1966
1401
to automobiles. The rail corridor between
Burlington and Dunbarton has been con-
sidered by experts as more than adequate to
carry out all the tests that are required for
the experiment to prove the things in actual
operation that we simply must know before
we contemplate the expenditure of funds that
I have described here tonight.
In all reasonableness, and conscious of our
role as a responsible authority dealing with
public funds, the additional cost of going into
Hamilton, to the Toronto, Hamilton and
Buffalo terminal as proposed by Mayor Copps,
would be unwarranted in the full light of the
circumstances, until the rail commuter project
has adequately proven that it merits the con-
siderable capital expenditure that would be
required in expanding it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
reference to a few of the questions that were
proposed. On the matter of expenditures
at Burlington to handle the commuter service
that is contemplated and that would be put
into effect, there will be no expenditures
because the existing facilities are adequate.
Reference was made by the hon. member
for Downsview, I think he made reference
to the Chicago Northwestern rail experiment
in Chicago, and I can tell him that we went
down and spent two days watching that
operation and examining it in careful detail.
It was that efficient experiment, now a full-
blown operation, that had more effect on
our decision to implement a trial service in
this 52-mile corridor than any service we saw
on the North American continent.
Mr. Singer: Did you speak with Mr. Heine-
man?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, we spoke
with Mr. Heineman, a very able, interesting
man. I must say his advice to us was that
we were on the right track.
Now the premise that more passengers
make it an economic success is not a fact.
How many more passengers would you have
to have to make an economic fact out of the
required expenditures to which I have made
reference tonight? I have pointed out to the
House before that we never contemplated
this to be a profit-making operation. If it
succeeds in making a profit, so much the
better. If it does, it will help us to expand
the service, maybe lower the fares. This has
been done for purposes of determining the
extent of the economy that can be accom-
plished in attracting people to use public
transportation instead of using the roads, this
was basic to it. When you consider that
close to the total capital cost and operational
deficit over the trial period will not cost
too much more than a mile of the elevated
section of the Gardiner expressway, I think
it is a sensible exercise in good economy.
Now then, in answer to the hon. member
for Halton, Mr. Chairman. The starting date;
we hope to start as early in 1967 as possible.
The equipment is on order, the locomotives
were ordered some time ago, the rail cars,
both locomotive-hauled and self-propelled
will be delivered we expect in December
or January. It will take a trial run— a dry
run, if you like— over a period of some time
to adapt to proper schedules, all those things
that are necessary, before you put a service
like this into operation, to ensure that it will
be effective and efficient before we ask
passengers to board it.
Proposed station locations: these are still
under consideration. I would say with re-
spect to this matter, Mr. Chairman, if I can
find the information that I have, I will keep
looking and come back to it.
This matter of station locations, Mr. Chair-
man, has been under consideration for quite
some time and I would like to point out to
the hon. member that some of them are
very closely spaced. Some of them are less
than a mile apart. Some of them are a mile
and a half, or something along that line.
Let me say this then, to the hon. member
for Halton: in order to provide a satisfactory
commuter rail service, the maintenance of
schedules and the maximizing of train fre-
quency during peak periods is vital. The
limitations placed on the trial commuter rail
service due to friction with normal train
operations and physical restraints at Union
station, have established a maximum fre-
quency during peak periods to be at 20-minute
intervals.
Surveys have shown that a service with a
lesser train frequency would be unaccept-
able in our view. In order to maintain a
schedule with a 20-minute frequency during
peak periods, limitations are placed on the
number of allowable stops and station spac-
ing is most important. The following factors
were considered when deciding on station
locations for this trial service.
1. Number of dwelling units within catch-
ment area of a station, in order to determine
potential patronage. A catchment area is
defined as an area within a five-minute walk,
or a ten-minute drive from a station.
2. Number of persons presently using com-
muter trains at each station.
3. Distance to nearest station.
4. General accessibility.
1402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
5. Minimizing nuisance value of noise and
vehicle activity in adajcent residential areas.
It has been suggested that we could intro-
duce a skip-stop service. In other words,
stop at one station on one run, skip it the
next time and pick up another station, and
vice versa. The effect of introducing a skip-
stop or alternate-stop type of operation
would be to reduce the train frequency at
alternate stations during the peak periods,
creating a 40-minute service. Minimum 20-
minute headway permitted and additional
equipment would be necessary.
Now with respect to particular stations,
and this is tentative, all station locations are
still under consideration.
Clarkson: dwelling units in the catchment
area, 3,600; present rail commuters, 120.
Clarkson station is presently in, by the way.
It has been proposed that Lorne Park sta-
tion be dropped: Dwelling units in the
catchment area, 1,900; present rail commu-
ters, 90; distance to nearest station, 1.6
miles.
Port Credit station is to be maintained, it
will be in the service: Dwelling units in the
catchment area, 8,200; present rail com-
muters, 215. We expect these figures to rise
sharply.
Lakeview station, at present we would
say that it is out: Dwelling units in the
catchment area, 2,400; present rail com-
muters, 60; distance to the nearest station,
1.7 miles.
It is also considered that we would drop
the Dixie station. Dwelling units in that
catchment area are 3,200; present rail com-
muters, 80; distance to the nearest station,
.9 miles.
Long Branch station will remain in the
service, as presently contemplated: Dwelling
units in the catchment area, 19,000; present
rail commuters, 120.
Now to move east.
Scarborough: Dwelling units in the catch-
ment area, 23,000; estimated commuter rail
passengers, 940.
Eglinton: Dwelling units in the catchment
area, 11,000. Estimated commuter rail pas-
sengers, 640.
Guildwood: Dwelling units in catchment
area 6,300; estimated commuter rail pas-
sengers, 680.
Now to go back to this matter of station
spacing, Mr. Chairman, I would say this to
the hon. member for Halton and to the
House, to maintain a 20-minute peak period
simply means that you have to have enough
time to accelerate to a certain speed and
decelerate to a certain speed, and this is
difficult, if not impossible, in short distances
between stations such as I have made refer-
ence to, 1.6 miles, 1.7 miles, .9 miles.
It just is not possible to get up enough
speed on the one hand, and slow down suffi-
ciently, to stop at these stations so closely
spaced, and maintain a 20-minute period
service. And of course, I think the whole
success of the proposed operation hinges on
at least a 20-minute peak service.
So I hope I have explained these ques-
tions satisfactorily to the hon. members. I
will do my best to answer any more.
Mr. Kerr: Mr. Chairman, I was just
wondering if there was any change west of
Clarkson?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: West of Clark-
son? No, the proposed stations are all east
of Clarkson.
Mr. Walker: Is Scarborough the last sta-
tion going east?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, actually
not. I think Guildwood is east of Scarbor-
ough, if I am not mistaken and then, of
course, there is Dunbarton.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, may I first
say that in a lot of the discussion by the
hon. Minister, he has been talking about
Mayor Copps at Hamilton. I would just like
to say that we are discussing this for the
first time on the estimates here in the
House, and whether Mayor Copps has been
playing politics for a year or two years in
Hamilton is his problem, not ours. We are
discussing this on the basis of what we feel
is needed for the people in Hamilton.
I would like to point out a few things here.
Even taking the figures that the hon. Minister
has presented, the top figure of 96 trains per
day going in, he would discover that he still
has eight hours free time on the tracks.
I do not know where the hon. Minister got
his schedules from, he told us about ten pas-
senger trains per day between Hamilton and
Toronto. Well, let me point out to you, Mr.
Chairman, I have the new schedule that is in
effect now and from Toronto to Hamilton
there are six trains and from Hamilton to
Toronto there are five trains.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Is this total, T H
& B and CN?
Mr. Davison: No, this is the CN. With the
T H & B I think there are two trains. The
MARCH 10, 1966
1403
figures I gave were six and five, now where
the hon. Minister gets ten trains, I do not
know. The hon. Minister was talking about
the good type of service the trains give in
Hamilton, well, he should take a look at the
schedule and see when you can catch these
trains.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: See what?
Mr. Davison: See when you can catch the
trains. You can get one at 6.15 in the morn-
ing, another one at 7, another one at three
in the afternoon, and then another one at
9.15 at night from the CNR. Now if you call
that a schedule, a good commuter service
schedule-
Mr. Singer: It would be all right if you
sleep in.
Mr. Davison: Yes, if you sleep in, it is all
right.
Mr. Singer: If you work at nights on the
graveyard shift.
Mr. Davison: The hon. Minister was also
talking about the cost of the service coming
in, having to build another track. Well, tak-
ing the hon. Minister's figures, if you have
eight hours free time in 24, why would it not
still be possible to bring the commuter service
in on the track they have? You cannot argue
that the signal setup is not good, it is one
of the best in Canada. Why would they not
be able to run their commuter service if they
have a free track eight hours out of every 24?
Even taking the hon. Minister's figures.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Of course, Mr.
Chairman, I thought I had explained that.
First of all, to get back to the figures I men-
tioned about trains. Obviously the hon. mem-
ber left out those trains that go in and out
of Dundas, and I made reference to them. I
included those because they do serve Hamil-
ton. This is how I made up the ten trains
that are actually serving the Hamilton area.
I have gone to Hamilton myself and gotten
off at Dundas and went in by bus, and it is
not too bad.
But in any case, the hon. member says that
there are eight hours a day left over when he
multiplies 96 trains by something or other.
But it should be a rather obvious fact that
you cannot run trains without some headway
between them, you cannot run just feet or a
mile behind each other, there has to be a
spacing, particularly for freight trains. I can
tell you that 96 freight trains a day leaves
only 13 minutes between trains.
Now you cannot fit or mix fast-frequency
commuter trains in between freight trains that
run on a 13-minute headway, it is a physical
impossibility. It is two different types of rail
operation entirely. I point out to the hon.
member too that that volume is anticipated to
rise to 110 trains in 1966. So I think the hon.
member in calculating his time, has forgotten
the necessity of headway between trains
and particularly headway between commuter
trains and freight trains must be maintained.
I submit to the hon. member that the board
of transport commissioners would insist on
it for safety purposes if nothing else. So I
think perhaps he should put that calculation
into his time factor figures.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, may I point
out that the schedule in Hamilton— and this
is for freight trains— from the time they leave
Hamilton until they get to Burlington and
leave the Burlington station is only 14
minutes.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, Mr. Chair-
man, it is not. It is not, and I made that
quite clear. It is the time schedule of those
trains from the time they leave and cross at
Hamilton junction to get to the marshalling
yards to the north of Toronto.
This is what clogs that section between
Hamilton junction and the T H & B terminal.
I would point out to anybody a chain is just
about as good as its weakest link and there
is a very extensive mileage. This is the mile-
age I am talking about, Mr. Chairman, this
is where the traffic is, this is the bottleneck.
So that the only trackage that is free is from
that junction point east to Dunbarton. That
is where the rail line to the marshalling yards
breaks to take the freight traffic off the cor-
ridor that we propose to the run the service
on.
If that had not happened, we could not
have contemplated this service at all, it
would have been impossible. If the former
freight traffic had been still on this lakeshore
corridor, the whole operation that we pro-
pose to introduce a year from now could not
have even been contemplated. This is where
the problem arises.
Mr. Gisborn: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. Minister has given a very full ex-
planation of some of the problems in extend-
ing the service beyond the points mentioned.
I understand now from his remarks that this
is an experiment to determine the operational
experience—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The acceptance
too, I would say.
1404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gisborn: I would have thought that
if this was the case that perhaps the carrot
should not have been held out and extended
to Burlington, it should have been confined
to maybe Oakville and Scarborough.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would like to
interrupt the hon. member if I may, Mr.
Chairman, I do not want to intrude but I
think I said repeately when I was reading
from the text that we have said on any
number of occasions that for the reasons I
have just outlined here within the past few
minutes, this service could not be extended
beyond these points. I do not think we ever
held the carrot out, we have never held out
the carrot that this would go into Hamilton,
never have. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member probably has some more com-
ments to make.
Mr. Gisborn: Yes. Well, one would think
that Mayor Copps of Hamilton was grasping
for the carrot anyway. He certainly appeared
to put up a good case. I cannot agree with
him 100 per cent, I have to admit that the
hon. Minister has presented a very, if I
can say, sound case.
Without the extensive investigation neces-
sary to verify some of the statistics that he
has given as to cost— I am sure I am not in a
position to do that and I think there would
be very few hon. members in a position to
investigate and to verify the cost that the
hon. Minister has given— certainly we will
have to take it for granted that there has
been some very expert advice.
But I would just like to deal with one or
two realities now that we have had this
explanation.
I understood the hon. Minister of Highways
to say that there is no need for further
facilities at Burlington. Does this include
parking facilities for the present experimental
project?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, we are speak-
ing of terminal facilities.
Mr. Gisborn: Oh, but there will be an ex-
tension of parking facilities?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Parking will be
provided to the extent that it is required.
Mr. Chairman, it might be of interest to the
hon. member to know that we have surveyed
most of the station areas to determine park-
ing requirements. We have had approval by
order-in-council to purchase land require-
ments for either four or five station locations
as of today, and we are proceeding along.
We hope to have all the property required
for station locations within the next very
short period of time.
I have some more comments to make but I
want to hear from the hon. member, if he
has anything more to say.
Mr. Gisborn: Just one, I believe. The hon.
Minister mentioned the fact that he invited
the mayor of Hamilton to consider providing
a bus service from uptown Hamilton to
Burlington to fit in with the present plans.
Receiving no commitment or submission from
the mayor, I wonder if the hon. Minister has
considered or would consider asking the
mayor for a franchise for the province to
establish a bus commuter from uptown
Hamilton to Burlington?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well I say, Mr.
Chairman, I would have some doubt about
that and I might read to you from the letter
I addressed to the mayor on January 21.
I made reference in the first two para-
graphs to the hearing and the commitment
that I made to receive the representatives of
the three railroads, and then indicated the
conclusion that I had reached as a result of
that, and went on to say then:
—as a result of these efforts I am obliged
to conclude albeit reluctantly that an ex-
tension of the full service cannot be imple-
mented during the trial period at least,
certainly in the early stages. However,
while it is difficult, if not impossible, to
be specific about time periods I would
like to state that the desirability of such an
extension should not be discounted for the
future.
It occurs to me that this is a very fair sub-
mission. I further pointed out that there are
several factors influencing the decision, the
important ones being time and cost. We
have proceeded up to this point on the
assumption, until we recently heard from
Hamilton, that the service would be from
Burlington to Dunbarton for the reasons that
I have explained to the House rather exhaus-
tively tonight, and consequently our budget
has been set up on that basis.
We have ordered sufficient equipment to
do it on that basis. Our whole scheduling
has been based on the introduction or imple-
mentation of the service early in 1967. So
when I say there are two factors involved,
time and cost, I make reference to the addi-
tional time that would be required, if a
further extension was to be considered.
Now I went on to say:
I have stated on a number of occasions
that the service for the first three years is
MARCH 10, 1966
1405
to be regarded as experimental, not that it
involves a decision at the end of three
years as to continuance of the service,
but rather it is the opinion of those who
are knowledgeable about these matters,
it will take three years of operation to
determine the myriad of things that require
to ensure that the service is the best that
could be devised.
I say the best that can be devised first
of all to attract patrons and also to retain
them: running schedules, fare structures,
station and parking facilities, feeder bus
lines, to mention a few, will require a
process of adjustment. These are among the
great number of things to be determined
during the trial period. Reference has also
been made on a number of occasions to the
important matter of presently available
track capacity— I mean trackage that lends
itself to commuter rail operations, with a
minimum of costly charges. This capacity
exists now only between Burlington and
Dunbarton in the degree required for the
operation and for the trial purpose of the
project.
I would hope that you and the good
people of Hamilton, in whose interests your
proposal has been quite appropriately made,
would view our trial endeavour as an
undertaking which, if as successful as I
am enthusiastic enough to believe it will
be, will recognize that it may now be only
the beginning of broader operations in the
field of commuter rail operations. On the
other hand, enthusiasm is one thing, but
proof and final results are another.
Now, I may be wrong. I regard those as
sensible statements. We have chosen three
years as the full trial period. It may very
well transpire that it will not take this
long to determine many of the matters we
hope to resolve. You may accept my assur-
ance that an extension of the proposed
service into Hamilton will continue to be
one of the priority matters that will be
under close scrutiny.
Then I said:
I would welcome your views on the
proposition that the Burlington service,
which will be limited at the outset to two
trains at morning and evening peak
periods, might will be augmented with
additional services if the city of Hamilton
would consider a trial feeder bus service
between downtown Hamilton and Burling-
ton. The distance is short, the time factor
is not great. Probably you already have a
service that could be modified.
Now, I have already told the House the
reaction I got to that. It seemed to me that
it might have been as good a way to deter-
mine effectively some of the potential that
existed in Hamilton for a commuter service
as any. I may have been wrong. Obviously in
the minds of the people that were so critical
about it, I was wrong. So I am not too sure
whether we should provide a service. There
is, I am sure, a very efficient bus service
presently in existence in Hamilton. I do not
think it would involve too much cost or
modification to give this a fair trial and see
what develops, but then, that is only my
opinion.
Mr. Walker: I just want to ask a question
if I might. Are we talking, Mr. Minister-
through the chair— are we talking about the
track that runs south of Highway 401? Is
this the CNR track?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes! Along the
lakeshore.
Mr. Walker: Then has consideration been
given to, let us say, the building of the neces-
sary roads to get from Dunbarton into this
track? I am thinking that all the people
coming out of Bay Ridges area— practically
the only way to get out that I know of, is to
come up to Highway 401 and go west to
Toronto. You cannot go to the Dunbarton
station on Highway 401 and I am wondering,
have all these things been worked out?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes. And if they
are not all completely worked out, sir, they
are in the process of being worked out. We
have visited most if not all of the munici-
palities involved. We visited the council and
the elected representatives, shall we say, in
Oakville, in Clarkson, in Mimico and certainly
the reeve and council of the township of
Scarborough. Now we are very much aware
that we cannot implement this service unless
patrons can get to it. So all these matters
of peak street patterns and requirements for
accessibility to these stations has been very,
very thoroughly investigated. I can assure the
hon. member that full provision will be made
for accessibility to the stations. We have
talked to a number of the communities about
feeder bus services to these station areas, and
as I say, full parking facilities will be pro-
vided. But of course, it is obvious to us,
as it is to the hon. member that these
station areas are no good if you cannot get
to them. So we are pursuing all these things.
Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I am not stire
whether I heard the hon. Minister right or
1406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not, but he was asked, if the city of Hamil-
ton did not supply a bus service to Burling-
ton, would the government then take a serious
look at supplying a bus service?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I did not
comment on that. That has never been a
matter of consideration. We have never really
considered the necessity of it. I go back to
what I said to the hon. member for Went-
worth East. I am sure there is a very good
bus system in Hamilton and, as I repeat, a
little modification of it, it occurs to me, would
not involve too much difficulty and it might
have provided us with some information that
would have been useful. We have never con-
templated doing that ourselves.
Someone asked me a moment ago as to
the source of the figures that I used in the
fairly lengthy report that I gave and I
simply point out to the House that I have
a letter from Mr. D. V. Gonder, vice-
president, Great Lakes region, Canadian
National Railways, dated February 8, ad-
dressed to me, that provides the figures that
I used in the submission to the House.
Mr. Davison: From?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The vice-presi-
dent, Great Lakes region, Canadian National
Railways. I might point out to the House
that I think he has to be accepted as an
authority.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 811 carried?
Mr. Gisborn: One question, Mr. Chair-
man to the hon. Minister. It is a brief
one. I might have missed his presentation
in this regard. The purchase of the running
equipment, the locomotives— are they all
Canadian purchases?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The locomotives
are being manufactured at General Motors
Diesel in London and the rail coach equip-
ment is being made at the plant of Hawker
Siddeley in Fort William.
Vote 811 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates of The Department of Highways.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TOURISM AND INFORMATION
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Chairman: Before
going into detail regarding this department's
plans for the fiscal year 1966-67, I would like
to refer for a moment to the year just
past. That year, 1965, saw the tourist in-
dustry make a major advance in Ontario.
During the calendar year, travel spending
in Ontario from all sources rose to a record
level of $l,484,000,00Q-a remarkable six
per cent gain over the preceding year.
I submit that this is further proof of the
dominant role played by the tourist industry
in Ontario's economy— a role that was un-
derlined by the tourist industry committee
report tabled recently by the Ontario econo-
mic council. The report states that tourism is
the largest single factor in international
trade; that foreign tourist spending alone
accounted for 6.8 per cent of Ontario's gross
provincial product as far back as 1963; that
the jobs of some 300,000 people in Ontario
stem from this spending; that, and I quote
from the report, "Its growth potential is as
great as any major industry within Ontario."
This is not idle speculation. These figures
demonstrate that tourism is an industry which
will increasingly demand the close attention
of everyone in Ontario so that its full po-
tential can be realized. Tourism is an indus-
try very broad in its scope. Its impact is
province wide. It touches the lives of every
resident of our province. It is, quite liter-
ally, everybody's business. But, because it is
so large, so diverse and so omnipresent, it
is almost impossible to deal with in specific,
tangible terms. Until very recently, develop-
ment within the industry was a hit-and-miss
proposition. Research was virtually non-
existent and guidelines were based purely on
experience rather than foresight. But in an
industry where competition was, and is, so
keen and where so much is at stake, chance
had to be eliminated wherever possible. Re-
search, hitherto an industry orphan, became
all-important.
We in The Department of Tourism and
Information are very proud of the fact that
we took the lead in this field with the
establishment of Canada's first travel research
branch in 1963. From its very inception, this
branch played a key role in formulating plans
and policies of the department. In 1964-65,
the travel research branch conducted a study
of the travel habits and expenditures of
residents of Metropolitan Toronto. Portions
of this study are still being analyzed but it
has already yielded so much valuable data
that in the coming year we plan to expand
this study to include all of Ontario.
Also, in order to understand fully the
importance of tourism and recreation as a
spending sector of the economy, a study
will be made of spending by Ontario resi-
idents on travel and recreation.
MARCH 10, 1966
1407
Other studies to be made during the year
will include:
A detailed inventory of recreation facili-
ties, tourist accommodation of all types
and present land use.
A critical examination of tourist promo-
tion and industry services to determine
whether Ontario is entitled to a larger
share of the travel market in our prime
U.S. areas which include Illinois, Michi-
gan, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Minne-
sota.
A study of what motivates U.S. tourists
to visit Ontario.
Two years ago, an early study in the U.S.
showed that Americans were well aware of
Ontario's outdoor and sporting attractions,
but knew little of our cities or our modern
way of life. That study dictated an immedi-
ate change in our advertising policy.
Since then, our advertisements in the U.S.
have tried to balance the outdoor image of
Ontario with the province's more sophisti-
cated attractions: Our good highways, bus-
tling cities, cultural events and historic sites.
In the current year, our "Friendly, Familiar,
Foreign and Near" campaign will continue
in the U.S. with full-colour, full-page, multi-
picture advertisements. I would just like to
mention that at a recent Canadian tourist
association meeting Mr. Garth Hite, publisher
of Holiday magazine, singled out this On-
tario headline as stating most clearly and
succinctly our attraction for Americans— and
we didn't use Holiday magazine last year.
To measure the highest level of impact
of each individual advertisement, we have
undertaken extensive testing to determine
what pictures and copy generate the most
interest with readers. We feel this is ex-
tremely important in today's increasingly
competitive and crowded travel advertising
field. To meet this competition for the
growing disposable incomes enjoyed by
North Americans— a market that includes not
only new travel advertisers such as Singa-
pore, increased promotional efforts by indi-
vidual U.S. states, Canadian provinces,
European and Caribbean countries, but also
the expanding leisure time industries such
as boating— Ontario's budget for advertising
directed to the tourist market has increased
from $445,000 in 1962-63 to $575,000 in
1965-66, an increase of more than 25 per
cent.
I am asking for a further increase in this
programme not only to maintain our share
of this market but to increase it.
The combination of Canada's Centennial
celebrations and Expo '67 will present On-
tario with both unparalleled opportunities
and problems in the field of tourist promo-
tion. People who may never before have
considered a Canadian vacation will be
made aware, through both editorial coverage
and advertisements in their own media, of
the attractions and events taking place in
Canada in 1967. For Ontario to reach the
maximum number of these new, potential
visitors will mean even greater advertising
and promotional efforts by this department.
Ontario advertising designed to encourage
travel within the province by other Cana-
dians and its own residents, will feature a
single region in each advertisement. This
approach will allow us to mention specific
attractions and, as in the United States
advertising, to depict the diversity of each
area through a number of photographs. A
coupon inviting the reader to write for
additional information will be included, and
these inquiries will be serviced with the
specific 24-page handbook describing that
region.
A modest direct mail campaign to a se-
lected group of first-time visitors to our
reception centres in 1965 and to those who
sent us mail inquiries in that year will be
initiated in 1966-67. It is hoped that a
detailed analysis of the results of this cam-
paign will provide us with a valuable guide
in assessing the feasibility of using similar
and larger programmes in the future.
In 1965-66 a programme was initiated to
redesign all of the department's promotional
literature. Awareness of changing tourist
needs and interests has resulted in several
publications being discontinued, others amal-
gamated, and many new ones planned.
Among our new publications for 1966-67
will be special promotion pieces for use by
travel agents and motor clubs, and one de-
signed specifically for use in the United
Kingdom. New books covering the Cham-
plain Trail from Montreal to the French
River, and the Voyageur Route from the
French River to Lake Winnipeg are
scheduled. In addition, many of our current
publications are being revised and updated
for distribution in 1966-67.
A major undertaking in this field will be
the publication jointly with The Quebec
Department of Tourism, Fish and Game of
a bilingual booklet describing North
America's most popular tourist route, leading
from Niagara Falls to Quebec City. This
booklet will be ready in late 1966 for dis-
tribution to the many motorists who will be
1408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
heading for Expo '67 and will be distribu-
ted by the Canadian government travel
bureau as well as the two provinces.
This co-operation with the federal and
Quebec governments will be displayed in an-
other major project during the coming year:
the hosting of the annual convention of the
society of American travel writers. Respon-
sibility for Ontario's share of this convention
will rest with the department's publicity
branch.
The society of American travel writers is
an organization whose membership list is
composed of writers, editors and photog-
raphers from the major newspapers and
magazines in North America. In addition,
most of the continent's best known freelance
travel writers belong to the organization and
will be participating in the convention. The
group will be visiting parts of Ontario and
Quebec, with the cost being shared by the
federal government and the two provinces.
Also, many of the other provinces will be
visited on pre- and post-convention tours.
We were successful in obtaining this con-
vention despite bids from Turkey, Hawaii,
Florida and Costa Rica. It is particularly
appropriate that we should be the host in
1966, the pre-Centennial year, as we will
have an opportunity further to acquaint this
influential group with greater personal
knowledge of an area that will be the con-
tinent's greatest travel target in 1967.
The press relations section will continue
its programme of specialized mailings to
newspapers, magazines, house organs, and
so on, and will provide specially requested
articles. Material is also prepared for special
projects occurring within the department and
in co-operation with other government de-
partments.
The photographic section will continue to
photograph Ontario's chief tourist attractions
and events for use in the department's adver-
tising, publications and publicity pro-
grammes. Also, this photographic service is
provided to other government departments,
as requested. The motion picture section will
co-ordinate production of two 16 mm motion
pictures during the current year, one to re-
place the Trent waterway film, produced
several years ago, and another on fresh
water fishing in Ontario.
The Trent waterway film, now in our
library, has been one of the most popular
travel films produced in North America, and
because of the greatly increased interest in
boating, the new developments along the
waterway, and the tourist areas traversed, it
is essential that the film be updated. To
date, no fresh water fishing film is available
and the success of our film, "Let's Talk
Hunting," which covers a variety of hunting
possibilities, indicates that there is a definite
demand for this type of fishing film.
In 1965-66 we completed our first French
version of a department film, the award-
winning "Upper Canada Village." This ver-
sion is now in distribution and it is expected
that the translation of other of the depart-
ment films into French and German will be
undertaken.
The expanding role of the special pro-
motions section will include the afore-
mentioned society of American travel writers
convention. In addition, in co-operation with
the federal government, we will be welcom-
ing travel trade missions from Great Britain
and Europe during the year. It is estimated
that at least 150 individual writers, photogra-
phers, broadcasters and travel agents will visit
Ontario through arrangements made by our
department throughout the year.
A programme to improve and expand the
effectiveness of personalized travel informa-
tion by mail service was implemented in
late 1965. The ultimate objective is to pro-
vide a faster and more efficient process, ca-
pable of answering inquiries about all aspects
of Ontario's tourist industry through the
medium of a personal letter to the inquirer.
Full utilization of the one automated letter-
producing unit indicates we are not totally
dependent on paid advertising to generate
an extensive literature distribution. A more
selective audience can be reached through
the medium of a direct mail campaign which,
because of great flexibility in style and
approach, enables us to increase the effec-
tiveness of our travel counselling services.
A new special group of travel counsellors
to increase our competence in that field is
under development. University educated, as
a qualifying standard, these young ladies are
knowledgeable, personable, sophisticated and
well mannered, capable of adding to the
prestige of this department and this govern-
ment by discharging their duties and assign-
ments with a high degree of perfection. Two
members have now been recruited and have
been assigned to the new ultra-modern travel
information centre at 185 Bloor street east.
This centre utilizes the most modern tech-
niques in travel counselling facilities. Again,
as in our personalized letter campaign, the
prospective vacationer is given recognition as
an individual, and accorded personal service.
As travel plans are discussed with the travel
counsellor, a colour slide presentation enables
the visitor to become acquainted with the
MARCH 10, 1966
1409
particular area of interest. In addition to On-
tario literature, the literature of all Canadian
provinces is available at the centre.
A programme to improve the scope and
effectiveness of the inquiry list service has
been implemented. Inquiries received by de-
partment staffs at sports and travel shows are
now available to tourist operators, regional
councils and recognized tourist organizations
throughout Ontario on a day-to-day basis.
For example, inquiries received during the
Kansas City sports show a few weeks ago
were in the hands of the trade before the
show ended.
However, all the promotion in the world
will go amiss unless we have a strong and
effective tourist plant to back it up, a plant
that includes the 14 development offices and
the 17 tourist information reception centres
of the department's tourist industry develop-
ment branch. Ontario is perhaps unique in
the tourist industry in that the encourage-
ment and improvement of accommodation
services and facilities is an integral part of
the entire departmental programme. Many of
the states in the U.S. and most of the other
provinces do not have the close co-ordination
among their advertising, development and
promotional efforts and the businessmen who
are directly involved in the tourist industry.
Our field officers will continue to provide
operators with all possible assistance and ad-
vice on the operation of their business. This
may range from suggesting a promotional and
publicity campaign to helping to plan the
layout and design of new rooms or cottages.
This year we plan to expand our programme
of training seminars. There will be at least
24 across the province, conducted in con-
junction with the Canadian tourist associa-
tion, regional tourist councils and chambers
of commerce. These will be aimed primarily
at staff, and include expert speakers on such
subjects as:
What the tourist industry means to our
area; how to meet and greet guests; salesman-
ship techniques for retail clerks and wait-
resses; putting area resources to work to build
up tourist attractions; staff selection and train-
ing, hospitality skits, budgeting and many
others.
A pilot project this year will provide in-
struction to students of selected high schools
with a view to the possible inclusion of tour-
ism as a curriculum item in years to come.
This programme, if successful, will be ex-
panded in the immediate future.
The programme of grants to regional tour-
ist councils continues on the same basis as
last year. While there are certain problems in-
herent in the organization of regional coun-
cils, we find that this has been outweighed
by the optimism created in areas where
smaller tourist organizations, chambers of
commerce and individual operators had never
attempted to work together before.
The improvement of food and food coun-
selling is an area in which the department
intends to expand its activities by: Menu
planning; kitchen layout; waitress training;
food preparation techniques.
The operation of the 17 tourist reception
centres maintained by the department at the
border-crossing points continues to improve
and expand. Some time in 1966, we expect
to have four new buildings of an outstanding
and distinctive design at locations where we
have been forced because of highway
changes and other factors, to use trailers.
At the reception centres this year, we will
again register our guests on individual elec-
tronic data processing registration cards.
From this we have an immediate picture
on the origin of our tourists, the volume
coming through at each border-crossing point
and their destination.
Our programme of inspection, licensing,
approval of new construction, investigation of
complaints, and enforcement of legislation
continues. From our activities and plans, you
will realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are
dedicated to providing an atmosphere in
which private enterprise may expand and
flourish. Unfortunately, there will always be,
it seems, some businessmen who will defy
good business ethics and whatever rules
and regulations exist. In this respect, we have
been forced, reluctantly, to embark on a
number of prosecutions this past season and
have obtained convictions against six oper-
ators with a few others still pending.
Another project on which we will be work-
ing is the establishment of tourist or travel-
generating attractions, on a sound economic
basis. The procedure of this is fairly simple
and will, we expect, produce some excellent
results.
Each community or tourist area will be
surveyed by our staff to determine whether
or not enough travel business comes into a
community or an area to warrant the capi-
tal expenditure on an attraction. This pro-
gramme has been applauded by the research
branch of the industrial development bank
and, as the techniques improve, we expect
that a whole new series of businesses will
be created.
The souvenir promotion programme will
continue this year as a result of the success
achieved in generating interest in production
1410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and sale of marketable gift items emblematic
of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I have already referred
in passing to the tourist potential of 1967,
Canada's centennial year. But, if we are to
realize this potential, Ontario must offer the
visitors a sustained programme of events and
celebrations. The encouraging and co-ordi-
nating of these is a large and complex task,
a task being carried out with great efficiency
by my department's centennial planning
branch.
A major part of the work of this branch
in the coming year will be the finalization of
planning in the 748 communities which now
have active centennial committees. To aid
in this task, the branch will hold a series of
26 workshops across the province in April
and May in order to work on problems at the
local level and assist in the completion of
individual community programmes. The urg-
ency in completing plans in 1966 will be
stressed, as will the need for vigilance in
sustaining centennial year excitement follow-
ing, and prior to, July 1 celebrations.
A special programme of celebrations and
events is being prepared for Queen's Park
throughout the 1967 calendar year. Particu-
lar attention will be devoted to July and
August when the summer tourist season is at
its peak. We already have received promises
of assistance and participation in these events
from The Department of National Defence.
A concentrated effort will be made by
the branch to have those communities with-
out centennial committees, at the present
time, organize and plan programmes for 1967.
A series of meetings with women's regional
and area representatives and groups is being
undertaken across the province to keep this
important sector well informed and to ensure
their enthusiasm is sustained.
As final results of a successful year of
events will depend on the widest involvement
of people themselves, a concentrated effort
will continue through the branch's news-
letter, newspapers, committee meetings, and
by a corps of speakers to enlist more and
more citizens in the actual events and cele-
brations. Performing arts, visual arts, and
folk art presentations, scheduled throughout
the province, will create a cultural impact
that will continue in the years to follow.
An all-out effort is being made to assure
that this phase of the celebrations will be
a major highlight.
During the coming fiscal year the depart-
ment of public records and archives will ex-
pand its existing programmes and initiate
new ones. Public interest in history, histori-
cal attractions, and historical research has
increased greatly in recent years. This inter-
est has been stimulated by the planning for
the forthcoming centennial commemoration,
by major historical reconstruction projects,
by an increase in the establishment of local
museums, by increased university enrolment,
and by the founding of new historical and
genealogical societies. The number of per-
sons doing research in the archives and the
volume of inquiries received by mail has
grown very rapidly, and we are requesting
increases in staff to keep up with this
demand.
The basic function, of course, of the
archives proper is to acquire, preserve, and
analyze non-published records of enduring
value relating to Ontario's past. In the case
of privately owned manuscripts, the contin-
uing loss through destruction and deteriora-
tion is undoubtedly great. In the coming
year the services of one archivist will be
used exclusively to seek out and transfer
to the archives, through donation or purchase,
documents of this nature. In instances
where it is not possible to obtain the origi-
nals, efforts will be made to microfilm them.
Apart from manuscripts, the archives will
make a special effort to acquire or microfilm
scarce copies of 19th century editions of
Ontario newspapers.
Under an agreement with the federated
women's institutes of Ontario, the archives
will also undertake the microfilming of the
Tweedsmuir histories, which have been com-
piled by local institutes throughout the
province.
A new project of particular interest to the
hon. members, which is being carried out
in conjunction with the legislative library,
involves the microfilming of the pre-Hansard
debates of the Legislature as recorded in
contemporary newspapers from 1867 to the
1940s. It is expected that this project, which
will include a partial index, will be com-
pleted early in the coming fiscal year.
It is expected that a start will be made
during the next year on the publication of a
series of inventories covering the larger and
more significant record groups and manu-
script collections stored in the archives. The
archives is working closely with the recently
established Treasury board records man-
agement committee to organize a more
systematic scheduling and disposal of the
records of all government departments. It is
hoped that during the coming fiscal year a
central records depository for seldom-used
departmental documents will be in opera-
tion.
MARCH 10, 1966
1411
A second museums adviser has recently
been added to the archives staff. She is an
expert on display and design; and, during the
coming year, an increased effort will be
made to assist Ontario's 140 local museums
to raise their standards in these fields. I
might note here that the practical value of
such assistance may be gauged by the fact
that it has been estimated that over five
million visits were paid to Ontario's museums
in 1965.
The archives will also undertake directly
a special programme involving the establish-
ment of a permanent display in these Parlia-
ment buildings illustrating, by documents and
other means, the growth and evolution of
our parliamentary system. That display, we
expect, will be opened in 1967.
The historical marking programme, one
of the most active on this continent, will
be continued next year with the addition of
at least 40 plaques. It is expected that, in
the coming year, the archives will continue
and increase their support of certain projects
of archaeological field work connected with
the commemoration and marking of historic
sites. In addition to sites on land, we intend
to assist in the preservation and identification
of artifacts of historical significance re-
covered by underwater salvage.
I should also like to take this opportunity
to express again my appreciation of the
public service rendered by the archaeological
and historic sites boards of Ontario. This
advisory body, whose members include pro-
fessional historians and other persons noted
for their interest in historical development,
has been most helpful to our department in
connection with our programmes in the his-
torical field.
Ontario's newest major historical attrac-
tion is Ste. Marie-Among-the-Hurons, cur-
rently being rebuilt on the original site near
Midland. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this
is a unique project in that the work is
being carried out under the guidance of
the University of Western Ontario with funds
and administrative work being provided by
my department.
Remarkable progress was made on the re-
construction during the past summer and it
is expected that the European compound will
be completed this year. This would mean
that the entire area enclosed by the pali-
sades will be ready for the centennial year.
A start also will be made this summer on
construction of an interpretive museum at
which visitors will receive a comprehensive
backgrounding before touring the site.
It is expected that the Wye river park,
across the river from the site, will be com-
pleted this year as will the dredging of the
river. The latter task, being undertaken by
the federal government, will allow pleasure
craft to sail up the river to the site.
The Centennial centre of science and
technology, Ontario's official centennial pro-
ject, is progressing steadily. Twenty-four
outstanding citizens from across Ontario
accepted appointments to the centre's board
of trustees. The board's full-time chairman
has set up an industry committee whose
primary function is to enlist the support of
the business and industrial community.
The staff, under the director, Dr. George
MacBeath, now numbers 88. Donald K.
Crowdis has been appointed associate
director and Robert M. Hume, assistant
director.
A leased building in Don Mills contains
52,000 square feet of floor space devoted to
storage and restoration of articles for dis-
play, design and preparation of exhibits, a
woodworking and metalworking shop, and
administration offices. This temporary head-
quarters is only a few hundred yards north
of the actual site of the centre at Don
Mills road and Eglinton avenue east.
Outstanding items are being acquired as
gifts or on indefinite loan. Some of those
already in hand are the first Cobalt-60 beam
therapy unit to be put to work against cancer
in a Canadian hospital; a rare, early
Jacquard loom; Miss Supertest, world cham-
pion powerboat; steam locomotives CNR
6167 and CPR 1057; and models of steam
engines of historical and scientific importance.
Of the centre's purchases, the most im-
portant and comprehensive has been the
Matthews collection. It contains thousands
of items significant to Canada's earlier days,
ranging from steam traction engines to stage
coaches, from hearses to locomotives, and
from high-wheeled cycles to early sewing
machines. Registration, photographing and
compilation of data has been completed for
more than 1,700 items, and restoration work
is under way on many of these.
Preparation of exhibits is likewise moving
ahead. Small-scale models of the three exhibit
halls have been built, along with a large,
quarter-scale model of the orientation centre,
a type of rotating theatre with audio-visual
and other sophisticated equipment.
In the junior museum, 40 exhibit units have
been researched in outline, 15 are in the de-
sign stage and seven are in production. Other
exhibits, both indoor and outdoor and cover-
ing the fields of technology and health, are
in the planning process.
1412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An advisory committee for exhibits is being
set up. Its personnel will be drawn from in-
dustry and the academic world and its func-
tion will be to review exhibit proposals for
accuracy and suitability. It will also recom-
mend expert consultants for development of
specific exhibits.
The interest of business and industry in the
centre is growing rapidly. The industry com-
mittee is actively encouraging individual
corporations and groups of companies to
sponsor specific exhibits or "packages" being
put together by the centre staff.
In recognition of the importance of making
the centre an effective instrument of educa-
tion, a liaison committee has been set up by
Mr. John G. Crean and the hon. Minister of
Education (Mr. Davis) who is serving as vice-
chairman of the board. This committee is
advising the board of trustees and the hon.
Minister of Education on the planning of the
centre's educational activities, and on staff
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, I trust it is obvious from
what I have said here today that The Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information is main-
taining its place as a leader in the field of
tourism. Ours is a rapidly changing and
rapidly developing industry. In order to keep
abreast of these developments my department
in recent years has reorganized and expanded.
I feel that the changes that have been made
have proved extremely worthwhile and that
the many new programmes and policies now
under study will lead to even further suc-
cesses in the future.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I have a prepared text of some 45
minutes but in view of the late hour, with
your permission I have seven or eight min-
utes of comments on the report that was
tabled by this department, if you would like
to clear these out of the way this evening.
Mr. Chairman: I think it would be quite in
order for the member to take a few minutes.
Mr. Paterson: Yes. First, on commenting
on the annual report of the department, I
might make one suggestion, that the hon.
Minister might include some comparative
figures with other jurisdictions in relation to
various statistics pertaining to the tourist
industry.
In the report, the hon. Minister indicates
that there has been an increase in our tourist
industry of some six per cent over the pre-
vious calendar year. I would like to point
out to the House tonight that this is about
half of the percentage increase as it pertains
to world travel. In fact, in most retail busi-
nesses if you do not expand somewhere be-
tween five and eight per cent, you are
actually going behind. So I would state here
tonight that possibly our tourist industry is
still just in the marking-time stages.
On page four of the hon. Minister's annual
report, subsection 4, stating that the de-
partment has done certain things to create an
effective programme in relation to reception
centres, operation, maintenance and planning
of new locations and buildings— I would hope
that in the hon. Minister's reply to my criti-
cisms he could indicate where some of these
new reception centres will be located.
I was very pleased to read that part of the
report concerning the activities of the indus-
trial development bank and the Ontario de-
velopment agency in relation to the tourist
industry. I have spoken on this area at quite
some length several times. It reports that this
year some 2,600 persons were interviewed
about the possibility of starting into some
segment of the tourist business and through
these interviews some 385 have gone into the
tourist business on a fairly solid foundation.
I would commend the hon. Minister and his
associate, the hon. Minister of Economics
and Development (Mr. Randall) for moving
into this field and I hope they will move
even a little further before the session is
concluded.
The report states, concerning enforcements,
that there were six hearings and two pros-
ecutions. I recall raising a question regard-
ing the Peterborough area last year and I
believe the reply was that, if there had not
been any prosecutions in our province there
were 146 formal complaints.
I would like to comment briefly on the
new programme of giving exclusive stories
and releases to certain of the major papers in
our jurisdictions to the south. In essence, I
think this is good, but I just wonder if there is
a possibility that we are alienating the affec-
tions of rival newspapers or whether they
are given exclusive stories on Ontario that
they can run at a future date. I would hope
that the hon. Minister could verify this
point with me.
In relation to the ethnic press— and I think
these tours with editors are certainly worth-
while—I am just wondering if these people
are preparing things to send overseas in their
native language so that we might encourage
overseas travel from their articles. And I
might question too the circulation of these
various papers. I think this is an interesting
experiment and worthwhile but it should be
followed through to the ultimate end.
MARCH 10, 1966
1413
The hon. Minister reports on films and the
showing of them through the national film
board and other centres, but I just wonder
what is the estimated viewing audience that
sees these films and projections. I wonder
if there is any attempt to get these films into
our movie houses. Often we have "Canada
Reports" and so forth; has there been any
effort in the department to get these into
our movies in the various locales, not only in
Ontario but other jurisdictions? We seem to
get a lot of American tourist films clips in
the movies and I would hope there would be
some attempt at getting Ontario's in.
On page seven the report relates to the
Muskoka study. I think this is a most in-
teresting study and I wonder if this particular
study will be tabled in this House. I would
further ask the hon. Minister what was the
cost of conducting this study and survey; and
possibly what new policies will be evolved
from it?
On page eight the hon. Minister reports
concerning the number of persons escorted
here in the building by our very efficient
staff of girls and I would certainly pay com-
mendation to them here tonight, because I
think they are an excellent group of ladies
and they do a very commendable job on
behalf of this government and the people
connected with this building.
I think that pretty well summarizes my
remarks, other than one last item: I note in
the annual report that the hon. Minister is
making grants to assist with underwater
archaeological investigations in the Mani-
toulin area. I just wonder if the Huey
passage, which has been very famous— or
notorious, I guess is the word— for wrecks in
the past, dating back to our earliest history,
if some consideration could be given to that
area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks
up to my prepared text.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the com-
mittee rise and report a certain resolution
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report a certain
resolution and ask for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with
these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.30 o'clock, p.m.
No. 47
ONTARIO
Legislature of Ontario
Befcatea
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Fourth Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Friday, March 11, 1966
Speaker: Honourable Donald H. Morrow
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1966
Trice per session $3.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, March 11, 1966
Estimates, Department of Tourism and Information, Mr. Auld, continued 1418
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 1441
1417
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Friday, March 11, 1966
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have, as
visitors to the Legislature today, in the
Speaker's gallery, members of the travel trade
mission from Great Britain and Ireland; and
in the east gallery, students from Gracedale
public school, Toronto; and, in various gal-
leries, students from Sunnyview public
school, Toronto.
Petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. R. Gisborn (Wentworth East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Rowntree). It was pre-
sented before the orders of the day yesterday
but the hon. Minister was away on business.
I wonder if I could put the question now and
if the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) can
answer it, fine. If not, we will wait until we
can get an answer.
The question is: In view of reports that
industries in Hamilton and the Ford plant at
Oakville will not accept job applications from
workers laid off by Studebaker who are over
40 years of age, will the hon. Minister, with-
out delay, consider passing through the
House Bill No. 35, An Act to prevent discrim-
ination in employment because of age, and
bring forward the commencement date?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I am not in a position to answer the
question this morning as it has just appeared.
I understood the hon. member to say that he
had a question yesterday as well; I will ar-
range to have these questions answered on
Monday.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) inform the House as to the extent
of the occurrence of infectious hepatitis in
the Thornbury area?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, no hepatitis has been reported
thus far in 1966 from Thornbury town, or
Collingwood township in which the town is
situated; but St. Vincent's township, which
adjoins Collingwood township to the west,
has reported five cases in January, two cases
in February and four in March.
Mr. R. M. Whicher (Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Prime Minister.
As there were only 155 weekdays in the
fiscal year, 1964-65, on which the Legisla-
ture was not sitting, would the hon. Prime
Minister explain to the House how the gov-
ernment arrived at the allowances paid to the
hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr.
Root), for his services to the Ontario water
resources commission, of $10,175 plus
$2,059.39 travel expenses?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in the first
place I would say that the government does
not arrive at the allowances paid to the mem-
bers of the Ontario water resources commis-
sion. These amounts are arrived at by the
commission itself. This is going to require
some statistical research from the water re-
sources commission, so I will take this as
notice and produce the answer when I am
able to get it from the commission itself.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question that I was going
to address yesterday to the hon. Minister of
Labour. He was not here then and is, I
understand, ill today, but perhaps I can put
it on the record: Has the hon. Minister been
given any assurance by the publishers of the
three Toronto dailies that if Mr. Elmer
Brown, international president of the ITU,
comes to Toronto to resume negotiations in
the printers' strike, they will be willing to sit
down around the bargaining table?
Mr. Speaker, I wonder in this connection
if I might ask the hon. Prime Minister
whether or not the government would be
willing to table the correspondence they have
had with the O F of L on this issue? I think
it would answer, and let the public know,
the exact position on both sides and perhaps
1418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
avoid a series of questions. And I think the
public is entitled to know. Would the gov-
ernment consider tabling that correspond-
ence?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would be very happy
to go into that and see if this might be the
answer to your questions. The hon. Minister
of Labour is not here this morning, but I will
see that this is dealt with, the same as for
the hon. member for Wentworth East.
Mr. MacDonald: My other question, Mr.
Speaker, is to the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart). Is the hon. Attorney General in a
position to confirm or deny the statement by
Dr. W. G. Prueter, immediate past president
of the London board of education, that there
is a black market for birth control pills oper-
ating in that city and perhaps elsewhere
throughout Ontario?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I learned this morning that there is
an article in the London Free Press. I have
not seen a report of the statement made by
Dr. Prueter and I am therefore not really in
a position to comment on something I have
not read. I know that the article has been
published, but to answer the question: "Am I
in a position to confirm or deny the state-
ment?" I must say I am not, at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 12th order; House
in committee of supply. Mr. L. M. Reilly
in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TOURISM AND INFORMATION
(continued)
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, before I commence my remarks, I
would just like to clear up a little misunder-
standing that was alleged here in the House
the other day. An hon. member of the House
castigated we Liberals for not doing any
research concerning our estimates. I would
just like to draw to the attention of this
House that, in these particular estimates, our
people have studied the province of New
Brunswick, the province of Quebec, the state
of Vermont, the state of Michigan, and one
of our western provinces— as well as the
various facets of our internal industry. And
I would just like to underline this before I
commence my remarks.
Last year, in the hon. Minister's (Mr.
Auld's) remarks concerning this department,
he indicated that there were two principal
techniques being used to increase our tourist
business: one, utilizing the most modern
methods of communication; and second, to
create an environment in which tourists can
converge. The hon. Minister further stated
that his department had not made a full and
balanced impression for our province, but
that he was initiating steps to correct this
situation.
These two principles were to be expanded
into four principles in the advertising for
our province, (a) to balance our image; (b)
to create an impression for our province; (c)
to direct information to bona-fide prospects;
and (d) to extend our tourist season.
I do not think any of us can argue that
these are not a good set of principles on
which to base our tourist programme, but I
would like to point out to this House that
this government has failed the tourist indus-
try in our province this past 23 years— and
has still failed to fulfil the needs of our
industry during the few years in which this
department has been reorganized.
It has failed to develop a provincial
image. It has failed to keep pace with other
jurisdictions competing with us. It has failed
to preserve and interpret, into an operative
programme, the many facets of our history.
It has failed to stimulate development in the
less fortunate economic regions of our prov-
ince. And it has failed to meet the financial
obligations confronting our expanding and
changing tourist accommodation business.
I would like to deal with the problems of
balancing our image and creating an impres-
sion for our province. The report of the
economic council on the tourist industry
states that:
It is largely impracticable to build a
tourist image on behalf of all our province
because of our size and variety.
As I stated in a comment on this report, I
believe it can be done— with correlated
planning of all government departments,
with related advertising and promotional
efforts around a basic theme. I do not think
we should take a fatalistic approach to this
problem.
"Hospitality" is spoken all over the very
large province of Quebec, and everything is
the "biggest and the best" in the state of
Texas. For many years we promoted Ontario
as the "great vacation land" for hunters and
fishermen, but our game has diminished and
our lakes are becoming fished out and this
has somewhat of a lacklustre appeal to many
dissatisfied sportsmen. We still have the
MARCH 11, 1966
1419
potential to rejuvenate these two great assets
to attract thousands of people and exploit
this resource in the pre- and post-summer
holiday periods, which would help extend
our tourist season.
Then we had the campaign to "know On-
tario better," and I always thought of these
as beer-type advertisements. Possibly this
encouraged some travel within our province,
but I really do not think that it was effective.
And now we have "friendly," "foreign,"
"familiar" and "near."
It is no secret that the name "Ontario"
prompts at most a "ho-hum" from Americans
generally, and usually a quizzical look. On-
tarians are regarded in many quarters as
Eskimos, and in others as lumberjacks wear-
ing mackinaws and probably speaking
French.
Hon. G. C. Wardrope (Minister of Mines):
There is nothing wrong with that! I am
proud of our miners and lumberjacks.
Mr. Paterson: There is nothing wrong with
that— I agree. They are very fine people, but
this is the impression we have left on the
jurisdictions of the south.
Hon. L. P. Cecile (Minister of Public Wel-
fare): The hon. member does not travel
much.
Mr. Paterson: I travel as often as I can.
I would hope that the hon. Minister does a
better job of selling his department to his
colleagues on the Treasury benches than he
does in selling his province in the United
States.
An hon. member: And you travel at your
own expense, too!
Mr. Paterson: Yes, I travel at my own ex-
pense.
Our image in the United States could not
be described as "dreadful," it cannot be de-
scribed at all— for we have no real image.
In the USA we are a faceless province. I
point directly to the economic development
survey which says that Canadians are re-
garded by Americans as "respected strangers,
first, and as slow Americans, second."
"Strangers"; "slow Americans"; that is how
Canadian nationalism and Ontario provin-
cialism express themselves in the United
States.
Personally, I am not an advertising man
nor am I a great ideas man— and certainly not
a sensational promotional agent— but I do
have an idea that' could give our province a
theme, a special image, an identifiable image, '
that will not only enthuse our own popula-
tion and give people pride in our province,
but give an image that will attract millions
of visitors from neighbouring jurisdictions
and, in fact, from countries all over the
world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Paterson: We have had these symbols
—the artifacts— the potential for this theme—
for almost 100 years, 99 to be exact— and yet
we have never recognized it, never utilized
it to the fullest. We have not even tried to
capitalize on this most obvious asset to our
province— that we are the Royal province in
the Dominion of Canada. What better theme
could we merchandise than: "Come to
Ontario to be treated royally— to see pa-
geantry." Our American cousins would see
and experience something that is not avail-
able in their own country. Why do I pro-
pose that we are the Royal province? Why
should we adopt such an image? Well,
basically the time is ripe; it could not be
more opportune as we go into our Centennial
celebrations. What more perfect staging could
be envisaged to create and perpetuate this
image?
First of all, we have a Queen; we have
the nation's capital within our boundaries,
complete with changing of the guard and the
red-coated Royal Canadian mounted police;
we have the Royal conservatory of music
and the Royal Ontario museum; the Royal
winter fair; the Royal military college; the
Royal York hotel; and many other centres
of accommodation, in various centres, that
denote royalty.
An hon. member: What about Crown
Royal?
Mr. Paterson: Crown Royal? I forgot to
mention that.
In Guelph, we have the Royal city— the
College Royal; and in many of our centres
we have regiments such as the Royal Cana-
dian dragoons.
Our imaginations could run rampant on
this particular theme, a theme that has not
been utilized to give our province a distinc-
tive image. I might comment that even the
pith helmets, worn by the city of Toronto
police officers in the summer, help establish
this image; but possibly the most effective
role in establishing this image could be
played by our sadly neglected office of the
Lieutenant-Governor. This is a symbol of the
Crown; of royalty; the same crown that
appears on our licence plates; the same system
that denotes our highways systems. Let us
1420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
follow this theme and have our Lieutenant-
Governor appear regularly, in full regalia, at
as many major events as possible throughout
the breadth and width of our province.
I personally do not feel that this would
be an intrusion on the dignity of this office;
it would be a utilization of this office and
would create an esteem in the mind of the
general public, and an envy of Ontario in the
eyes of our visiting American friends. I would
certainly hope that this high office will be
used in as many places throughout our prov-
ince, and as often as possible, during our
Centennial year. One could expand on this
theme even further— for hours on end-
but I have merely introduced this particular
theme to point out to this House that we in
Ontario can develop an image, that we can
make a lasting impression on our American
visitors that will make them want to return
to Ontario year after year. And, just as
important, it will give us, the people of On-
tario, a real sense of pride in our own
province.
Closely related to this theme is another
fundamental advertising method to further
enhance our province in the eyes of the
general public, both within our province and
throughout the world. This is publicity by
association, a technique that never grows old.
In what better way could we raise the stature
of a vacation in Ontario than by having, say,
Prince Philip as our guest to hunt moose in
Kenora? To have the Royal yacht "Britannia"
cruise the Great Lakes and pay courtesy
calls at many of our ports. Or we could bring
other international figures in sports and enter-
tainment on a holiday in Ontario.
Can you imagine the impact and lasting
impression left by an Ontario holiday, having
seen Bing Crosby spend a weekend playing
golf at one of our summer resort hotels? Or
possibly Bob Hope taking the railroad to
Moosonee. Terrific publicity! This subtle
advertising policy has never or seldom ever
been used by our tourist promotion depart-
ment. It could be, and it could pay hand-
some dividends.
In conclusion on this problem of creating
an image for our province, I again reiterate
that this can be done. We have the symbols,
we have the tools and, most important, we
have the ability to project Ontario as the
foremost area in North America for tourist
travel.
The next area with which I would like to
deal is that of highway tourist centres. On
page 15, the economic report deals with the
large category of tourists, classified as sight-
seers, who come by car. It states that they
like to be led, hour by hour, off the thruways
to see attractions of every type. It further
states that we must keep teasing them on,
revealing further interesting things to do and
see. To me it is at our border information
centres, and more especially at our semi-
operative information centres along Highway
401, where we could sell the real Ontario
to our sightseeing tourists.
For the past two years I have spoken
regarding the lack of real involvement of this
department in the operation of the informa-
tion centres that are required in the service
centres along Highway 401. I have brought
to the attention of this House the financial
problems of the Ontario travel council, a
group formed from the regional tourist
councils to finance and operate these informa-
tion booths. And I understand that, possibly,
this council is floundering. In my comments
on these booths I have stated that the theory
behind their establishment was to get the
people off 401, to get them to travel to other
parts of Ontario, and to extend their stay in
Ontario.
On page 61 of the economic report is the
following paragraph:
Directly fronting on our thruways and
on our major two-lane arteries are few
tourist attractions which offer visitor oppor-
tunities to spend time and money. One has
to get off the main roads. The shun-piker is
potentially our most profitable and most
satisfied tourist.
Any government sponsored diversionary
programme must of course always be gov-
erned by considerations of safety and reali-
zation that there are travellers who do
have specific targets and want to get there
as quickly as possible. But thruways need
little or no advertising. They readily find
their patronage. What we must merchandise
are our off-highway attractions. In so doing,
we assist in distribution of traffic more
equitably and reduce somewhat the impact
on bypassed communities.
In my opinion, these information centres—
and I believe there are 30-odd along High-
way 401— which were required to be built
by this government, which could be a great
selling point for their immediate area as
well as other areas in Ontario, have been a
failure.
They have failed because the government
has failed them. This government has failed
to finance them adequately. This government
has failed to give a specific course of training
for these attendants, as confirmed by the
hon. Minister in last year's Hansard on page
1070. These information booths stay open
only a part of the day during the height of
MARCH 11, 1966
1421
the tourist season. They are closed for almost
ten months of the year, which is certainly
no encouragement to extending our tourist
season.
The following are comments from news-
paper reports concerning the regard in which
they are held by members of one sponsoring
body, and I quote from the October, 1965,
Windsor Star:
Removal of support from Highway 401
tourist information centres will be pro-
posed at the next meeting of the Essex-
Kent regional tourist council because of
alleged misuse of council funds. "I am
going to recommend that we have nothing
further to do with the centres," said the
president of the council. The president
said the council had no say in the hiring
of the staff and that literature placed in
the centres was put away in locked cup-
boards by Department of Highways staff.
He said that girls who staffed the booths
did not have nearly enough knowledge
about the area. The girls had been chosen
by a representative of the travel council
from Toronto, and members of the area
council were not consulted about the
interviews with potential employees. They
were supposed to contact us and have us
sit in the hiring session, but this was never
done.
The president said he would recommend
the government keep its grant to the tour-
ist councils instead of giving it with one
hand and then taking it back with the
other and doing a poor job.
On December 14, a director of the Chatham
chamber of commerce made the following
statement that is reported in the London
Free Press:
He charged that some members of
Highway 401 information centres during
last summer were inadequately trained.
He said he asked girls staffing an informa-
tion centre between London and Wood-
stock test questions on Kent county. He
found the staff members had to resort to
a map when he asked for directions to
Kent county.
"Is Chatham in Kent county?" he
asked. "I think so," was the unsure reply.
I think this clearly points out the inadequate
job that these information centres have done
for us in the past. It is surely a condemna-
tion of the lack of direction and planning by
this department of government.
The reason tourist councils are discouraged
—I would certainly think the staffs at the
service centres are very discouraged with
the inattention given to all the space that
they have been required to provide; and
certainly area business interests are suffering
because traffic is not being sent off Highway
401. And I can imagine many Department
of Tourism officials are in a real quandary
about what to do with these seemingly
useless selling tools.
I would like to make the following pro-
posal to this department, a proposal which
I feel would make these centres sell Ontario
24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Now
I have formulated this idea from visits to
Williamsburg, Virginia, and visits to Green-
field village in Michigan, and have had my
thoughts further confirmed at a recent visit
to this department's new offices on Bloor
street.
I would recommend that at each of the
information centres along Highway 401, and
at our border information centres at Niagara
Falls, at Upper Canada village, and at many
of our provincial park administration build-
ings, this department instal a series of free,
pushbutton mechanical viewing screens, com-
plemented by a sound track which would
sell: first, the many area attractions and the
route to drive to each; and second, sell what
is ahead in the areas through which 401
passes— or sell our major tourist attractions in
other parts of the province.
This way we can sell our seasons, we
can sell our historic attractions, our little-
known, out-of-the way places. The adapta-
tion of this selling tool would be unlimited
with a little imagination. It could operate
with no attendant 24 hours a day, 365 days
per year; and at the same time could be
supplemented by an information attendant
during our heavy vacation period. This
method could be used to pinpoint accommo-
dation areas, especially those that have been
bypassed.
Supplemental to this, area tourist councils
or the department itself could erect area map
boards at these service centres. I believe this
is occurring in some of them. These would
do another selling job for those persons who
are just stopping for gas and who do not
take time to go into the actual service centre
itself.
I trust that this department will give this
suggestion some consideration. We have the
service centres, we have the booths, and I
think we have the technical know-how; so
let us make these service centres work for us
in all parts of Ontario.
Another complementary proposal to assist
the auto tourists has come to my attention. I
believe that there is a business group— in fact,
1422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am aware of it— about to be formed to
undertake to sell this proposal to our major
oil companies. It is somewhat like the
Acoustiguide system at Upper Canada village.
This particular group, about whom I am
speaking, has the following plan: to have in-
expensive tape recorders at our border points
for rental by a tourist and sell him pretaped
recordings that will describe the country, the
farm crops, and the important sights and
attractions along the route the tourist wishes
to travel. The tape machines can be turned
off and on at the pleasure of the tourist, and
thus he can set his own pace for travelling
through our province.
I understand that such systems are being
used in France and England. The Canadian
National Railways had a similar arrangement
away back in 1928. In Europe the recordings
come in as many as nine languages, and
sightseeing buses are equipped with a con-
sole of recordings for the convenience of
their passengers. I do hope that this enter-
prising firm can get this selling tool into our
tourist trade.
I would now like to switch to another area
in relation to statistics and advertising of this
department. One of the department's press
releases reads as follows:
Cleveland, Ohio. January 28— "Being
host to some 22.8 million U.S. visitors last
year was an all-time high for the province,"
Ontario Minister of Tourism and Informa-
tion, the Hon. James Auld, said here last
night.
In a speech to Cleveland's woods and
waters club, Mr. Auld predicted that the
total would soar to 23.4 million this year,
a figure which exceeds the entire popula-
tion of Canada.
Pointing out that Ontario is friendly,
familiar, foreign and near, Mr. Auld added
that "it is gratifying that many visitors to
this province this year, as in the past, will
be from the state of Ohio. The number
will be an estimated 1.2 million in 1966."
I would like to, at this time, question some
of the statistics used by the hon. Minister.
The Minister of a department responsible for
tourist promotion has unusual opportunities,
possibly, to mislead and evade his critics as
well as the general public, and I hope that
he will correct me if I am away off base on
these next few remarks.
The hon. Minister has taken full advan-
tage of his opportunities. We have had
lengthy explanations of just about everything
his department does except attract tourists,
and we have been given no convincing evi-
dence on which to base his department's per-
formance in that area— which is its reason for
being. Is it possible that the hon. Minister
himself does not know just how well or how
bad the province of Ontario rates in the travel
promotion field? He is certainly ingenuous if
he accepts his own figures on the tourist
movement as either satisfactory or informa-
tive.
For example, the remarks that I just gave
on his speech in Cleveland, if true, would
mean an astonishing, successful performance
—although one would wonder just where one
would put 22.8 million people in Ontario,
even if they spaced their visits throughout
the travel year. Since the average stay of
U.S. visitors to Canada is from four to five
days, and since tourist revenues for all Can-
ada from the United States will not reach
$800,000 until 1967-at least that is what the
Canadian government travel bureau hopefully
projects for the centennial year— one must
assume that the average visitor to Ontario
was able to limit his expenditures, taking 60
per cent of entries as coming to this province
—I believe these are the statistics— to less than
$1 per day. These are, of course, absurdi-
ties; and I feel that the 22.8 million figure
that the hon. Minister has solemnly an-
nounced is also an absurdity.
The truth is that less than 11 million U.S.
visitors came to all of Canada last year and I
think that the hon. Minister is quite aware of
this. What the hon. Minister is doing is taking
the DBS statistics on border crossings, which
are very different from tourist entries, al-
though they include them, and is distorting
them to show how successful his tourist pro-
motion must be. These border-crossing fig-
ures count every crossing for any purpose and
for any duration of time. A single person
working one one side of the border and living
on the other— as many do— will add some 300
units to the figure every year.
Let us take an equally specific look at how
the rest of the world's travel business is
doing in comparison to Ontario's increase—
and I did make mention of this last evening.
In a single year, the world increase— and
these are based on statistics I have received
from a large travel organization in New York
—in a single year the world increase in tourist
movement was 13 per cent, and U.S. travel to
Europe increased by nine per cent; the Ba-
hamas showed an increase in 1964 of 10.7
per cent; and the hon. Minister concludes
that in 1965 we had, roughly, a six per cent
growth here in Ontario.
If the hon. Minister concludes that there is
no use in trying to compete with the giants of
MARCH 11, 1966
1423
the travel world, let us remind him of reports
that there were some 500,000 families in the
United States, with incomes of $15,000 a year
or more, who took no trip of any kind in
1965. Is it really too much to ask that the
most prosperous province in Canada, with a
wealth of tourist facilities and natural attrac-
tions, fulfil its responsibilities to the tourist
industry to which it pays so much lip service?
Earlier I mentioned the regional tourist
councils, and reorganization was hinted as
likely to occur— I believe that will occur this
coming session. What the hon. Minister has
not revealed is that the present system of
regional councils was an administrative
blunder, since they were set up in such a
way that meaningful travel statistics could
not be obtained from them— although that
was one of their principal reasons for being.
When the councils have been reduced from
32 to a much smaller number, with realistic
boundaries in relation to the travel move-
ment, and adequate financing, then perhaps
they will work as intended.
The hon. Minister has reported that the
annual tour of visiting U.S. editors cost the
province about $10,000, plus the cost of
much hospitality from private and municipal
organizations. Each time this tour occurs—
and I believe it has been an annual event for
more than a dozen years— the department
seeks to imply that this is a massively re-
warding exercise in publicity promotion. I
should like to challenge the hon. Minister to
tell this House how much actual readership
is represented in the combined circulations of
all the publications whose editors came to
Ontario for the tour in 1965. I would dare
guess that the readership would not be any
greater than that of one Ontario paper, the
London Free Press.
These visitors are not primarily travel
writers; their stories and editorials must give
the hon. Minister an impressive group of
clippings from publications in a number of
states— this I will concede— but would the
hon. Minister, for the first time in the history
of these tours, tell us the circulations of the
papers represented, and their totals? Would
the hon. Minister also tell us what his de-
partment does to provide the thousands more
grass roots weekly newspapers in the United
States, which can be receptive media for
print and photographic publicity, with infor-
mation on Ontario's travel attractions?
We should like to know also what specific
efforts are made to include leading travel
writers of the stature of Horace Sudden and
Richard Joseph, whose columns are read by
millions, to visit Ontario. I read in the annual
report that some efforts are being made to
attract a great many travel writers this
coming year.
It is obvious that it costs the same to pro-
vide travel and hospitality for one person
whether his readership represents a few
hundred or several million prospective
visitors. The editors tour each year requires
considerable planning, much staff, and ex-
penditure from both public and private
funds. It is circulation in readership, not
clippings alone, that count in travel com-
munications. Let us have this information,
after so many years of investment in these
annual tours.
The hon. Minister, as mentioned before,
has a habit of being casual, or even careless
with his tourist figures, I feel, especially the
ones that really matter. To add a postscript
and reminder to my earlier remarks about
Ontario travel advertising, the hon. Minister
manages to spend less than the Netherlands
and much less than India, in the same market
that is our greatest source of tourist income.
In the debate on this subject nearly a year
ago, in March of 1965, the hon. Minister said,
and I quote:
I think there is tremendous potential
and we have not done much more than
scratch it.
Surely, in some 20 years of tourist promotion
activity, underwritten by fairly generous
public funds, The Department of Tourism
and Information, under its new name and its
former one, should have been able to do
more than scratch the potential? Pretty
expensive scratching, the taxpayers and the
tourist operators of this province are en-
titled to think. What will this budget be
when the hon. Minister's people really get
down to work? Since the increase in salaries
and salary expenses requested by the hon.
Minister in his estimates for the year ahead
amount to substantially more than his usual
advertising outlay in the United States mar-
ket, we can expect the department to be
remarkably successful in possibly furthering
the expense account travel among its own
army of employees. If only we were equally
competent in persuading travellers to visit
the province.
The hon. Minister is accustomed to say in
his many public utterances how much he
welcomes new and imaginative ideas to pro-
mote further travel in Ontario. I would
suggest that one way would be to enlist the
travel agent, long devoted to selling inter-
national air and steamship tours— which have
benefited our competitors abroad, but con-
tributed little to Canadian or Ontario travel
1424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—to marketing intercity package tours by
private automobile in the province of On-
tario. Hotel or motel accommodation, meals
and all other facets would be included, in
order to reach the millions more tourists
who might come here, but are unfamiliar
with our hospitality resources.
Perhaps I should explain to this House that
the same proposal was made by a worldwide
travel organization to the hon. Minister's
department several years ago. It was re-
jected, on the grounds that the province
could not provide the sum of $3,000 to assist
in printing the necessary informational bro-
chures for distribution to travel agents who
would market the tours to the travel cus-
tomers. "Too much money," was the com-
ment by the then Deputy Minister. And a
travel project that might have been truly
rewarding to this province and to its hotel
and motel operators, never got off the
ground.
Since such intercity automobile trips have
been successfully packaged and sold in
Switzerland for over 30 years, this cannot be
said to be a truly new idea, but it was new
to North America. The hon. Minister's de-
partment would have none of it however,
and no attempt was made to investigate its
possibilities.
Scratching the potential? Ontario is not
scratching very hard.
A few comparative statistics on three areas
of the state of Vermont, who have done a
very excellent recreation study: I would just
draw these to the attention of the House.
Since World War II, overnight accommoda-
tion in Vermont has increased by 113 per
cent. The greatest increase in towns where
recreation is important. Now in Ontario, the
greatest increase has been in the Kitchener
tourist region, the Windsor one into Bruce
peninsula. Not really in our true resort
regions.
In Vermont, 43 per cent of their recrea-
tional business studied in Vermont were plan-
ning to expand within the next five years.
I do not feel we have such information in
our development branch and they should get
this information to co-ordinate our planning
and advertising.
The northeastern United States has 25 per
cent of the total population of the United
States, but it has only six per cent of the
total land and water area, and only four
per cent of the total recreational acreage.
Ontario with all its resources, should capital-
ize on this fact.
I would now like to switch to the centenary
and make a few remarks in this regard.
Through lack of imagination and lack of co-
ordination between departments— same old
story— Ontario is missing, in fact has missed,
a magnificent opportunity to relate the
centennial celebration of our nation's birth
with the potential of the tourist industry in
Ontario.
The centennial is, in one sense, a private
kind of Canadian celebration, but even
though we are undoubtedly most interested
in congratulating ourselves that we have
survived for 100 years, nevertheless it must
be recognized that 1967 is a year which can
produce a bonanza for tourism in Canada.
We could, and Expo '67 will, attract liter-
ally millions of Americans and even overseas
visitors to our heartland of Ontario and
Quebec. These visitors inevitably will spend
very substantial sums of money during their
travels in Canada.
Now the Ontario economic council's report
on Ontario's tourist industry makes it perfectly
plain that we are not doing as well by our
tourists as we should. In certain respects it
is true, our performance is improving. The
hon. Minister is spending a great deal more
public money than he used to, to encourage
people to visit Ontario. Whether he is spend-
ing it wisely or not, this is what we are
debating.
It is true as well that certain tentative
efforts are being made timidly to encourage
people to smile at tourists, resist the tempta-
tion to cheat them, and learn to feed and
accommodate them distinctively and pleas-
antly, and possibly to treat them royally.
But as the economic council's report makes
perfectly clear, we are not doing enough to
develop special attractions in this province.
We are blessed with what is probably the
widest range of climate topography of any
comparable political area in the world. Our
climate ranges from almost sub-tropical at
Pelee Island and Point Pelee, in the great
.riding of Essex South, to the Arctic, up at
Moose Factory. We have more and more
greatly varied inland waterways than any
other territory in the world. We have a
burgeoning metropolis, sleepy towns, and
even the nation's capital within our borders.
We have farmlands that are as peaceful
and as quiet as the Home Counties in Eng-
land, and we have still wilderness areas that
are as bare of human habitation as any place
on earth.
Nature has given us everything we need
to provide a paradise for vacationers of every
taste. But we have done precious little to de-
velop the potential that is here. Private
initiative has done a great deal in its inevit-
MARCH 11, 1966
1425
able helter-skelter way. Ontario has more
summer cottages than all the rest of Canada
put together and private developers are
rapidly demonstrating the potential of our ski
resort areas, to just give two examples.
But there is little evidence in any of these
of any sense of real planning, of any sense of
orderly and effective development, and I do
hope that this will come. Because, as the
economic council report points out, tourism
is a vastly diversified industry. Such overall
planning must inevitably come directly from
government, or at least from government-
sponsored bodies.
It is poor marketing, I would remind the
hon. Minister, to attempt to sell a product
that has not even been designed. It is a very
tough job. It is inefficient, I believe, to at-
tempt to promote tourism in Ontario and very
little is being done to encourage the develop-
ment of tourist facilities and attractions. And
I hope in this session that such encourage-
ment will be forthcoming.
But this is just what this department is try-
ing to do. It has had no plan of action, it has
provided no real guidelines for the tourist
industry, it has done abominably little to
attempt to upgrade the facilities available for
visitors to Ontario.
The emphasis, as far as I can see, is almost
totally on the propaganda function of the
department. Tourism takes second place to
information. It does not appear to be recog-
nized by this department that a pleased and
satisfied visitor is a better advertisement for
our province than is a four-colour ad in the
New Yorker magazine. Nor, according to the
economic council report, has it occurred to
the department that government publicity can
be tied in with specific and concret attrac-
tions.
I must digress for a moment to say that I
would exempt The Department of Lands and
Forests from most of these criticisms. On-
tario's park development is, I think, one of
the few real achievements in which this tired
government can justifiably be proud. True
the economic council report points out that
our parks are being run uneconomically,
nevertheless they are fine parks and we
should be proud of them.
The contrast with Tourism and Information
is very noticeable.
Rather than encourage tourism, it often
seems as though this government is determ-
ined to destroy the industry. Now, not all the
blame can be laid at the feet of the hon.
Minister directly. It is not totally his fault
that the livelihood of independent operators
is destroyed when new highways are put
through and food and service concessions are
given to the giant oil companies. It is not
totally his fault that pollution and contam-
ination of our waterways frightens away
potential visitors. It is not totally his fault
that the food and service provided by private
tourist operators are often below any reason-
able modern standards.
But he and his department do have the
responsibility of speaking out about these
matters. They do have the right, for example,
to urge a modernization of The Innkeepers
Act— and I am glad to see that this is now
on the statutes, now that stables for visitors'
horses and so on are less important than they
were a century ago. Clean washrooms and
good food are relatively more important.
They also have a right to make representa-
tions to The Department of Highways with a
view to ensure that highway planning takes
into consideration the needs and the potential
of tourism. They also have the right to point
out in no uncertain terms what pollution can
do to our image as a land of water sports.
But let me return to my major theme of
missed opportunity. I believe that the cen-
tenary has been bungled by this government,
I believe that the government has failed
totally to provide any significant leadership to
local communities in the implementation of
the centennial grants programme. And I
would just compare this to the province of
Quebec in their fine publication showing dia-
grams of all their major undertakings.
I believe that the government has thereby
deprived the citizens of this province of a
golden opportunity, not only to significantly
increase the province's attractiveness as a
tourist designation, but also to significantly
improve the quality of life for all of us who
live in the province,
We have had enough experience in the last
decade or two to know the kind of places
people will visit. We know that the Stratford
festival brings visitors in the tens of thou-
sands, we know that Upper Canada village
does the same, we know that Ste. Marie-
among-the-Hurons will perform the same
function, we even know that racetracks, such
as our new Windsor raceway, brings in count-
less visitors and the much-needed U.S.
dollars. These are things we know. There is
no conjecture here. Visitors can be counted,
the jobs they create measured, their con-
tribution to our provincial economy and our
country's balance of payments computed.
Now, knowing these things it would seem
obvious to me that an effective, an imagin-
ative Department of Tourism might some-
where have suggested that projects under the
1426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
centennial grants programme might conceiv-
ably have been related to our urgent need for
more and better tourist facilities and attrac-
tions.
Let me say just in passing that Ontario's
own citizens are tourists within our borders
as well. If we forget this fact then it might
be argued as suggesting we spent our cen-
tennial money to make Americans happy. This
is not the case at all. When I speak of tour-
ism, I am speaking of all travellers within
our boundaries. It is, I think, more important
for Canadian youngsters to have access to
places like Upper Canada village than for
visiting Americans.
To continue, a large number of Ontario
municipalities would have welcomed sugges-
tions from Queen's Park on suitable projects
under the centennial grants programme. I
know they did send out a check list of reas-
onable things that could be done. They
would, I am convinced, have listened atten-
tively and even enthusiastically to sugges-
tions from The Department of Tourism and
Information about ways in which centennial
funds could be spent, not only to make the
community more attractive to the local resi-
dents, Mr. Chairman, but also more attractive
to visitors.
They were looking, in other words, for a
little leadership, a little imagination, from
the provincial government. But did they get
it? I say no. The evidence is there for all
of us to see in the lists of grants for projects
released by The Department of Municipal
Affairs. And there is one thing I object to
in the press releases concerning these, the
headline often reads such-and-such a mu-
nicipality "wins a grant for such-and-such a
project." They are entitled to these grants,
they do not have to win them.
A great many of our communities, all in
fact who are participating in this programme,
have come up with projects which will make
them better places to live in.
But how dull so many of them are, a fire-
hall, a works garage, a burial vault or chapel,
a clock in the town hall, a myriad of addi-
tions to the town hall or township buildings,
an avalanche of artificial ice plans for the
community. All very nice, Mr. Chairman,
but they really do not help the tourist indus-
try as such.
There are, of course, significant exceptions
and I hope there will be many more. Hamil-
ton has restored Dundurn castle. Iroquois
is restoring an historical house into an his-
torical museum. Chapleau is creating a
museum and information centre. Other com-
munities are doing comparable things, under-
taking projects which will interest visitors
and enrich the knowledge and community
pride of local citizens. But unfortunately
the exceptions stand out among the artificial
ice plants and construction of cement walls.
Our centenary should be an occasion for
us and for our visitors to appreciate the
depth and drama of the history that lies
behind us. It should be an occasion for us
to create buildings, parks, exhibits and
facilities which will tie Canada's first cen-
tury to its second, which will make this prov-
ince a better place to live and a better place
to visit.
I would now like to speak briefly con-
cerning a problem confronting our water-
borne tourists which I believe accounts for
the second largest travelling group of
tourists entering our province.
I am aware that The Department of Lands
and Forests has compiled a directory of
facilities and lack of facilities in our province.
In the field of boating, we have the greatest
potential in the world, with more lakes and
rivers, interesting canal systems— all com-
bined with rugged beauty, reasonably good
fishing and mostly crystal-clear waters, but
as yet we have not begun to tap this re-
source.
I might first begin with our Great Lakes
system and this is possibly where we have
fallen down the worst. We do have many
federal harbours that are mainly concerned
with commerce but with very little emphasis
on recreation and the needs of the small
boater. Other jurisdictions have created
harbours of refuge every 20 to 30 miles
along their coastline. In fact, it was reported
just in the last edition of the regional de-
velopment folder, the following:
A chain of small craft emergency ports
were built every 15 miles on the coast of
our Great Lakes in Wisconsin, to make
small craft boat operations a safer, more
popular and larger part of the recreational
economy. Financing suggested is three
quarters of one per cent of state motor
fuel tax receipts.
This past August, Prime Minister Pearson
announced that the federal government was
prepared to invest substantial sums on the
provision of facilities for pleasure craft
where there are economic qualifications, and
a firm commitment from local interests to
build shore facilities.
In my own area, there are now several
proposed sites being studied and applica-
tions have gone into Ottawa to take advan-
tage of this legislation. The economic council
MARCH 11, 1966
1427
report, on page 71 states the following and I
quote:
It may well be that the provincial gov-
ernment will nonetheless in the not-too-
distant future have to assume a large
measure of marine development and en-
forcement responsibilities and presumably
at that time assume at least a substantial
part of the four cents per gallon in tax
revenue which currently goes to the federal
Treasury.
I would ask the hon. Minister and hope that
he will answer this question later in his
remarks; has this government approached
Ottawa in this regard of assisting in the de-
velopment of marinas or harbours of refuge
in our Great Lakes and other waterways?
Has this hon. Minister approached the
Ontario Treasury, asking that a portion of
our gasoline tax be appropriated for the con-
struction of harbours, small docks and
launching sites?
I know that the hon. Minister is a keen
yachtsman, and no doubt he himself would
appreciate more and better facilities. The
state of Vermont appropriates a portion of
the revenue derived from the sale of fishing
licences for the development of launching
ramps and small docks, for the benefit of
visitors who bring in their boats by trailer.
Possibly such further aid of this kind could
be developed by the hon. Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Roberts); I suggested this
yesterday at a committee meeting.
The largest concentration in the world of
pleasure craft, or second largest, exists along
the borders of the Great Lakes, but we
offer very few facilities in Ontario— facilities
that are too infrequent for safety, facilities
that are not adequate to attract the great
numbers of tourists who are floating right on
our doorstep. Let us build "welcome mat"
harbours along the Great Lakes shoreline
and encourage these floaters to not only visit
these ports but to tour our inland water sys-
tems.
Possibly boating, as such, should be part
of an overall transportation plan for our
province, to include both facets of accommo-
dation and shoreline use. Boating has become
one of the fastest growing recreation uses;
and in the Cleveland to Port Huron area, in
the United States, there are over 500,000
small craft capable of visiting our province.
These are mainly affluent people, who
could be well above the average spenders as
tourists. From this economic viewpoint alone,
our shoreline from Sarnia around to Rondeau
provincial park is possibly the most econo-
mically suited to take immediate benefit from
the creation of more and better marine
facilities. I would hope that the studies
initiated in this province are now far
enough advanced so that concrete proposals
and action can be taken by this government
in this neglected sector of our tourist in-
dustry.
I would like to pass a few comments in
relation to historic sites. During these de-
partmental estimates of the past two years,
and on numerous occasions through ques-
tions in the House, I have pressed for an
operative programme for our many historic
sites. I have asked that funds be made avail-
able for responsible organizations to acquire
and operate these historic sites, as living and
interpretive museums. I have been supported
by many hon. members from all parties of
this House, and I believe the hon. Minister
may initiate legislation to assist in this.
But I would point out to this House, Mr.
Chairman, the second most important reason
for tourists coming into our province is to
see, study and enjoy our historical heritage.
Emphasis and development on this sector
of our tourist industry could be a big ad-
vantage in extending our tourist season, well
before and well beyond the two holiday
months. The economic report on page 37
says there has been no overall, provincially
financed pattern of development for our his-
torical resources; and, further, it may well be
that we have now reached a level in public
appreciation of this problem so that the
province would at least be justified in intro-
ducing legislation comparable to The Parks
Assistance Act to provide for, say, up to
$25,000 in matching grants toward the capi-
tal cost of historic restorations and develop-
ments.
I think the new bill hints at this, and I
hope it fulfills this request. Further, on page
78 of the economic council report, the fol-
lowing statement is made, and I quote:
Such investments of tax funds in his-
torical reconstruction can over a period
of years become self-supporting if they
are economically engineered imaginatively
merchandised and if—
and this is vital:
—they are used to sell each other to the
mobile tourist trade.
To follow on the same theme, farther on
this page, under a picture of the hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Robarts) and the hon. Minister
of Tourism and Information at a historic site
—and I did look very closely at this picture
to make sure it was not one of our 1963
1428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
election photos with the caption "Done"
under it— the following paragraph appears:
It would appear for example that the
time has come for the establishment of an
Ontario historical or heritage trust in
which private and public funds might be
enjoined to save at least some of the
physical evidences of our historical heri-
tage, and the government departments
themselves might seek out, as is done in
older jurisdictions, the possibility of locat-
ing offices in historic structures which
otherwise would be allowed to go into
disrepair. Mortgage funds of the Ontario
housing corporation, or central mortgage
corporation, might be used for such a
purpose and an economic return gained.
At the beginning of my remarks I stated that
this government had failed the tourist indus-
try of this province in this area of historic
preservation and in offering an operative pro-
gramme. This government stands indicted; it
has failed the people of our own province;
it has failed to provide an atmosphere of
historic importance in our province, in which
our children can be taught our history and
enjoy it and, at the same time, be instilled
with a pride in our historic past.
I understand that the Ontario chamber
of commerce has presented resolutions on
this theme for many years and, currently, the
tourist committee of this body is studying this
particular problem with a view to making
recommendations for action on major sites
in our province. I would like to read into
our records, and draw to the attention of
this House, the specific recommendations of
the Ontario chamber of commerce in this re-
gard—and with which I wholeheartedly
agree. I do hope that new bill concerning
this, in its broad interpretation, will allow
for this type of action. I quote from the
Ontario chamber's policy statement:
An increasing number of Ontario com-
munities are developing a proper appreci-
ation of the potential value of historic
sites and historical themes in relation to
our important tourist industry. This grow-
ing awareness has been heightened by the
approach to Canada's centenary and associ-
ated programmes and publicity. However,
this increased knowledge will be unpro-
ductive unless translated into restoration
and celebration programmes which are
solidly based on accurate historic research
and expert guidance.
Such expert knowledge and guidance
is not always readily available to com-
munities wishing to restore or promote
historic sites or to organize special festivals
and pageants of historic significance. There-
fore there is a need for central co-
ordination of such programmes, and an
added need for the provision of expert
knowledge and assistance wherever re-
quired.
Recommended, that The Department of
Tourism and Information be empowered
to acquire, develop and operate historic
sites and structures, co-operate with other
governmental agents in such actions, co-
operate with private persons, corporations
and organizations in such undertakings;
furnish expert consultant service without
charge in the restoration of historic homes
buildings and sites to the owners of such
structures or sites, on the understanding
that buildings to be so restored for historic
considerations be designated as a pre-
requisite for aid by the historic sites board,
and I trust that the survey in this regard
has gone far enough in order to enable you
to do this. And finally, that buildings to
be so restored by reason of architectural
significance to be first certified by this same
architectural board and to make available
to Ontario communities the services of
experts in the planning and performance
of special festivals and historic pageants.
I would call upon this government to take
some specific action in this regard in order
that we can have our centennial year as a
base for launching an integrated, co-ordinated
and operative historical programme for our
province.
My final remarks deal with the St.
Lawrence parks commission and I have
several questions here that I would ask of
the hon. Minister.
In Hansard of February 26, 1964, at page
973, the chairman of the St. Lawrence parks
commission made the following statement to
this House, and I quote:
I was keenly disappointed to find a
substantial reduction in our budget for
1964. Eventually our parks, which are gov-
ernment built, owned and operated, will
be a revenue producer. We will be called
upon this year to run a project, still only
75 per cent completed, with a sum in-
adequate even to cover operating expenses
much less provide a reserve to complete
the job. In 1963 we were unable to meet
the demand for campsites. More of these
should be readied at once.
Now to date, according to figures I have
received, this government has spent many
millions of dollars on the development of this
area of the St. Lawrence parks commission.
MARCH 11, 1966
1429
I would ask the hon. Minister how soon he
expects the completion of major capital
expenditures in this commission and how
soon he expects the commission to break even
in its operation and carry itself?
This past year, I understand, the com-
mission had a revenue of slightly over $1
million, an increase of $180,000 from last
year, but at the same time suffered a net loss
of approximately $250,000, and according to
the Globe and Mail this morning, there was
a decline in the number of people patronizing
the parks, because of the poor weather.
It was reported at the recent meeting on
commissions, that the commission has a per-
manent staff of 130 personnel, which increases
to 500 in the summer holiday period. Would
the hon. Minister give us a breakdown of the
classification of this permanent staff of 130
persons?
I understand further, that during these
winter months when the operation is closed,
many of these men, including supervisory
personnel, are kept busy merely cutting wood
for next season's operation. Can the com-
mission not consider some type of winter
operation that would utilize this large staff
to better advantage? Apparently the com-
mission, in its many parks, which are oper-
ated for only five months and Upper Canada
village which is operated for the same length
of time, seems to be burdened with the
staff that they have to carry for seven extra
months. It would seem to me that there
should be some attempt to lengthen the
season in the village and in these parks.
I was very distressed when the commission
reported that the centennial project would
merely be a barn-raising over a protracted
length of time. Surely the commission could
do better than this. Here is a prime oppor-
tunity to capitalize on the many millions of
people going to Expo at Montreal, only a
few hours drive from the village and parks.
Surely the commission has plans for enlarg-
ing its accommodation for trailers, for tenters
and for persons who want deluxe accommoda-
tion in this area. Surely here is a chance for
a series of pageants, of special events, denot-
ing the history of our province, a series of
lectures as was suggested by the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). Let us take another
look at our projected accommodation needs
in this area; take another look and see what
sort of programmes we can devise to capital-
ize on Expo, and pyramid the St. Lawrence
parks commission into a money-making and
self-sufficient operation. Let us not just settle
for a mere barn-raising!
There are several questions of the hon.
Minister that I would like to ask in this same
area. Since Upper Canada village authenti-
cally denotes life in this area of Ontario some
100 years ago, I would ask the hon. Minister
in the historical research for this area: Was
this a dry area in our province at that time?
If not, I would suggest that to complete the
authenticity of this village, a special licence
be granted by the LCBO. I would ask the
hon. Minister if it is true that there is special
accommodation right at the village for MLAs
and friends of the commission at no monetary
charge; I would ask the hon. Minister if the
commission is not interested in acquiring
more historic sites to be moved to the village
and that if this is true, is the commission
giving any consideration to preserving these
buildings with a view to collecting them and
setting up another operative programme in
the area? What is the intention of the com-
mission regarding the two sites that have
been acquired within the city limits of
Kingston?
I am sure that hon. members are pleased
with the success of the operation of Old Fort
Henry. At the recent commission meeting,
the director, Major Brett, reported that at the
present time he and his assistants were out
picking the Fort Henry guards from among
the finest young Canadians enrolled in our
universities. I would ask the hon. Minister if
these men are chosen without any reference
to race, creed or colour— and I trust that this
is so— and if so, could the hon. Minister assure
this House that this policy has been in effect
and will continue to be in effect?
I see that there are plans to recruit a sec-
ond set of Fort Henry guards; I think that
this is very good and I would ask if they will
be available to take part in the many centen-
nial celebrations throughout our province?
Further, I understand that there is some
dissatisfaction with the St. Lawrence parks
commission in the city of Kingston, in that
many residents do not feel that this city is
adequately represented on the commission,
and I also understand that in spite of the
untiring efforts of the Quinte historic sites
and parkway association, that this commis-
sion is not recommending the development of
the Quinte parkway. I spoke on this during
the estimates of The Department of High-
ways and I shall delete any further remarks
in this regard, but I do hope that the com-
missioner from the Niagara parks commis-
sion can relate to this House the stand of the
commission in this regard.
Finally, to sum up, in my initial remarks
I mentioned that this government has failed
to develop a provincial image; it has failed to
keep pace with other jurisdictions; it has
1430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
failed to save our history and utilize it
properly; it has failed to stimulate our tour-
ist industry, and I trust that the criticisms
and suggestions that I have made and offered
and those that will be given, will assist this
most vital industry in our provincial economy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. N. Davison (Hamilton East): The
study of Ontario's tourist industry, published
by the tourist industry committee of the On-
tario economic council in December, 1965,
points out that:
Rising educational levels and growing
urbanization coupled with technological
change are the three prime economic and
social factors which will influence tourist
trends in the quarter century ahead.
It was stated in the study that the higher edu-
cation standards now attained have resulted
in the intellectual stimulation of the individ-
ual. Today's affluent society has made travel
possible for ever-increasing numbers to in-
dulge the curiosity aroused by our higher
educational achievements.
The study concluded that:
Attractions geared to historical or cul-
tural themes are thus of growing impor-
tance in tourist development. Canadians
and Americans go in growing numbers to
visit such historical sites as Williamsburg
and Upper Canada village.
Interest in the ways of our forefathers is very
high because not only do we have our Upper
Canada village, but right here in Metro To-
ronto there is a pioneer village at Jane street
and Steeles avenue which provides a peek
into the past and ideal picnic facilities as well.
A similar page of history is being unfolded
near the village of Rockton and probably in
many other places across Ontario.
Hamilton's Sound and Light, shown in
the summer evenings at Dundurn Castle, re-
veals the life of its early occupants and
Hamilton will restore that fine historical
building as its centennial programme. The
Stratford festival was cited as a cultural
interest that would not have been successful
20 years ago.
As the result of technological change and/
or automation, the worker of tomorrow will
have ever-increasing leisure time and there
is no doubt in my mind that people will use
a great deal of this new leisure to travel and
satisfy at first hand their curiosity about the
rest of this country, this continent and this
world.
In 1966, The Department of Lands and
Forests published a booklet prepared by the
forestry study unit on the "Multiple use of
forest and related lands." Among many other
interesting facts contained in the booklet, was
one which would, I imagine, have a direct
bearing on the tourist industry. In 1901,
only 27 per cent of Ontario's population
lived in cities, towns and villages of 5,000
or more. Sixty years later, in 1961, the
trend toward urbanization had completely
reversed this situation and only 27 per cent
lived outside these cities, towns and villages.
In Ontario, the booklet says: "It is estimated
that 73 per cent of our citizens already live
on less than one per cent of our land area."
This metropolitan way of life will lead to
increased tourism with, I would think,
emphasis on the back-to-nature type of
vacation, such as the individual summer
cottage, the summer resorts and the winter
sports resorts, as well as on cultural and his-
torical events and sites. Tourism has grown
and expanded until it has become the largest
single element of international trade. In
recent years, receipts from the foreign visitor
to Canada have been rising twice as fast as
our merchandise exports. Tourism is paying
a fairly high share of the cost of our high
standard of living in this country and of
our municipal, provincial and federal taxes.
Our provincial Treasury receives in taxes
from foreign tourist expenditures alone well
over 20 times its total tax-financed invest-
ment in travel promotion.
All this gives us a comfortable feeling of
well-being and all would seem to be well in
our tourist industry. Actually, Canada has
been losing ground as an area for U.S. tourist
travel. In 1961 residents of the U.S. spent
more than $2.5 billion in countries around
the world of which $440 million was spent
in Canada. If we had maintained the same
relative position in 1961 as we enjoyed in
1952 total receipts from American expendi-
tures in Canada would have been in the
neighbourhood of $800 million, or $360
million more than we actually received.
It is estimated that the jobs of over
300,000 Ontario residents arise out of
tourism and therefore we must not under-
estimate the importance of the tourist indus-
try to our employment picture. Each net
addition of $2,100 per year in direct foreign
tourist expenditures is said to create a new
year-round job in Ontario. More than likely
this job would be in what we term the serv-
ice industries. Lately it is the service indus-
tries that have provided the main source of
new employment of our growing labour force
and it would seem to be the area of the
greatest employment opportunities for those
MARCH 11, 1966
1431
newly entering the labour force. Last
December, Dr. W. R. Dymond, federal
assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, spoke
to a seminar of the technical and vocational
training branch of The Department of
Labour in Ottawa. He said that during each
cycle of economic activity there had been a
considerable shifting of employment between
industries. A long-run change was a notable
shift of labour away from the goods-produc-
ing industries to the service industries.
Reference to DBS employment figures in-
dicates that, while total Ontario employment
increased by 4.6 per cent from September
1964 to 1965, the service industry enjoyed
a 9.5 per cent increase in that period while
employment in manufacturing industries in-
creased by only 3.9 per cent. That is to say
there was a 5 per cent employment increase
in the service industries and a decrease of
.7 per cent in manufacturing industries as
compared to the average gain in employment
in Ontario. While it is reassuring to note
that the slackening in employment in the
manufacturing industry is more than met by
the increased employment in the service
industries, it does have its undesirable
aspect.
Although Dr. W. R. Dymond points out
that many of the job openings in the service
industries required a fairly high level of
education, sometimes salaries and wages
were low, while on the other hand, those
displaced from the manufacturing industries
often had less education but were used to
higher wages and their experience might be
of little value in the service industry. An
examination of the average weekly wages
and salaries in the two industries confirms
his remarks. As at September 1965, the
average weekly wage in manufacturing was
$94.75 and in the service industries only
$65.55. These are Canadian figures; I do not
have the Ontario figures but the comparison
would be similar. So that the undesirable
aspect of this change in the employment
pattern is that we have this rather large
shift in employment to an area paying about
one-third less in wages. This puts a cloud
over the economic picture in Ontario that
will not be lifted until a higher level of
wages is gained in the service industries.
Even so; it becomes obvious that it is
desirable that we realize the maximum
potential of tourist trade and I do not think
we are.
Ontario seems to have become the gate-
way to Canada for the American tourist, per-
haps because it lies next to one of the more
heavily populated areas of the United States.
Gateway is a good term to use because it
implies further travel and it would seem
that this further travel is taking place— right
out of the province. While millions of Amer-
ican tourists enter Ontario, they do not
stay long.
In 1963, 58 per cent of auto-borne U.S.
tourists spent one day or less in Ontario. A
further 24 per cent were here for two days
and only 4.4 per cent stayed more than a
week. Less than 250,000 American cars
stayed in Ontario in 1963 for more than one
week.
Now then, how will we interest the
American tourist in spending more time in
Ontario? For one thing, it would no doubt
be necessary to spend more money on pro-
motion. Only two provinces— Alberta and
Saskatchewan— in Canada spend less than
Ontario on tourist promotion and, although
Ontario's share of U.S. travel expenditures
in Canada rose from 50 per cent in 1957
to 56 per cent in 1961, it would appear
that Ontario could realize still greater re-
turns.
Perhaps it might be advisable to beam
our promotions to groups or individuals not
now being reached, such as:
Greater emphasis on specific appeals to
women.
Organization of student group tours would
be a sound economic target and teachers,
as a category, could be more specifically
approached.
Journals read by business and professional
people and by skilled personnel in the pro-
duction, technical and sales fields may offer
a useful medium for promotion.
Publications of labour unions.
Inducements to lengthen the American
tourist stay in Ontario must be found. Per-
haps these five suggested improvements
could be considered:
1. Promotion for the cottager, who is a
taxpayer for us and yet demands nothing in
the way of services in return and promotion
of foreign ownership of vacation home sites.
2. Scarcity of tourist establishments of the
resort hotel types only breeds further
scarcity.
To encourage the further development of
resort areas, there should be some measure
of assistance in the form of tax concessions,
and so on, through the construction via
public funds of ancillary attractions of a
nature designed to draw extra patronage, or
through a greater provincial emphasis on
natural or historical attractions which will
feed patrons to such resorts and hotels.
1432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Also an expansion of hunting and fishing
resorts capable of developing international
patronage provided government policy en-
sures to certain areas sufficient continuing
supplies of fish and game.
3. Lack of scheduled airline facilities in
most of our major resort areas has made
this type of tourist trade less available to
more remote districts. The benefit of trade
shows is also sometimes overlooked. Despite
the absence of major first class physical
facilities for such, Toronto in 1964 attracted
over 25 such shows with an investment of
close to $40 million. This volume could be
increased by half.
To encourage the hotels and resorts of
Ontario to increase their marketing research
and sales promotion and to upgrade their
standards of convention accommodation
should be prime objectives of all departments
of government, federal and provincial.
These resorts and hotels can be a major
source of increased "export" sales, in terms
of import dollars. We should do everything
we can to lengthen their season of economic
operation, to assist them in selling their
wares and to formulate our tax, liquor and
related policies to encourage the attainment
of adequate international standards.
4. The multi-faceted tourist industry— for
example the "rock hounds"— geologists— goose
hunters, hikers, antique hunters, visitors to
religious or historical shrines, pleasure craft
owners, golfers, campers, trailer-campers,
trailer-boaters, skiers, and so on— is particu-
larly valuable to us since these groups are
not restricted to the summer months only.
These areas have not been too thoroughly
tapped to date. Merchandising in this
market, both public and private, has suffered
from both a lack of local research and a lack
of sufficiently pointed advertising.
This market would respond excellently to
direct mail and specialized media. We must
produce leaflets pointed in depth to specific
themes. For example, The Department of
Mines and The Department of Tourism and
Information should co-operate in a special
publication for "rock hounds."
Certainly we can and should be doing
more about selling the literally tens of
thousands of pleasure craft owners in the
Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit areas on
cruising our waterways.
5. Each activity of government which
could be put on view as a sightseeing attrac-
tion should be so promoted. This might well
include fish hatcheries, seed extraction sta-
tions, arboreta in reforestation areas, displays
of native animals and birds, perhaps even
organized tours of experimental farms and
agricultural colleges.
In addition, it has been recommended in
almost every public hearing that a major ed-
ucational programme on the significance of
tourism in our provincial economy should be
undertaken jointly by public and private
agencies at all levels from the school up.
This is an industry in which we are all
shareholders, all salesmen, all involved in the
production lines.
These were all recommendations included
in the study of Ontario's tourist industry
and I have brought them to the attention of
the hon. members today to underline their
value.
But there is another inducement that is
lacking. We are very shy people. It almost
seems we bend over backward to hide any
points of interest that might tend to induce
the tourist to linger and, while lingering, to
provide financial benefit to Ontario citizens.
As I said before, Ontario has become a
gateway to other parts of Canada. Large
portions of our budgets are allocated to
building highways designed to speed the
motorist right through and out of our prov-
ince. We carefully skirt our cities in the
interest of promoting rapid through traffic.
There is nothing, except the necessities of
life and reaching his destination, to cause
the tourist to leave our good highways. While
our neighbours to the south have these
same superhighways, they have no reluc-
tance whatever in promoting stopovers.
First of all, I must compare our method of
providing needed services on our multi-lane
highways with the American freeways. Per-
haps this might better be raised under
Highways estimates and yet it has a direct
bearing on this Department of Tourism and
Information.
Every 50 miles on the American freeway,
you are advised well in advance of the com-
ing service area. When you arrive, you find
a service station on either side of the high-
way to serve the motorist travelling in either
direction. A building is constructed over the
highway in bridge fashion which houses a
restaurant, personal comfort facilities, and
tourist information, and souvenirs are dis-
played and sold.
These buildings are of a common design
and would appear to be government con-
structed. The food is good and reasonable in
price and again the common standards would
indicate some type of government supervi-
sion, all of which is sadly lacking in Ontario's
approach.
MARCH 11, 1966
1433
We have, I suppose by accident of plan-
ning, developed a hit-or-miss approach to
this type of tourist service. Some of the
restaurants serving our superhighways are
good and some quite the opposite, some are
reasonable in price, some quite expensive,
notably the 1867 restaurants. When the
restaurants are expensive, they should pro-
vide a lunch counter service at lower rates
so that the traveller is not forced into un-
planned expenses.
Many people travel on a daily food budget
and when they enter such a place they must
either upset their budget or be placed in the
embarrassing position of finding they cannot
afford the service and leaving, which does
not create a good impression in their mind of
Ontario.
Quick service is essential and some of our
highway restaurants are lacking in this qual-
ity, which is annoying to the tourist.
I am not suggesting that we go into the
restaurant business but I do suggest most
urgently that we do follow this American
approach; that we build these service centres
as part of our highway construction and that
they be leased to individuals and firms pre-
pared to meet certain standards developed
by this government and that we employ in-
spectors to see that these standards are ad-
hered to.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, our places and
events of interest are not publicized. Hamil-
ton is very upset because it was omitted from
the federal publication "Invitation to Can-
ada" and quite rightly so. However, I think
Hamilton's points of interest, as well as those
of other places, should be publicized right
along our highways so that the motorist is
aware of the diversions available in the par-
ticular area where he is driving, not just as
he enters Ontario.
If you are handed a booklet at a tourist
information centre it is of interest, but it
would be additionally effective to publicize
area attractions by easy-to-read highway
signs. These signs should be tastefully exe-
cuted and should not be of the garish type
that spoil the beauty of the countryside— we
have far too many of these now.
If I may use Hamilton as an example, be-
cause that is the area with which I am most
familiar, we have, as I mentioned earlier, an
event at Dundurn castle called Sound and
Light. As far as I know, and I think I am
right, this is the only event of its kind on the
North American continent.
The castle itself, together with the early
battle history of the area, is noteworthy. Even
the cemetery that is located across from it
has historical significance because there is
still evidence of the defensive earthworks that
were created in the War of 1812. And of
course there is the Stoney Creek monument
that commemorates that battle of the War of
1812 which would be of interest to Americans
since time has healed the differences that
existed between our two countries at that
time.
Our Royal botanical gardens are show-
places, particularly the rock gardens, but the
average tourist would not know about them.
Rochester's lilac gardens are well known
here— special tours are arranged— but I won-
der how many people in Rochester know
about our gardens? Every spring our Royal
botanical gardens conduct a maple syrup
exhibit. This year the exhibit will be in oper-
ation during the last three weekends of
March.
Well, there are many other attractions in
Hamilton. We are not just the Canadian
Pittsburgh and we will soon have others, a
new planetarium and of course the football
hall of fame and so on.
It is these types of interesting events and
sites that will lure the tourist into spending
additional time in Ontario. It is something
to do and see that is different from his native
land and home town.
It is true that this type of advertising is not
the sole responsibility of this government.
But it is our responsibility to elicit from the
municipalities the points and items of interest
to tourists in their area and then to develop
an overall government programme and to
urge the municipalities to co-operate.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that their co-opera-
tion is a foregone conclusion because they all
want a share of the tourist dollar that is pres-
ently whizzing past on our superhighways.
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Chairman, I think if
it would be your agreement and the agree-
ment of the hon. members who have spoken,
I would prefer to answer the specific ques-
tions which they raise when we come to the
votes that relate to them, so that we can keep
in order.
I might make one or two general com-
ments. Frankly, of course, I would find it
very hard, Mr. Chairman, to agree with my
hon. friend from Essex South that the depart-
ment has failed. I think actually that our
department is doing as good a job, if not a
better job, than any comparable jurisdiction
and I think that the results we have had thus
far would substantiate this.
1434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I was very interested in his comment about
the theme that we might use for our provin-
cial promotion, the royal theme, and I would
just like to ask him, perhaps rhetorically,
whether he has discussed this with the hon.
member for Sudbury and the hon. member
for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter) and perhaps the
hon. member for Bracondale (Mr. Ben), who
might perhaps be able to give us some
further suggestions in this connection.
Mr. Paterson: I think this topic was well
caucused and I did not go quite as far as
suggesting that Tory blue become royal blue.
I could not bring myself to that position.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, that is an interesting
suggestion, we will certainly study that one.
Just in the matter of promotion, seriously, Mr.
Chairman, there are many agencies at work
in this field. I think that the Canadian gov-
ernment travel bureau is doing a good job
for all of Canada and for the provinces which
make it up. For this reason, we have stayed
out of international promotion, which we feel
is their job and which they are doing very
capably. We are making use of their travel
offices which they have opened in the States
and in Europe and the co-operation which we
are receiving from them is excellent and I
think they feel the co-operation we are giving
to them is excellent.
The same holds true for the other prov-
inces. The work which is being done jointly
is being done even more effectively because
it is being done jointly.
As far as our own responsibility is con-
cerned, it seems to me that this is of course
the promotion of the province as a whole. It
is for this reason that some years ago the
department encouraged the establishment of
the 32 regional tourist councils which now
exist. I think that each year they are becom-
ing more effective as they are able to get
the various groups in their own regions to-
gether to work together to promote the whole
region.
I think this is the way we deal with prob-
lems such as have been mentioned about
traffic on superhighways and getting the
traffic off the highway into the various
regions which the highway serves. As for the
work which has been done between provinces
jointly, I mentioned in my remarks last night
the programmes that we are working on with
Quebec, and we are also working with
Manitoba in a couple of specific areas, Mr.
Chairman.
I think this is the way we will make general
improvement, but the point really is that
everybody in the province, as has been
pointed out both by myself, Mr. Chairman,
and the hon. members opposite, everybody
in the province benefits from this industry,
everybody needs to be more aware of its
importance than they presently are. This is
one of things we are attempting to do and
I think doing with some success. Everybody
in the province has to take part in the
promotion, both the financial part of such
promotion and the actual work in their own
communities.
The hon. member mentioned hospitality.
I think this is extremely important and this
cannot be imposed by any government, it is
something that people have to realize is
important and then practise. But I think the
department has given excellent leadership, to-
gether with the Canadian tourist association,
in the hospitality seminars which we have
been running now for two years and which
we have expanded each year.
As a matter of fact, there are two of them
that I can think of at the moment taking
place this coming week. I think this is the
field in which we have to work and the field
where we will get results.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that probably will
be all I want to say just at the present time
on general remarks. Perhaps we might get
into the specific votes. I have made notes of
all the matters I think that have been raised
thus far and I will attempt to deal with those
on specific votes.
On vote 2001:
Mr. A. E. Thompson (Leader of the Oppo-
sition): Mr. Chairman, under vote 2001, I
would like to talk to some extent about some
of the policies, some of the effects, of United
States laws and the representations which I
feel should have been made by the Ontario
government.
I would like to say at the outset that no
one can dispute that the development of the
tourist industry is vital to the economic health
of this province, and the hon. Minister has
pointed out that it affects everyone in this
House, as well as all the people across the
province. The Ontario economic council report
on the tourist industry points out that the
tourist dollar accounts for 6.8 per cent of the
province's gross national product. This was
emphasized, I think, by the hon. Minister and
by others. It represents a great number of
jobs. I noticed in that report there was a
suggestion that 160,000 people were affected
by it. And of course it benefits, as the hon.
Minister and my hon. friend in my party
have pointed out, and affects every area of
the province.
MARCH 11, 1966
1435
Mr. Chairman: I was wondering if this
would constitute a second general speech
for the party?
Mr. Thompson: No, no; it is the very vital
subject of policy-the policy of administra-
tion which, I think, is most important to the
people of Ontario. I was just showing the
importance of decisions by the hon. Min-
ister with respect to this industry and under-
lining and underscoring the effect it has on
the economy and the number of people. It
is just a gentle little preamble to move in
and bolster the importance of this to the
hon. Minister across the aisle, which I know
he and his department will appreciate.
Hon. Mr. Auld: There must be something
wrong here.
Mr. Thompson: No, I do not think so. We
realize very much the importance of the
hon. Minister's job and we are trying to help
him through constructive criticism. The
amount of money that the Ontario public
Treasury receives from foreign tourists is 20
times its total, tax-financed investment in
travel promotion. In other words, for every
tax dollar invested by the government in
foreign tourist promotion, a minimum of $20
in tax revenue is currently being generated.
Thus tourism is not only good for the
economy, it is a good public investment.
But the council, Mr. Chairman, said some
very frank words about the way in which
the province of Ontario is taking advantage
of this investment, and I Would like to quote
from this report:
In 1961 residents of the United States
spent more than $2.5 billion in countries
around the world. Of this amount about
$440 million was spent in Canada. This is
not a figure, however, that should be
pointed to with pride. Canada has been
losing ground as an area for United States
tourist travel. If it maintained the same
relative position in 1961 as we enjoyed in
, 1952, total receipts from American ex-
penditures in Canada would have been in
the neighbourhood of $800 million, $360
million more than we actually received.
Let us look at those figures, Mr. Chairman, in
terms of what they have meant to the prov-
ince of Ontario. First may I say I regret that
the Ontario economic council did not see fit
to do this itself, but in the absence of such
a breakdown we can make certain assump-
tions based on figures and statements else-
where in this report.
Let us assume that, during the period
mentioned, Ontario's share of American
expenditures in Canada remained within the
50 to 60 per cent range. On this basis then,
Ontario should accept its fair share of the
blame for the fact that Canada has lost
ground.
Then, by simple arithmetic, it can be
pointed out that if Ontario had kept pace
with the worldwide competition for the
American tourist dollar, the province would
have brought in an extra $200 million during
the period from 1952 to 1961. And, using
the economic council's own estimate of a
3.5 multiplier effect— that is, an increased
effect from the tourist dollar— we see that the
total effect of the tourist dollars which have
been lost to us would have been about $750
million for the Ontario economy.
In turn, sir, this would have produced
approximately $140 million for the pro-
vincial Treasury. In other words, this is the
price that Ontario has had to pay-$750
million-for the failure of this department to
have kept up with the rest of the world.
I think this is a serious indictment of this
administration. It is clear that the $140
million in lost tax revenue is haunting us
today through the imposition of wide-ranging
tax increases which we have just had during
this session.
There is another very vitally important
matter facing the Ontario tourist industry,
and I think it is a matter that has received
far too little attention from the government
of this province: the fact there is hardly
a secondary industry in Ontario whose em-
ployees do not manufacture at least a
portion of their output for persons directly
or indirectly engaged in tourism.
In other words, manufactured goods pro-
duced in Ontario are vitally affected by the
tourist industry since tourism is one of the
fastest growing industries in the world. The
economic council said that the receipts from"
foreign visitors to Canada in recent years have
been rising twice as fast as our merchandise
exports and it is unfortunate that Ontario
has failed to see the growth potential of the
tourist industry. There are millions and
millions of dollars worth of these goods
being turned into export items in the hands
of American tourists— a flow of goods which
is vital to the economy of the province. And
yet— and this is the point I want to make,
Mr. Chairman— when the United States gov-
ernment took action to affect that flow of
goods, there was not even a whimper from
the government.
The reduction in the duty-free allowance
for American tourists returning from Canada
was a major step in the American campaign
to improve its balance-of-trade position, but
1436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in view of the major impact that it will have
on the Ontario economy the province's leaders
should have been lobbying strongly about it
in public. And I think, if you look at press
clippings which I have here, that some of the
defenders of Canada in the United States
were somewhat surprised that we did not
lobby. The American democratic system ex-
pects legitimate representation on matters
which affect the people of other countries.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry to have to
interrupt the leader of the Opposition. I
know that he wants to adhere to the rules
that have been set down, by having a lead-
off speaker from the Liberals, a lead-off
speaker from the NDP, and then having our
Minister reply to them. I have gone over
the series of votes in connection with this
and I do not see where, so far, what the
leader of the Opposition has to say comes
under vote 2001. I think it is a general
statement that would be included by the
lead-off speaker from his party.
Mr. Thompson: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that this is on the whole question which is
affecting the economy of the province; it
certainly very much relates as—
Mr. Chairman: The last thing I want to do
is to interfere—
Mr. Thompson: It is not a lead-off speech
at all; it is in one particular area and that
is the United States laws in connection-
Mr. Chairman: That is not before us under
vote 2001; I think-
Mr. Thompson: But it is under administra-
tive policy.
Mr. Chairman: A lot of things are in-
cluded in the main office-
Mr. Thompson: May I say, sir, under
main office, that I know that one of the
great concerns of the hon. Minister is to en-
courage the tourists from the United States?
I congratulate him on what he has been
doing, but I am saying that there are laws
in the United States which can affect the
export of goods from this country and from
this province, and this is the point that I am
making. I feel that I have an obligation, as
leader of the Opposition, to make this point
in these estimates. I am sure that the hon.
Minister will want to reply to them, because
Senator Smithers of Florida would have
exempted Canada— there was no representa-
tion in Washington from the Canadian tour-
ist industry-
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, this is not
properly before us at this time.
Mr. Thompson: Would you tell me when
this would be before us? This affects the
general administration and I suggest to you,
sir, that it is one of the most important
aspects of the department to encourage
American tourists— it is a question which
should be brought up on the floor of this
House, and it should come under the first
item.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion has opportunities in the Throne debate
and Budget debate-
Mr. Thompson: Surely, Mr. Chairman,
when we are talking on tourism, we are
thinking particularly of our neighbours to
the south; we are thinking of the balance
of payments, and this is of vital concern.
The hon. Minister is fully aware of this
and I would think that this is very definitely
a subject that must be discussed at this
time.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
The last thing that the Chairman wants to
do is to stifle debate. I am trying to carry
this on in the principles that have been
established and it was established earlier
that there would be a lead-off speaker in
connection with it, and I think that these
remarks should have been included by your
lead-off speaker.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the lead-
off speaker cannot cover the whole water-
front. There are-
Mr. Chairman: There is no restriction
whatsoever as far as I am concerned-
Mr. Thompson: All right; then assuming
the lead-off speaker had spoken on this
subject, there is a further opportunity, surely,
to bring it up as each estimate comes and I
suggest to you, sir, that if I am barred from
saying this, you are barring me from bringing
up a subject in this Legislature which is of
vital concern to the tourist industry; and the
tourist industry is of vital concern to the
economy of this province, and I not only
have a right to bring this up, but I have an
obligation to.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, speaking to a point of order, for
once I agree with you completely.
Interjections by hon. members.
MARCH 11, 1966
1437
Mr. MacDonald: Usually I agree with
you; but for once, with great emphasis, I
agree with you completely.
I am not denying for one moment what
the hon. gentleman is raising may be of
vital concern to the tourist industry but we
have certain rules in this House where the
lead-off speaker gives a general, overall
picture of the particular estimates that is
before the House. If anybody can get up,
as the hon. leader of the Opposition is doing
and use words to suggest that it comes under
the main office, it would be a gross abuse
of the rules of the House. We must recog-
nize the rules and if we want to come in with
something later, consider it under— I can
give the hon. leader of the Opposition a
suggestion: It might conceivably go under
tourist promotion, if he thinks we are not
promoting it adequately in the United States.
Heaven forbid that I should be telling
the hon. leader of the Opposition how he
should handle it, but I agree with you, sir,
that at the moment he is out of order.
Furthermore, I think it is about time that
we quit abusing this particular privilege or
we are going to destroy the opportunity we
have for full debate on the estimates in this
House.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I simply
say this, that as the presentation is made by
the critic from each of the Opposition parties,
to bring forward a number of suggestions,
there are some of them which require more
detailed discussion by other people. Surely,
after the critic has brought forward sugges-
tions other members of the Opposition
are unable to enlarge on certain points
brought forward. I will state some points
and I will be quite happy to move this to
another estimate if you think it is the esti-
mate that is wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: That is your job, not his.
Mr. Thompson: You are suggesting that
the whole thing is out of order and I, sir,
do not agree with you.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is out of order at
this time.
Mr. Thompson: Would you then clarify
for me when I can bring this up? Under
the next estimate?
Mr. MacDonald: That is your job.
Mr. Thompson: My job! You are ruling me
out of order and initially you said that I am
not able to bring this up. I now ask you, can
I bring this up? You suggested that I bring it
up in the Throne debate.
Mr. Chairman: I would suggest to the
leader of the Opposition that he check the
votes in connection with this— there are nine
votes altogether; the one under the tourist
industry is vote number four.
Mr. Thompson: I will bring it up, Mr.
Chairman, under the next vote.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001!
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, may I bring up the topic of licence
plates under this vote and the suggestion of—
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, there is no
place in this estimate for licence plates.
Mr. Newman: —or would you prefer me to
bring this up under administration or infor-
mation and promotion?
Mr. Chairman: From the standpoint of
licence plates, I do not understand—
Mr. Newman: I would think that the hon.
Minister would exert all effort possible to con-
vince his hon. colleagues to see that the prov-
ince adopt the idea of having some type of
slogan on licence plates. We have hammered
at this year after year. The hon. Minister is
most receptive to it but he cannot jog the
heads of the Treasury benches and the Cab-
inet at all to adopt something. We are losing
an excellent opportunity here.
Mr. Chairman: I suppose you could speak
to it under The Department of Transport; I
do not think that there is any money in this
particular-
Mr. Newman: I Would like it as a tourist
promotion device. I will take it up under
2003 then.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, fine.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on vote
2001, there is a specific point that I want to
raise and I assume that it would be as appro-
priate here as anywhere.
I have never been able to get clear in my
mind and keep it clear, the relative function
of this department and the public relations
and publicity wings of all the other depart-
ments across the government. A few years
ago I can recall when the Opposition
launched a concerted attack on the govern-
ment for an excessive— an alleged excessive-
number of publications and the Prime Minis-
ter at that time got up and said that it was
1438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
going to end. With that generous gesture of
his, it ended, and a great number of publica-
tions were cut out. In my view, some of them
were rather good publications. I think, for
example, of one, "Sylva," a little publication
that was put out by The Department of Lands
and Forest and covered a range of issues in-
cluding conservation. It think it was not only
a superior publication, but—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is this in
2003?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, this is in 2003, and
a clarification-
Mr. Singer: You are as much out of order
as was the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Mr. MacDonald: If you want to be an
obstructionist, you go ahead! The Liberace
of the Liberal Party who wants to get up—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. MacDonald: I am dealing with a spe-
cific item, not with a general dissertation that
should have been included in the lead-off.
If you want to abuse the rules of the
House-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member
to address his remarks to the chair, please.
Mr. MacDonald: I am on the main item,
Mr. Chairman. Now my question to the hon.
Minister or to the government as a whole is:
If a few years ago it was appropriate to take
a look at the range of publications, some of
which came under—
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. Under vote 2001 there is no mention
of publications and it is my submission that
that comes under vote 2003, information and
promotion division.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am rais-
ing a question of policy, which I submit,
comes under the main office-
Mr. Thompson: So were we, my hon.
friend.
Mr. MacDonald: I am raising a question of
policy. What is the relative position of this
department, The Department of Tourism and
Information, with regard to publications of
this overall government?
Mr. Chairman: Do you not think under the
circumstances that we would properly discuss
this under vote 2003?
Mr. MacDonald: If you want it to go under
2003, fine, I will repeat the last five minutes
that I have had and then go on to finish it.
Mr. Chairman: I think it would be better
if it were discussed under 2003.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of clarification, I wanted to
talk about something dealing with the cen-
tennial as it relates to the CNE. I presume
that would fall under vote 2003 as well, in-
formation and promotion division, but I just
wanted to make sure at this point that I did
not miss it.
Mr. Chairman: Well, it certainly does not
fall under 2001. Is there anything under
2001?
Mr. Gaunt: I realize that, but I did not
want to miss it.
Vote 2001 agreed to.
On vote 2002:
Mr. K. Bryden (Woodbine): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the hon. Minister speci-
fically what are the functions of the adminis-
trative branch?
Mr. Chairman: I cannot hear the member
for Woodbine.
Mr. Bryden: It is not usual that people
complain that they cannot hear me. I have
heard opposite complaints from time to time.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister, Mr.
Chairman: What, specifically, are the func-
tions of the administrative branch as dis-
tinguished from those of the main office?
I would also like to ask, it is really a quite
separate question, but I might as well ask
both questions at once— I would like to ask
him for a breakdown of item one of vote
2002, that is the item relating to salaries. I
would like this in terms of classifications,
rather than of individuals. In other words,
how many people are there in such and such
a classification at such and such a rate?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the admin-
istrative branch carries out certain functions
for all branches of the department: central
files, personnel, accounting services, purchas-
ing, inventory control, mailing, shipping,
warehousing, printing, and addressograph.
There are four sections in the branch: the
accounts section, the warehouse section,
central files, and personnel. As for people,
MARCH 11, 1966
1439
there is a complement of 41, which is made
up of the director, a departmental accountant
four, a commercial artist one, a clerk one
general, driver one— does my hon. friend
want the exact civil service definition or just
the general categories?
Mr. Bryden: The general categories, I
think, are sufficient.
Hon. Mr. Auld: There are 18 clerical staff,
one driver, one internal auditor, two opera-
tors for equipment operations, and three in
personnel.
Mr. Bryden: Did I understand the hon.
Minister correctly— that this branch has some
responsibility with respect to printing? Is that
one of the duties you outlined?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, the office printing,
for office forms and so on. The main printing
of the departmental promotional material is
under the next vote.
Mr. Bryden: This material for your own
internal use; would you arrange for printing
that yourself, or do you get it through the
Queen's printer?
Hon. Mr. Auld: The majority of it is done
through the Queen's printer, although we have
an addressograph which makes some small
run forms, and so on, that are in general
use. Excuse me, a multilith.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2002.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I have two
brief questions I might ask of the hon. Min-
ister.
Could the hon. Minister tell me, possibly
at a later date, how many personnel of this
department over 50 years of age have left the
service during the last, say, three or four
years?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I might be able to give it
to him a little later on in these estimates, but
I can give him the information in a day or
two.
Mr. Paterson: All right. I was just wonder-
ing: Is there any thought of moving these
regional area offices of your department? I
know a lot of the territory of, say, the
Kitchener district has been taken away from
that district, and I wonder if these will be
more centrally located? Is this the situation
in other areas?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, if I understand my
hon. friend correctly, he is talking about the
change of the regional boundaries for our
own administrative purposes and the chang-
ing of the locations of a couple of offices.
At the moment there is no plan to make
any further changes. We have made two
changes, as I recall, in this current year;
in both cases, we felt, to improve the effici-
ency of the administration. But there is not
any thought at the moment of making any
further changes.
Vote 2002 agreed to.
On vote 2003:
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, recognizing
and always appreciating your decision-
Mr. Chairman: Would it help if I were
to try to clarify some things under 2003?
Mr. Thompson: No, well perhaps I would
clarify for you, sir. I am going to speak under
promotions.
I think, of course, that one of the difficul-
ties of promotion— encouraging United States
tourists to come into the country— is that you
may get a law in the United States which
will prevent tourists coming into Canada
from taking out a certain amount of tax-free
items. When this law was being presented
in the United States, there was no representa-
tion in Washington from the Canadian tourist
industry. In fact there appears to have been
little Canadian knowledge, or no concern,
about this allowance rule. As a matter of fact,
there was very little attempt being made to
get in touch with the allies within the United
States Senate who were wanting to exempt
Canada from this rule. And again, from
the newspaper clippings, there were two of
them who— one from Oregon and the other
from Florida— were asking for the reaction
of Canadians towards the need for an
exemption.
The U.S. law went into effect on October
1. It makes the maximum duty-free allowance,
for American visitors returning to United
States, a flat $100 on a retail basis— instead
of the previous $100 maximum allowance
on a wholesale basis. It has been estimated
that the $100 wholesale allowance represents
about $167 retail. That means that every
tourist returning to United States from
Canada, who wishes to bring back goods
duty-free up to the allowable maximum, will
be spending about $67 less in Canada this
year than he would have last year before
October 1.
This represents, Mr. Chairman, millions
of tourists— and, for Ontario, many millions
of dollars in lost revenue. In the Sault alone,
it has been estimated that the American duty
allowance law will result in a $750,000 re-
duction in spending this year over last year.
1440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This impact will be even greater in Windsor
and Niagara Falls, and it is going to ripple
across the entire province.
Probably the most seriously affected areas
will be those in northern Ontario, because
they have already suffered from a decrease
in tourist industry development. The hon.
Minister himself has revealed that a survey
of tourist development covering the tourist
season in 1965, from June 15 to August 15,
indicates a 3.2 per cent drop in tourist book-
ings in northern Ontario, while southern On-
tario had a 6.5 per cent increase in renting
accommodation. The north of this province
can ill afford the further erosion of its
tourist industry.
Ontario has more at stake than any other
province in Canada and it is up to the gov-
ernment, to the hon. Prime Minister, to apply
pressure on Ottawa to negotiate a phasing
out of the new American duty allowance
law in Canada. I think that this government
and the hon. Prime Minister neglected their
responsibility for too long.
' Fortunately, the projected increases in
American tourist spending in Canada, leading
up to and during the centennial, likely will
more than offset the effects of the law; but
unless there is a phasing out during that
period, unless Canada is exempted, the
impact of the law will come into sharp focus
again in 1968. I, sir, through you, would
like to ask the hon. Minister what kind of
representation was made either to Ottawa or
to the United States in connection with On-
tario's concern about this law?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, of course
it would be quite improper for myself, or I
think this government, to make representa-
tions to the United States government. As a
matter of fact, it was not too long ago that
there was some concern about this sort of
thing from another province. But the Cana-
dian tourist association, I understand, made
strong representation to the government of
Canada, I think, through the Canadian gov-
ernment travel bureau, which is part of The
Department of Trade and Commerce, on
behalf of all the tourist industry in all the
provinces. I believe that the hon. Minister
of Economics and Development (Mr. Randall)
had some comment to make through the
proper channels in the same way.
I do not think the hon. leader of the Op-
position is suggesting that either this gov-
ernment, or sections of the industry of this
province, should make representations
directly to Washington. There are channels
set up which have worked over many years,
and this is the proper way to do it.
Mr. Thompson: I was implying, Mr.
Chairman, to the hon. Minister that it should
go through Ottawa. Looking at the news
report-
Mr. Chairman: If the leader of the
Opposition will permit an interruption for a
moment, I know that it was the wish of
this House that we follow through in se-
quence under each item under 2003. I do not
want to interrupt the leader but I think
if I am to follow the rules of the House we
should follow them through on that basis.
He may finish off what he has, but I think I
should tell the members of the House-
Mr. Thompson: This is a policy basis, Mr.
Chairman, it overrides. It would affect
salaries and everything else. I would like to
point out through you to the hon. Minister
that the Florida Senator, George Smithers,
offered the exemption amendment and the
Canadian government apparently made no
effort to encourage the Senate report of the
Smithers amendment, nor did the Canadian
tourist industry.
In fact, neither knew much about it before
the matter came up in the Senate. Further-
more, there was a feeling among Canadian
authorities, unlike most other nations, that
encouragement of the amendment might be
considered as interfering in U.S. affairs. That
was written on July 17, 1965, I note in Nash.
I think we may be a little too sensitive in
some of these areas. It seems to me that
Ontario should very aggressively approach
the federal government when there are such
situations as this. I think that in view of it
having passed now, the law having passed
in the States, I would hope that you would
still approach the federal government with
respect to phasing out of this, because there
is obviously sympathy towards Canada being
exempted by a number of senators.
Hon. Mr. Auld: I do not think it is my
job to defend the government of Canada,
but I understand that the government of Can-
ada made representations. In fact, the final
regulations which were adopted in the States
were less severe respecting Americans return-
ing to the States with Canadian goods than
was originally planned.
Mr. Chairman: Under 2003, item No. 1,
salaries.
Mr. Newman: May I ask under salaries
then if Mr. Fred Boyer, who was brought
on the staff got his employment through the
civil service or not?
MARCH 11, 1966
1441
Hon. Mr. Auld: That is right, Mr. Chair-
man, he has a certificate issued by the civil
service commission as is the case of all em-
ployees on permanent staff.
Mr. Chairman: Item No. 2; on item No. 3?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, could I have
a breakdown of item No. 3, maintenance?
This is a recurring item in the estimates and
the public accounts committee has com-
plained that it should be stated more pre-
cisely. There is no particular reason why
I pick on this hon. Minister and this vote
for a breakdown but the term by itself is
really quite meaningless. If I may just for
one moment raise the matter in general terms
—I will take it up later with the hon.
Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Allan)— I think the
government should start making a practice
of giving us greater information on this
amorphous and vague term "maintenance"
as a regular course.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, the breakdown of
the total of $63,500, Mr. Chairman, is as
follows: $4,000, the office of the executive
director; the publicity branch, $6,500, which
is further broken down into weekly news-
paper stories, $5,000; and a general increase
of stories of all kinds for all papers, $1,500.
Mr. Thompson: I am just interested in the
$4,000 to maintain the office of the executive
director. Is that for the cleaning of the
office or for what purpose?
Hon. Mr. Auld: Oh, no. If I may give
all the amounts then I think perhaps it will
be apparent. I was giving you the increases,
let me give you the totals. The office of
the executive director is $4,000, the publicity
branch is $26,500, advertising is $4,000 and
information is $29,000.
Mr. Bryden: That much we have in front
of us, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Auld: That $4,000 is made up
of $500 for communications, which would be
telegraph and telephone and what-not. $1,500
for furniture and equipment, $1,500 for
printing and stationery, which would be for
that office, and $500 for miscellaneous.
Would the hon. member like the same
information for the other items?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would be
glad to wait until Monday or whenever we
return to these estimates to get the rest of
this.
Hon. Mr. Auld: If I might finish these
amounts for this question: the publicity
branch $26,500 is broken down into $1,000
for communications, $4,000 for printing and
stationery, $8,000 for furniture and equip-
ment, $10,000 for information services, $6,000
for miscellaneous.
Mr. Bryden: Skip the advertising branch
and just take the last one, the tourist pro-
motion and information branch-
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, while the
hon. Minister is looking at that, I would just
like to underscore, I think, the principle
which the hon. member for Woodbine is
emphasizing, and that is that we want a better
breakdown. The public accounts committee
has asked for this and we are hoping that
the hon. Provincial Treasurer will finally con-
cede the report that was done by Professor
Schindler. This pointed out the fact that
there is not a satisfactory breakdown for the
people of Ontario. It is not your department
alone, it is every department. I think that
is the point I would like to get across.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well Mr. Chairman, I
apologize for taking a little while to find
these details, but I am very happy to give
the breakdown at the moment.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Woodbine
has indicated that he is willing to wait until
Monday to get this.
Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, perhaps it might
save the time of the House until we get this
sorted out here.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed toi
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday we will continue with
these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 1.05 o'clock, p.m.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11